DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM

1

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM:

RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS

A MASTERS RESEARCH PAPER

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Education

The Colorado College

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Masters of Arts in Teaching

By

Michael W. Woods

July/2014

2


Abstract

The purpose of this research paper study is to determine if differentiated instruction has an effect

on student achievement in the music classroom. The findings of this study were data collected to

answer the following research questions: 1) Does differentiated instruction have an impact on

student achievement? and 2) Are there components of differentiated instruction that have a

greater impact on student achievement than others? When educators differentiate instruction

strategically, they can better meet their students’ learning needs while helping them make great

strides in overall achievement. Differentiation not only recognizes that students are at different

levels of readiness, but it also recognizes that students vary in their interests and how they

process new information or skills (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers differentiate instruction to make

appropriate accommodations to ensure that the curriculum is engaging and appropriate for all

learners. This paper provides a literature review, including a rationale for the practice of

differentiation; the definition, characteristics, and theoretical background of differentiated

instruction; ways to differentiate content, process, and product according to students’ readiness

levels, learning profiles, and interests; and a description of the few empirical studies that exist on

the impact differentiated instruction has on student achievement. The findings in this study

provide anecdotal evidence of student music proficiency growth and achievement as a result of

implementation of differentiated instruction. The findings in answering the second research

question also suggest that there were components of differentiated instruction that have greater

impact on student achievement than others. It is the researcher’s hope that the findings of this

study will provide a foundation for future studies on the effects of differentiated instruction on

academic achievement in the music classroom.

3


Differentiating Instruction in the Music Classroom:

Responding to the Needs of All Learners

Chapter One

Overview

Incorporating students of all levels of ability into one classroom while challenging and

encouraging every single learner has been a daunting challenge and a critical aspect of teaching

for many years. As Tomlinson (1999) notes, King Solomon said it best: “Educate the child

according to his way” (p. 16). Classrooms are filled with students of varying abilities. There are

also highly advanced learners, low-achievers, students of diverse cultures and economic

backgrounds, and students with varying degrees of motivation, interests, and skills.

Students do not enter a classroom with identical musical abilities, experiences, and needs.

Regardless of their individual differences, however, students are expected to master the same

concepts, principles, and skills in accordance with Common Core State Standards. Common

Core standards in music include an ability to sing or play instruments within a varied repertoire

in an ensemble or alone; read and notate music; create music, analyze, evaluate, and describe

music; and relate music to various historical and cultural traditions. According to Tomlinson and

Imbeau (2010), helping all students succeed in their learning is an enormous challenge that

requires innovative thinking.

Rationale

No two students are alike. They come to classes with different interests, varying levels of

prior knowledge and experience, and preferences for how they learn best. There are multi-grade

ensemble classes and students that transfer in and out of ensembles throughout the school year.

These differences influence the students' rate of learning, motivation, and support that they

4


require for success. More than ever, teachers need to know how to teach effectively in response

to diverse learner needs. So how do we address this type of diversity? How do we challenge and

motivate our high ability learners while encouraging the low ability students’ self-efficacy? The

answers to these questions are what I seek in writing my research paper. It is therefore my

purpose to enhance the understanding of the nature of differentiated instruction as it applies to

music education and to address the ever-growing need for differentiated instruction for both

gifted and struggling music students in the contemporary secondary school.

To create a differentiated classroom culture, teachers must make modifications to fit the

students’ needs rather assuming that children should adapt to the curriculum. According to

Gregory and Chapman (2007), maximizing the potential that is present in all students calls for

teachers to determine students’ abilities early and meet each student at his or her starting point.

This pedagogical approach is designed to address student differences and to maximize potential

for learning. As an instructional approach, differentiation prevails upon teachers to proactively

modify teaching strategies and to incorporate multiple instructional methods in order to meet the

broad needs and interests of their students. At the outset, teachers should also assess how large

the gap is between low ability and high ability students. From there, teachers can determine

whether to place low and high-ability students in the same group so as to encourage low-ability

students to excel or to separate them into smaller groups. Differentiated instruction makes it

possible to maximize learning for all students.

Teachers are aware that students have vastly different abilities and progressive teachers

adjust their instruction to suit the specific needs of their students in order for them to reach

success (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). So, as music teachers, are we among that progressive

group? Or are we utilizing our instruction in a “one-size-fits-all” model? Unquestionably,

5


educators believe that every student is entitled to a quality education that positively contributes

to his or her growth and development. Educators also understand that they are the ultimate

facilitators in the learning process and therefore must assume a high level of responsibility as

they develop lesson plans through which all of their students’ needs can be met. Yet according

to Gregory and Chapman, teachers struggle more than ever to accommodate the ever-increasing

academic diversities in the classroom.

But what does differentiation really mean for the classroom band program? In the band,

orchestra, and chorus classroom, differentiating instruction has always been necessary, but often

difficult to apply and execute. To address the learning differences in music learners, teachers

can incorporate a variety of teaching strategies in a performance-based classroom. Rather than

sticking all the music students in one group, it is more effective to place students in various

performing ensembles to address different performance levels, e.g., advanced ability ensembles

or show choir. Also, offering private individualized instruction and focusing on general music

theory concepts and music performance proficiency allows students of all abilities to improve on

their respective instruments. It is also important to organize brass, woodwind, and percussion

sectionals to ensure that every student has the best instruction possible in developing his or her

instrumental or vocal skills. The more advanced or gifted students can also be provided

opportunities to perform solos with the band and perform in other extracurricular ensembles such

as “solo and ensemble festivals,” youth orchestras, and all-state bands. Music technology, such

as computer software with computer-assisted instruction, can also serve as a useful tool to help

students learn music theory concepts and enhance students’ proficiency on their instruments.

These preliminary strategies, as described above, are key in allowing students to reach their

fullest potential while achieving musical and academic success.

6


Definition of key terms

Differentiated classroom refers to an academically diverse class where children of

varying levels of understanding learn together. Gregory and Chapman (2007) define it as a

belief that educators embrace where teachers use appropriate strategies to address a variety of

abilities in diverse learners so that they can reach targeted standards.

Content delineates what is being taught in accordance to the standard or objective

(Nordlund, 2003).

Process refers to how the standard or objective is being taught (Tomlinson, 1999).

According to Tomlinson (2001), Product refers to how the student is assessed and

whether or not students have learned the standard or objective.

Classroom diversity, as illustrated by Gregory and Chapman (2007), describes students

who are inherently different in culture, learning styles, maturity levels, interests, and academic

readiness.

According to Nordlund (2003), gifted is defined as endowed with natural ability or talent.

Intelligence is defined as the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge (Nordlund, 2003)

Nordlund also defines ability as a natural or acquired skill or talent.

Benjamin (2002) views assessment as a teacher’s ability to gather information over time

within an evolving student’s profiles. Similarly, Tomlinson (1999) sees a strong connection

between assessment and differentiated instruction. Pre-assessment, or assessing a student’s

current and prior knowledge on a topic, is a key part in ensuring successful differentiated

instruction. So is formative assessment, which is a continual formal and informal assessment of

student knowledge and comprehension during a lesson.

7


Organization of study

As my research continues, I will review the literature dealing with differentiating

instruction as it applies to all domains including music education. Key authors, such as

Tomlinson as well as Gregory and Chapman will provide the strategies necessary to manage a

diverse and differentiated classroom. Throughout Chapter Two, I will analyze my literature

review to address differentiation and how it applies to music in middle and high school.

The remainder of this study is divided into four major parts. Chapter II contains a

review of the literature related to differentiated instruction. The purpose of this review is

to clearly define the components of differentiation and the research supporting improved

student achievement related to each component individually. Chapter three outlines and explains

in detail the methodology used for this study. After a careful review of the literature on study

design, both qualitative and quantitative data measures were found to be appropriate. Statistical

analysis and data collection methods were also described. Chapter four presents the quantitative

and qualitative findings from the regression analysis and T-tests. Student and teacher survey

results are also presented. Chapter four also presents the qualitative data from teacher interviews

and classroom observations. A theme analysis is presented in this chapter as well. Finally,

Chapter six presents the findings from the quantitative and qualitative methods and

explains actual occurrences in the classrooms that may have affected the student

achievement data. The implications for practice, theory, and further research are also

proposed in this chapter.

8


Chapter 2

Why Should Instructors Differentiate

As teachers, we understand that no two students are the same. Seated side-by-side in

every classroom are students who vary in culture, socioeconomic status, language, gender,

motivation, ability or disability, personal interests and learning potential. To address these

diversity issues, teachers must design their instruction to accommodate the variety of learners

and learning styles within a single classroom in order to maximize all students’ growth and

success (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers should work diligently to ensure that struggling, advanced,

and intermediate students believe that they can achieve more than they thought possible, helping

them realize learning that involves effort and hard work will ultimately lead to success

(Tomlinson). In addition, addressing student differences and interest appears to enhance their

motivation to learn while encouraging them to remain committed (Tomlinson). Ignoring these

fundamental differences may result in some students falling behind, losing motivation and failing

to succeed (Tomlinson). Differentiated experiences also allow learners to learn effectively when

tasks are moderately challenging, neither too simple nor too complex as they work to master

essential information, ideas, and skills (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). If teachers meet students

where they are and provide what they need to succeed, students have a greater chance of

reaching their fullest potential while persevering and ultimately reaching their learning goals,

according to Tomlinson.

What can be done to help academically diverse students understand learning targets and

skills? Students take in information through different channels, process ideas at different rates,

and have varied preferences for modes of expression and learning (Tomlinson, 1999). In

differentiated instruction, teachers must meet students where they are in the learning process and

9


move them along as far possible in the context of a mixed-ability classroom. As a result,

differentiated instruction will promote a high-level and enriched curriculum for all students,

while varying the level of teacher support, task complexity, pacing, and avenues to learning

(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).

What is Differentiation?

Tomlinson, a leading expert in the field, defines differentiation as a philosophy where the

teacher proactively tailors varied approaches to content, process, and product in response to

student differences in readiness, interest and learning styles (Tomlinson, 2001). The use of

ongoing assessment and flexible grouping also makes this a successful approach to instruction as

teachers differentiate content, process, products. Differentiation is not individualized instruction.

It does not require a dozen lesson plans to meet one learning objective. Instead, teachers look for

shared characteristics among students within a class in order to group students in ways that make

the most of the learning experience (Gregory & Chapman, 2007).

Delivery of instruction in the past often followed a "one-size-fits-all" approach. By

contrast, differentiation is individually student-centered, with a focus on utilizing appropriate

instructional and assessment tools that are fair, flexible, challenging, and engage students in the

curriculum in meaningful ways (Tomlinson, 2001). A classroom that utilizes differentiated

instruction is a teacher-facilitated and learner-responsive classroom where all students have the

opportunity to meet curriculum objectives and learning targets (Tomlinson, 1999).

Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom

Differentiated classrooms should have the following characteristics: Teachers serve as

coordinators and facilitators; students are self-regulated, i.e., are trained to be decision-makers

and sense-makers; concepts and skills can be explored in a variety of ways; and instruction

10


occurs with a varied pace, uses multiple materials, and uses alternative ongoing assessment to

modify plans (Benjamin, 2002).

Teachers differentiate lessons to meet student learning needs, but always with the

purpose of raising students to the curriculum, not lowering the curriculum to any student

(Tomlinson, 1999). In a differentiated classroom, the goal or objective is to have all students

attain the learning target or standard. However, the process by which the students reach the

target is different and how the students are assessed at reaching the target is varied.

There are a variety of core elements essential to differentiating instruction. First,

differentiated instruction is proactive, meaning teachers come prepared with a variety of

strategies to teach, and are able to model them (Nordlund, 2003). In addition, they have an

arsenal of strategies to address a wide range of learner needs. These needs are associated with

students’ readiness, interest, and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 1999).

Secondly, differentiated instruction is qualitative, not quantitative (Tomlinson, 2001).

Some teachers confuse differentiated instruction with giving accelerated students more work.

For instance, a teacher might assign two book reports to a fluent reader and one to a developing

reader and call it differentiation. However, a teacher who differentiated appropriately would

adjust the nature of the assignment to match student needs. For example, the fluent reader’s

book report might incorporate more analytical thinking, and the developing reader’s more

comprehension, in an effort to challenge both developing and fluent readers (Nordlund, 2003).

Another characteristic of differentiated instruction is that it is organic (Tomlinson &

Imbeau, 2010). Organic refers to an instructor’s ability to continually make adjustments to

curriculum based on student need. Teachers who use the same curriculum year after year, or

11


write lesson plans months in advance, are not practicing organic instruction. Organic is rather

the ability to be flexible and move with the flow of the students (Tomlinson & Imbeau).

Lastly, differentiated instruction conveys a characteristic climate that accounts for

diversity, that is to say it avoids exclusionary language, assumptions and isolating climates

(Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). Fostering this climate helps educators steer clear of stereotypes

and assumptions that may or may not be correct when working with diverse students. As a

result, students will feel connected to their environment and thus become successful learners.

The role of the teacher in a differentiated classroom resembles a coach or mentor in that

they facilitate learning, according to Tomlinson (1999). They allow students to become masters

of their own learning process as self-regulated learners, constantly assess student readiness,

interpret student interests and learning preferences, present ways students can express their

understandings, provide relevant and meaningful information, and promote active learning.

Piaget’s Child Development and Learning Theory

Just as classroom teachers must be able to prescribe specific activities for certain age or

development levels, so should music teachers be able to determine appropriate music activities

for children as they go through different developmental stages in music (Burnsed, 1999).

Children process information differently depending on their ages and developmental levels.

Teachers should therefore consider the first three stages of child development outlined by child

psychologist, Piaget. In his “Stage Theory”, Piaget (1963) believes that children go through

progressive stages of mental ability and that they must pass through each stage in order to

develop fundamental mental schemas or knowledge categories. Piaget adds that schemas make

the more complex intellectual processes of later stages of development possible. Piaget also

believes that learning should involve the appropriate level of motor or mental operations for a

12


child of a given age and teachers therefore should avoid asking children to perform tasks that are

beyond their current cognitive capabilities. There are four cognitive structures or development

stages: Sensorimotor, pre-operations, concrete operations, and formal operations. All are

important stages in the musical perception and performance development of children (Piaget,

1963; Mark & Madura, 2010).

The guiding principles of differentiation according to Piaget (1963) offer a foundation for

choices music teachers can make in planning and assessment within the music class. From there,

music teachers can implement best practices and use them strategically to facilitate learning for

the diverse students in the music classrooms. According to Mark and Madura (2010), children

form musical concepts that fit in with Piaget’s Stage Theory as reflected in the following

sequence: dynamics, timbre, tempo, duration, and pitch.

These stages as they are applied in music, their characteristics, and approximate children

ages are described in these four stages (Piaget, 1963; Mark & Madura, 2010). In the

sensorimotor stage (0-2 years), the child may perceive and identify sounds by loudness, timbre,

and pitch. Also, lullabies can stimulate the child’s aural senses and form a foundation for later

learning and interest in music. In the pre-operational stage (2-7 years), musical experience

should include movement experiences, a variety of dynamics and tempos, and use of visual aids

and body movement to facilitate the formation of musical concepts. Children at this stage can

also sing and imitate songs while maintaining a sense of “key”, i.e., home tone or the importance

of one pitch over the others in a scale. Children only have the ability to focus on one thing at a

time, that is to say recognize dynamics (loud and soft), different instruments, tempo (slow and

fast), pitch (high and low), simple rhythm patterns, and simple melodic contours. Children are

capable of hearing pitch centers and developing a sense of tonality in the concrete operational

13


stage (7-11 years). They also are capable of learning music notation and are able to understand

musical concepts of timbre, tempo, duration, pitch, and harmony. In formal operations (11-15

years or adulthood), thinking involves abstractions, that is to say that children at these ages have

the ability to thoroughly understand musical literacy

Getting to Know the Students

To address the diverse needs, interests, and learning styles of all students, teachers must

be familiar with their students as learners and make the necessary adjustments in their teaching

(Tomlinson, 1999). In order to understand how our students learn and what they know, pre-

assessment and ongoing assessments are essential. Assessment provides feedback for both the

teacher and the student with the ultimate goal of improving student learning (Benjamin, 2002).

The myriad of diagnostic and formative assessment strategies that teachers use to collect data

about students better enables teachers to make and revise planning decisions, and also provide

on-going feedback to students as they evolve into self-regulated learners (Gregory & Chapman,

2007). Tomlinson and Allan (2000) add that as teachers are better able to assess each student’s

learning ability, all learning styles can be addressed and accommodated.

Pre-assessment

The first step in differentiating curriculum is pre-assessment prior to the unit of study,

according to Tomlinson (2001). The data assessed through pre-assessment provides information,

such as students’ strengths, comforts, or areas of weakness that the teacher can use to make

instructional decisions (Tomlinson). Whether teachers use more formal pre-assessments such as

quizzes, surveys, performances, or demonstrations or more informal assessments such as “ticket

out the door” and teacher observations, teachers are constantly gathering data about what

students know, find interesting and are able to do (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). Pre-assessment

14


informs the teacher of the students’ readiness, interests, and background knowledge they bring to

the topic.

In the music classroom, there are two forms of pre-assessment that need to take place.

The first pre-assessment is a beginning-of-the-year evaluation of each student’s musical ability.

Music educators will analyze the tests to determine student needs and then structure curriculum

to ensure student mastery of those skills (Standerfer, 2011). Secondly, it is important to continue

testing throughout the school year as a formative assessment to track students’ progress while

continuing to meet their needs. These assessments can start at the beginning of a lesson or unit

to determine the gap in student understanding or mastery of a particular skill, as well as to gauge

student interests (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004).

Formative Assessments

Ongoing formative assessment, or assessment for learning, is the process of gathering

information from a variety of sources such as assignments, teacher observations, class

discussions, portfolios, and tests and quizzes (Tomlinson, 2001). This information can be

gathered through diagnostic pre-assessments, formative, and summative assessments, as well as

student interest surveys, and learning style inventories (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). Formative

assessments are informal and provide qualitative feedback to teachers and students while

allowing teachers to better tailor the curriculum to meet student needs. These assessments also

guide teachers’ instructional decisions to include on-going curriculum adjustments (Chappuis,

Stiggins, Chappuis & Arter, 2012). Teachers use ongoing formative assessment to gather

information about students’ readiness, interests, evolving learning profiles, knowledge and

capabilities and to monitor student progress and achievement (Chappuis, et al. 2012). At this

stage, assessment for learning yields an emerging picture of who understands key ideas and who

15


can perform targeted skills, at what levels of proficiency, and with what degree of interest

(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).

Chappuis et al. (2012) state that students can also use feedback from formative

assessments to self-assess, monitor the effectiveness of their learning methods or strategies, and

set goals for improvement. Tomlinson (1999) says in this context, formative assessment is a

process of metacognition, and occurs when students self-assess their work while tracking and

reflecting on their growth as learners. The feedback from formative assessment also enables

students to determine where they currently are in their learning with respect to where they need

to be to master the subject matter content (Chappuis, et al).

Formative Assessments in the Music Classroom

Providing on-going feedback through formative assessments in the music classroom is

also critical. There are several data sources that can provide the basis for feedback. More

formally, students can keep practice logs or journals, provide performance demonstrations, or

complete quizzes. Informal strategies can also be used to quickly gain a clear picture of where

students are, such as card signals, thumbs up or down, student self-evaluations, exit cards, and

check-in slips (Standerfer, 2011).

For younger students in the music classroom, an assessment of musical knowledge and

skills can take place through a series of questions during whole-group instruction. Many game-

like activities allow for students to perform in small groups or as soloists in vocal or instrumental

performances (Standerfer, 2011). For older students, a written pretest of musical terms and

notation can provide important information about what students have learned and what they still

need to practice. A non-graded vocal and/or instrumental performance can also provide

important information about students' musical skills (Standerfer, 2011).

16


Diagnostic assessments provide the foundation for implementing differentiation in the

band class, allowing music teachers to engage and connect with students at their level. One

useful strategy for getting to know students is to create a profile on each student at the beginning

of the course while collecting information from a variety of sources. This information might be

collated on one page for easy access and quick reference (Grant & Lerer, 2011).

One of the most useful sources of information in diagnostic assessments, are the students

themselves. Student surveys allow teachers to collect information from their students in a short

amount of time. In addition to asking the students about their previous musical experiences, it is

also important to examine their values and beliefs about music, as well as their preconceptions

and apprehensions. Other topics for student surveys might include their favorite classes, favorite

musical styles, perceptions of how they learn best and personal goals for the year (Grant & Lerer,

2011).

Music teachers can also use on-line survey tools such as Survey Monkey where students

can complete these surveys for homework. The Survey Monkey enables users to create their

own Web-based surveys where the data is compiled and organized automatically. This tool not

only creates individual profiles of students, but also enables music teachers to generate a

snapshot class profile based on specific criteria. For example, if teachers want to know how

many students take private music lessons, they can request a list of all of the responses to that

specific question rather than wade through each individual questionnaire (Grant & Lerer, 2011).

In addition to information that teachers collect from student surveys, it is also helpful to

speak to other teachers about student strengths and weaknesses, their work habits, attention

spans, etc. While it is unrealistic to be able to get a full snapshot of each student from former

17


teachers, it would be reasonable to ask for a class list with final grades from the music teacher or

classroom teacher from the previous year (Standerfer, 2011).

Equally important in getting to know students are the observations teachers make on their

students’ performances at the beginning of the school year (Grant & Lerer, 2011). In working

with first-year band students, teachers need to be aware of their students’ natural abilities as new

musicians by providing them with opportunities to produce music on a variety of instruments.

This will allow students to discover their interests and natural strengths and abilities. For

brasses, teachers might want to know whether students can produce a lip buzz while controlling

the pitch. Regarding woodwinds, it is important to know that students can form the correct

embouchure while playing notes in tune with a reed, or producing a tone on the head joint of the

flute. Percussionists must be able to keep a steady beat and control the sticks to perform a

simple sticking pattern and buzz roll (Grant & Lerer). Through these performance assessments,

teachers can help students choose an instrument that they are interested in and can be successful

at (Grant & Lerer).

In performing pre-assessments for returning students, begin the year by inviting them to

perform a familiar song for the class that they learned in the previous year. This is a task they

might do with their music stand partners, their instrument sections, or with other students who

have chosen the same musical selection. In a small group context, teachers will be able to easily

recognize individual strengths and weaknesses, and plan strategies to support learners in future

lessons (Standerfer, 2011). Using these strategies to collect information about music students

will give music teachers a clearer picture of student interests and learning profile while reaping

the rewards of a more fully engaged class (Standerfer, 2011).

18


High-Ability, Struggling, and Special Needs Learners

Teachers who differentiate instruction recognize that some students may be achieving

above their grade level as high-ability students, while struggling or special needs learners may

need assistance in catching up in certain academic areas (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

Presenting material in a multisensory approaches, i.e., aurally, visually, tactilely, and orally will

address the learning needs and styles of all students. Teachers must have a firm grasp of

students’ current abilities as new content is being introduced in order to adequately challenge or

modify curriculum to fit their needs (Tomlinson, 2001).

In a music classroom, differing levels of ability may be addressed by having some

children play complex patterns while others play a simple steady beat or merely sing. Also,

offering older students a choice of assignments with different criteria can challenge gifted

students while giving other students in class the chance to be successful as well (Burnsed, 1999).

High-ability learners. Schools often fail to challenge gifted students, thus blocking their

academic and intellectual progress. High-ability students should be offered advanced and

stimulating learning opportunities so they too can achieve their fullest potential (Tomlinson,

2001). Advanced learners who are not moderately challenged as a result of achieving success

without effort, can develop complacency. Also, high-ability students who are inundated with

praise and achieve success easily often have not developed strategies for handling failure

(Bronson & Merryman, 2009). Bronson and Merryman add that students must believe that

praise is earned and proportionate to the action or product eliciting the praise. Students self-

efficacy beliefs will also increase as they experience success while engaging in tasks that are

challenging but not too difficult. Similar to low-ability students, high-ability learners who are

19


appropriately challenged, according to Tomlinson, will also need support and scaffolding from

teachers in order to achieve success and to maintain high self-efficacy beliefs.

To address the needs of higher learning potential music students, teachers can present

assignments that allow students to reach higher levels, such as advanced composition or music

theory computer programs. Maintaining the integrity of existing performing ensembles while

offering advanced ability music groups can address the needs of those students who prefer

concentrating on the performing arts (Burnsed, 1999). The music teacher can offer advanced

placement theory to gifted students, create an array of small ensembles comprised of students

with comparable talents and competencies, or find ways high-ability individuals can teach and

assist their peers who may be struggling.

Struggling learners. In accommodating the needs of struggling learners, teachers should

design tasks that draw on the student’s strengths as a means of adapting to difficult content areas

(Tomlinson, 1999). It is also important for teachers to help struggling learners to clearly

understand key subject matter concepts while building scaffolding that leads to student

understanding and success in acquiring learning target goals (Tomlinson, 2001). When working

with struggling students, Nordlund (2003) states that teachers should also slow the pace of

instruction, provide plenty of practice in order to create automaticity of basic concepts, and make

abstract concepts concrete. According to Tomlinson (2001), teachers should moderately

challenge their struggling students with content that is slightly more difficult than what they can

accomplish on their own while providing adequate support, i.e. offer encouragement and various

learning strategies. Struggling students will thus develop a strong sense of self-efficacy if they

believe that they can accomplish learning targets that are somewhat beyond their reach as

potential independent problem solvers (Tomlinson).

20


According to Marzano (2007), teachers should communicate high expectations for every

student to include struggling learners. Regardless of the teacher’s level of expectation for low or

high-ability learners, students should receive the same behavior in term of affective tone or

positive emotions and quality of interaction. Marzano goes on to say that teachers may

inadvertently function in ways that subvert students’ success by not placing higher demands on

struggling students. A teacher may back off and not probe struggling students’ understanding,

because he or she believes they cannot reach high-levels of achievement. Marzano adds that

teachers must ensure that their students feel valued and respected while providing supportive

feedback. Teachers should also call on struggling students to answer questions and, as Marzano

states, create a culture of high expectations for all students.

Special needs students. As previously defined, differentiated instruction is best

conceptualized as a teacher’s response to the diverse learning needs of students. This includes

students with learning disabilities as they too are likely to be included in general education

classes. One challenge that faces educators when disabled children are integrated into the

classroom is how to create a positive learning environment for both the disabled and nondisabled

students. According to Jagow (2007), teachers must create a welcoming and nonthreatening

environment for their special learners by employing aural, visual and kinesthetic means as a

multisensory approach. Careful pacing is also required in that it is difficult to arrive at

instructional pacing that is appropriate for both special education and regular students. Disabled

students must be oriented to classroom rules and procedures in order to function well in the

mainstream classroom setting (Debrot, 2002).

There are some guidelines for teachers who have special needs students. The first,

according to Jagow (2007), is to obtain information about each student’s strengths and

21


weaknesses and to become familiar with their particular disabilities and its affect on the student.

Teachers can accomplish this by becoming acquainted with their students’ Individual Education

Plan (IEP). Under the IEP, teachers must understand what their students are to know and be able

to do before tailoring their instruction to meet the students’ accommodation, modification, and

assessment needs (Jagow). According to Debrot (2002), it is also important to stay consistent

with rules and procedures that are characteristic of the special needs students’ other classes.

Keeping an organized classroom free from distractions and providing clear, simple and direct

instructions will help all students, especially disabled children who tend toward sensory overload

(Jagow).

Special needs music students. In a music classroom, the teacher can differentiate

instruction by reviewing class material multiple times while checking for understanding (Debrot,

2002). The teacher also can also provide special needs students with individual and small

sectional performance and music theory instruction. Assessment accommodations can also be

implemented where extended-time; clarification of test instructions, and opportunities for re-tests

are provided as necessary (Debrot).

Students with mild cognitive impairments can attain most instrumental music program

learning goals, according to Jagow (2007). Students with IQs below 70 can succeed in music.

However, instruction has to move at a slower pace, objectives need to be clearer, and individual

instruction should be available when needed. Also, instruction should be direct and often

focused on rote learning while using icons and other visual devices rather than extensive verbal

and/or written direction. As noted by Jagow, special needs students can and have attained

membership in their school’s top performing groups.

22


Debrot (2002) states that music text books contain a lot of information that may be

confusing for the struggling learner or learning disabled student by providing too much

information at one time. Learning-disabled students who have difficulty reading may struggle

with written musical concepts. Preparing simple visual charts will help students’ understanding

of musical concepts. Also, introducing music literacy concepts in small chunks during the lesson

may be less frustrating to the learning disabled student who may be fatigued easily because of

processing difficulty. For example, rhythm patterns may be learned more easily if they are

isolated into small pieces on a large visual. Burnsed (1999) adds that using color helps highlight

key concepts, e.g., do = blue, re = red, mi= green or key passages in the music book text.

Phrases may also be indicated by a change of color. Burnsed states that using an integrated

instructional approach with review and practice of previous material is also a useful strategy in

allowing students time to absorb concepts.

Musical parts can often be rewritten to meet a disabled student’s level of achievement.

Rhythms can be simplified and pitches can be written to fit within the student’s range while still

maintaining the harmonic integrity of the piece. The student still has an important part to

perform even though it may be simpler than the parts his peers are performing (Jagow, 2007).

Music class can be a positive force for students who have behavioral disorders and have

difficulty focusing on tasks, according to Debrot (2002). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

and attention deficit disorder students are likely to be musically competent as other class

members but could be disruptive to the learning situation by showing aggression. To minimize

students’ behavior disorders, music teachers can begin and end with a familiar song and maintain

a routine from lesson to lesson. Debrot adds that other special needs students may be anxious or

withdrawn. Children who are withdrawn seek security and find comfort in repetition.

23


Although hearing loss can limit musical capacity, hearing-impaired children are able to

respond to musical stimuli and should be offered the same opportunities as their peers (Debrot,

2002). Hearing-impaired students may require a hearing aid or the use of American Sign

Language for effective communication. These students may be adept at lip reading but

misinterpret many gestures of the teacher. Students with a mild hearing disability have strong

visual, kinesthetic, and tactile modes of learning. Music teachers should face students when

talking so they will able to read lips and provide as many visual cues as possible. Teachers

should also sing songs in a lower key so students can understand the words better (Debrot). For

children with profound hearing loss, teachers can have these students touch and feel the vibration

of instruments being utilized such as the sound-board of a piano, the body of a guitar, or side of a

drum. Also, hard-of-hearing or deaf children can be encouraged to participate without shoes so

that they can feel the vibrations through their feet, according to Debrot.

Blind and visually-impaired students can be aided by a stable arrangement of facilities in

the rehearsal area (Jagow, 2007). Changes in the physical arrangement of the room are often

disconcerting to students with other disabilities as well. These students can be aided by Braille

music and technologies such as the Optacon, VersaBraille, reading machines, and recordings.

The Library of Congress and Recordings for the Blind, serve as support agencies that can

provide any music in Braille. Teachers must also verbally convey instructions that are normally

written. A buddy system works as well to help communicate the many gestures music teachers

convey to their special needs students (Jagow).

According to Debrot (2002), students with physical disabilities can also achieve success

in the music classroom. Instruments such as Orff xylophones can be adapted by removing bars

so that any note played will be correct. Orff instruments also fit well onto a wheelchair tray.

24


Adaptive mallets with added foam to the handle of the mallet are also obtainable to help with the

gripping. There is even a one-handed recorder available to meet the needs of physically disabled

students.

Teachers of special needs students can highlight that many individuals with physical

disabilities have risen to the top of their profession. The world-famous solo violinist Itzhak

Perlman has been a spokesperson for those with physical disabilities and has demonstrated

musically that if physical accommodations are made, physically-disabled musicians can succeed

as well. There is also a list of blind musicians, including Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Andrea

Boccelli, and others who have established themselves in the music profession. Deaf

percussionist Evelyn Glennie is also recognized as a world-renowned soloist.

Flexible Grouping

According to Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010), teachers use a variety of groupings within

the classroom as a means to match instruction to student needs, including their social needs.

Tomlinson (2001) states that differentiation is a blend of whole-class, group, and individual

instruction where students come together as a whole group to begin a study, move out to pursue

learning in small groups or individually, and coming back together to share learning. Students

have a choice to work in pairs, groups, or individually, but all students are working towards the

same standards and objectives (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). It is important, according to

Tomlinson (2001), for a differentiated classroom to allow some students to work alone, if this is

their learning preference. Sometimes, however, students prefer to work in similar readiness or

ability groups with peers who have comparable academic needs at a given time. At other points,

the teacher ensures that students of mixed readiness work together in settings that draw upon the

strengths of each student, according to Gregory and Chapman.

25


Gregory and Kuzmich (2005) address flexible grouping as a method for differentiating in

more detail via T.A.P.S., i.e., Total Group, Alone, Partners or Small Groups. Total group

instruction is whole-class instruction where all students are doing the same thing. This is

typically when teachers share new information and/or new skills with students that are beneficial

to the whole class (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). Alone instruction is used for practice or

rehearsal of skills based on varying readiness or skills. Alone instruction is also good practice

for standardized tests and allows more introverted students personal reflection time. Partner

instruction can be effective via random or teacher selection depending on the task. Buddy

reading for example is an extremely valuable partner activity in a differentiated classroom.

Buddy reading occurs when one reader who is more capable reads, and the other who is less

competent follows along in the text (Gregory and Kuzmich, 2005). Last, small groups of three

or four students are an excellent way to differentiate. Small groups can be either homogeneous

for skill development or heterogeneous for cooperative groups (Gregory & Kuzmich).

For music students, Grant and Lerer (2011) state that research has indicated that partner

instruction or peer tutoring has shown to be an effective method to motivate and inspire

struggling students. Not only does partner instruction or peer tutoring offer a bonus for the tutee,

but it also gives adept players more to do during repeated rehearsals that are mainly designed for

those who cannot play the music. Grant and Lerer go on to say that peer coaching is an

invaluable tool for addressing student readiness.

According to Tomlinson (2001), compared to homogenous groups, heterogeneous groups

are more effective in increasing performance, especially for low-ability students. Heterogeneous

groups may be formed by constructing small groups from a mixture of students considering

gender, ethnicity socioeconomic background, and level of ability. Research suggests that for

26


struggling learners in a homogeneous group, low ability learners actually perform worse when

they are placed in homogeneous groupings. Too often in this setting, teachers’ expectations for

the struggling learner declines, materials are simplified, the pace slackens, and the level of

interactive discourse is minimized (Benjamin, 2002). However, when teachers place advanced

and struggling learners in accelerated, heterogeneous classes, students continue to advance as

they benefit from a faster pace, stimulating discourse, raised teacher expectations, and enriched

and challenging course materials (Tomlinson).

During the course of a class, there will be times when it makes sense to homogeneously

group students of similar skill sets. However, there should be other opportunities to pair or

group students with varying readiness levels in a task-oriented situation where it’s beneficial to

all. There are also times when interests will lead the groups, or when students with a variety of

expertise will join forces to look at an idea or topic from several different angles, according to

Benjamin (2002). It should be noted that flexible grouping allows for the movement of students

between groups, which is unlike ability grouping, where students remain in fixed groups based

on their ability.

Content, Process, and Product

Three elements of instruction can be differentiated based on student readiness, interest, or

learning profile: the content to be taught, the learning processes in which students are engaged,

and the final product to demonstrate what students have mastered (Tomlinson, 2001). Content

refers to what instructors teach and what the students are to learn, as well as the means through

which learning is accomplished. Differentiating by process reflects how a student comes to

understand and assimilate facts, concepts and skills. It also refers to the activities designed to

allow application and practice of new skills and information (Gregory & Chapman, 2007).

27


Process is how students think about or make sense of ideas and information in order to master

the content. A product is a vehicle through which students demonstrate and extend what they

have learned (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Differentiation by content, process, and product,

ensures that teachers are constantly addressing their students’ needs and differences during a

given unit and thus helping them to maximize their potential.

Content

In differentiating content, teachers can adapt what they teach and modify how they give

students access to what they want them to learn (Tomlinson, 2001). Some students in a class

may be completely unfamiliar with the concepts in a lesson, while other students may

demonstrate complete mastery of the content before the lesson begins. Other students may show

partial mastery of the content or display mistaken ideas about the content (Tomlinson & Imbeau,

2010). Tomlinson (1999) also points out that although the learning objective or goal of a class

should be the same for all students, the content can be differentiated. In a differentiated

classroom, students are not learning different things, they are learning the same things

differently. Teachers who implement differentiated instruction plan multiple avenues for

students to approach the same curricular material (Tomlinson, 1999).

Bloom’s Taxonomy. Gregory and Chapman (2007) suggest differentiating instruction

using Bloom's taxonomy. Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives was developed by

educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom and provides a logical structure for students to build

both learning and thinking (Gregory & Chapman). According to Gregory and Chapman, the

teacher may differentiate the content by designing activities for groups of students that cover

different areas of Bloom's Taxonomy, i.e., six levels of cognitive processes. These six levels of

taxonomy include; knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.

28


Each level consists of a list of educational objectives, or verbs that requires a certain level of

thought and understanding to complete a task. As students advance to a higher level on the

taxonomy, the amount of thought needed increases and activities become more difficult. As a

way to differentiate, teachers can use the taxonomy as a guide to create activities that will

accommodate students' readiness, interests, or learning profiles. As students master the more

basic concepts at the knowledge level, they can be challenged to dig deeper in their thinking and

advance to a higher level of complexity on the taxonomy, synthesis, and evaluation (Benjamin).

For instance, students who are unfamiliar with concepts may be required to complete tasks on the

lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy such as knowledge, comprehension, and application.

Students with partial mastery may be asked to complete tasks in the application, analysis and

evaluation areas, and students who have high-levels of mastery may be asked to complete tasks

in synthesis and evaluation. One student may be learning the basic knowledge of the butterfly

life cycle, while another student can learn about the life cycle of a frog then be challenged to

analyze and compare the two life cycles (Gregory & Chapman).

Student learning contracts. Student learning contracts are yet another way of

differentiating content and fostering self-regulated learners, according to Tomlinson (2001). In

essence, a learning contract is a negotiated, written agreement between teacher and student

stipulating that certain learning tasks will be carried out by a certain time in exchange for an

agreed upon grade. Learning contracts also include signatures of agreement to the terms of the

contract. Learning contracts, according to Benjamin (2002), teach accountability, personal

responsibility, motivation, self-regulated learning, and metacognition while giving students a

sense of control and satisfaction. In a learning contract, students and teachers collectively jot

down work that needs to be completed for a particular day or week. Students can work on

29


various tasks in the order that they choose, deciding on their own which tasks to tackle first.

Students can also be empowered to check-off tasks as they complete them in the order they

desire (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004).

In a differentiated classroom, contracts can be written between the teacher and the

student, allowing the student to create an individualized learning option related to the standard

being addressed (Tomlinson, 1999). By developing learning contracts, students are given an

opportunity to pursue a topic of interest to them, or a topic in a way that is interesting to them.

They still learn the same information as the rest of the class but in a way that matches their

interests and learning needs (Tomlinson). Allowing choices to students is one way to increase

student motivation (Nordlund, 2003). Learning contracts and its effect on student motivation

plays a key role in students’ learning and willingness to learn.

Curriculum compacting. Curriculum compacting is a content differentiation strategy

that is extremely beneficial to many gifted and high ability students. It is a process by which

students are pre-assessed to determine what parts of the curriculum they have already mastered.

When those areas of knowledge and skills are identified, these students are not required to

complete the grade-level work. Instead, they work on alternate activities (Tomlinson 2001).

Content in the music classroom. For music educators, the content is most often

represented in the music selections we teach. By grouping students to work on music at various

levels of difficulty, all students are given the opportunity to work on something that is

challenging and more engaging. It also allows students with skill deficiencies to focus on

fundamentals, thus accelerating their learning while bringing them up to an appropriate skill

level (Standerfer, 2011). An innovative choral director, according to Standerfer (2011), had her

choir select chamber choir music and solo repertoire for the first quarter of the year. Each

30


student prepared a different song chosen to fit his or her voice and capabilities. Class time was

used for a master class, i.e. a class for advanced music students taught by an expert musician, in

preparation for the students’ final public recital. The teacher was also able to work on specific

vocal issues with each student. Standerfer goes on to say that the master class process fostered

individual responsibility as well as a positive, supportive team mindset for the rest of the school

year. The same format or small ensembles would work well for band and orchestra.

Also, in addressing content, rather than placing all the music students in one group, it

would be more effective to place students in various performing ensembles to address different

performance levels, e.g., advanced ability ensembles or show choir, according to Mark and

Madura (2010). Mark and Madura state that there should be at least two choirs, two bands, and

two orchestras at the middle or high school level, and each should be offered at least every other

day for 45 minutes. These ensembles should be differentiated by age or level of experience and

in the case of choirs, by voicing and gender. High school music ensembles such as marching

band and jazz band can be differentiated as well (Mark & Madura).

Process

The process of how the material in a lesson is learned may be differentiated for students

based on their learning styles while taking into account the required standards of performance at

their respective age level (Tomlinson, 1999). This stage of differentiation allows students to

learn, based either on what method is easiest for them to acquire knowledge, or what may

challenge them the most. Some students may prefer to read about a topic and others may prefer

to listen or acquire knowledge by manipulating objects associated with the content. How a

teacher plans to deliver the instruction is based on assessment results that reflect the students’

needs, learning styles, interests, and prior knowledge levels (Tomlinson, 2001).

31


Tiered activities. Tiered activities are tasks that are constructed with different levels of

depth and complexity (Benjamin, 2002). By keeping the focus of the content the same while

providing routes of access at varying degrees of difficulty, the teacher maximizes the likelihood

that each student acquires the necessary understanding and mastery of the content (Tomlinson &

Allan, 2000). In other words, tiered assignments, usually presented on three levels (low, middle,

high), are equivalent in content, but may be diverse in process or product (Gregory & Kuzmich,

2005).

Tiered assignment in the music classroom. According to Grant and Lerer (2011), music

teachers should offer tiered assignments to their students while incorporating multiple supportive

teaching strategies. If students are grouped for a specific purpose or are allowed to choose the

most appealing task they feel they are best suited for, they can process the new information or

practice the new skill in a way that matches their skill-level, interests, or preferred learning style.

Product

According to Chappuis et al. (2012), the product is the means by which students

demonstrate what they have learned from the lesson or unit. In other words, it is essentially what

the student produces at the end of the lesson to demonstrate the mastery of the content and

represents students’ extensive understandings and applications such as, tests, evaluations,

projects, reports, or other activities. Chappuis et al. state that it is imperative that teachers

provide written guidelines and rubrics so that students understand the criteria and expectations of

quality products.

When products are differentiated, students are given a choice on how they demonstrate

mastery of the standards (Tomlinson, 1999). By giving students a choice, the teacher is

developing responsibility and ownership in the students. Choices in learning give students the

32


opportunity to create a product that is a reflection of their interests and readiness. Students take a

greater responsibility in their learning because they have a vested interest in what they are

producing (Tomlinson).

Choice boards. Products can be differentiated by using choice boards. A choice board

is a graphic organizer that allows students to choose how they will learn a concept and show

what they know. The choice board has nine squares and inside each square is an activity.

Choice boards are well-suited to dealing with readiness and interest differences among students

(Tomlinson, 1999).

Product within the music classroom. According to Standerfer (2011), in differentiating

product in a music classroom, students may learn the same music or content, but be provided a

choice in demonstrating what they learned. The following is an example that a music teacher

used to assess products in his music classroom.

A music teacher worked to design a differentiated project for his eighth-grade band.

Based on the results of a learning-style survey, the teacher designed the project for three groups

of band students: one group was very academic by nature, another group was very artistic, and a

third group was creative but also very technologically adept. The differentiated product gave

students a choice in how they demonstrated their new knowledge of the composer they had

studied throughout the concert preparation. Students could write a biographical essay, create a

visual display, or design a PowerPoint presentation. Students researched the same composer

using the same resources but demonstrated what they learned about the composer in various

ways. All of the final products were displayed in the auditorium lobby the night of the concert

(Standerfer, 2011).

33


Summative Assessments (Grading). As learning tasks need to be differentiated, so do

assessments or grading strategies. According to Chappuis et al. (2012), summative assessments,

or assessment of learning, are the culminating tasks which take place after the learning has

occurred and allow students to demonstrate the concepts and or skills they learned. Summative

assessments also verify or provide evidence of student achievement and learning for the purpose

of making a judgment about student competence or program effectiveness (Chappuis et al).

Charting academic growth of students in a differentiated classroom can create a dilemma for

teachers whose schools still use a traditional report card and grading system. The following

approaches address this problem.

Teachers and schools can grade students by choosing to distinguish between growth such

as progress-based evaluation and academic achievement or mastery of content symbolized by

letter grades and numerical scores, respectively (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). For example, a

letter grade reflects excellent student growth against standards, whereas a 1 indicates working

above grade level, 2 at grade level, and a 3 indicating below grade level. Thus, a student who

achieves an A3 clearly demonstrates growth and is progressing well even though the work or

achievement is below grade-level standards (Tomlinson & Allan). This grading system offers

more information than a traditional report card and allows teachers to analyze students’ academic

achievement through three types of data: level of achievement, quality of work, and progress

against standards while honoring persistence, tenacity, and effort in their students (Gregory &

Chapman, 2007; Tomlinson & Allan).

There are several strategies for differentiating the summative assessment process in the

music classroom. While the learning targets or goals should have been determined at the

beginning of a unit of study, the success criteria for meeting those targets might be something

34


that students can help to co-construct, according to Mark and Madura (2010) and Grant and

Lerer (2011). For example, programs such as the Band Olympic Program (BOP) provide a

context where students can make choices about what and when they perform for evaluation

(Mark & Madura; Grant & Lerer). Under the BOP, students work at their own pace and perform

when they are ready to achieve one of the three (bronze, silver, gold) levels of competency

(Mark & Madura).

Mark and Madura (2010) provide a sample grading policy for a middle or high school

band where each ensemble member can be given two playing tests throughout the course of a

nine-week period and a written examination at the completion of the semester. A playing test

may be given live in class or as a take home test where students are responsible for turning in an

audio recording with the assigned material recorded for grading purposes. A grading scale for

the semester or nine-week period can specify the percentages of the grade that are allocated in

performance, behavior, and written exam, e.g., 45 percent playing test, 45 percent classroom

expectations, and 10 percent final written exam (Mark & Madura).

Students’ Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile.

By addressing students’ readiness, interests and leaning profile, teachers can differentiate

or modify the content, process, and product (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). A teacher in an

effectively differentiated classroom seeks to develop increasing insight into students’ readiness

levels, interests, and learning profiles. In order to develop instruction that maximizes each

student’s opportunity for academic growth, the teacher then modifies content, process, and

product (Tomlinson, 1999). Students learn better, as stated by Tomlinson, if they have passion

or interest in a subject, and if the assignment encourages students to work in a preferred manner

within their learning profile.

35


Readiness. Teachers differentiate according to students’ readiness by matching the

complexity of a task to a student’s current level of understanding and skill. A good readiness

match pushes the student a little beyond his or her comfort zone where the teacher scaffolds or

supports the student in moving through more complex applications or tasks (Tomlinson & Allan,

2000). The teacher’s job is to lead the student to success in areas where the student cannot

function alone but can succeed with support. This is similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of

proximal development theory, that is to say the range of abilities or gap that a child or person can

perform with assistance with adult guidance or peer collaboration, but cannot yet perform alone

or independently. In the zone of proximal development, the child follows the example of the

adult through assisted performance and then gradually develops the ability to do tasks without

assistance or guidance as independent performance.

Pacing. Tomlinson (2001) states that matching pacing to students’ needs is also a critical

differentiation readiness strategy. Our job as teachers is to provide education for all students by

carefully planning lessons to consider reaching all levels. The use of single-paced lessons

delivered through a singular instructional approach disregards the different learning styles and

interests present in all classrooms. According to Tomlinson and Allan (2000), there are times

when advanced students need to move quickly through familiar or minimally challenging

material while others will need more time to study a new unfamiliar topic in depth. Pacing also

involves transitions from critical-input experiences to activities designed to help deepen

students’ understanding of new information or content (Marzano, 2007). For students that

already are proficient, teachers should raise the rigor of the lesson. Many teachers mistakenly

teach to the lower-end of the learning spectrum losing the higher-end students. In a musical

36


context, Scruggs (2009) states that when pacing rehearsals teachers should use as much time on a

task as their music ensemble is able to remain intently focused.

Music teachers need to become accustomed to conducting fast-paced rehearsals. When a

director stops rehearsal, clear and concise, straight-to-the-point instructions for improvement

must be provided. Long dialogues during rehearsal stops are of little value to students (Jagow,

2007).

Moderate challenge. With increased understanding of psychology and the brain,

educators now know that individuals learn best when they are in a context that provides a

moderate challenge. It is therefore best to push the learner a bit beyond his or her independence

level (Tomlinson, 1999). When a task is deemed too difficult for a learner, the learner feels

threatened and is likely to give up easily. On the other hand, students who succeed too easily

also lose their motivation to learn (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). Gregory and Chapman go on to

state that students must believe that hard work is required and will pay off with success.

Students who are pushed too hard get frustrated and often fail to move on, and students without

enough mental stimulation over time will suppress their ability to problem solve and think

critically, thus perpetuating a decline in motivation. That is the problem with a “one-size-fits-

all” approach to learning, states Tomlinson. A lesson that is geared for a single level of

challenge, will ultimately over-challenge or under-challenge students and as a result, will inhibit

learning (Gregory & Chapman).

Readiness in the music classroom. According to Grant and Lerer (2011), traditional

classroom band programs begin with the method book in addressing student readiness levels.

These resources are sequential, cover basic music theory, introduce famous melodies, and

provide exercises and instructional background information. Rather than moving sequentially

37


through every piece as a whole class, music teachers should consider allowing students to work

through the book at their own pace, and choose from a group of songs that best fit their abilities.

This is an effective strategy in addressing the wide variety of readiness skills in reading text or

music notation and playing instruments. Students may also work independently, in small groups,

instrument sections, or with stand partners, depending on the context (Grant & Lerer).

One of the greatest weaknesses of a repertoire-based instructional model, according to

Grant and Lerer (2011), is that it usually requires all students to play at the same time and at the

same readiness level. Although the melody is often played by the trumpets, flutes or clarinets,

all kids want to play the main tune in order to connect with something that can be easily

recognized. Unfortunately however, these melodic parts do not always match the abilities of the

player. This highlights the importance of knowing students in terms of readiness when selecting

repertoire and choosing material that meets their needs (Grant & Lerer).

According to Standerfer (2011), music teachers can differentiate instruction to music

students’ readiness level by modifying a single piece of repertoire to meet diverse abilities. For

weaker players, teachers can assign easier parts, or empower students to rewrite them by

simplifying the rhythmic or melodic notation and, or allow students to play fewer passages.

Music teachers can also have their students play the parts they know well and offer them the

choice to not play certain passages that are too difficult while following their music using

instrument fingerings (Standerfer).

According to Standerfer (2011), music teachers can also differentiate student readiness

level or musical abilities by means of a chair placement system. Students who are first or second

chair are given more difficult parts and solos. Students with less developed skills are given

easier parts to play in order to develop more basic rudimentary skills.

38


Advanced players may be asked to play additional instruments according to Grant and

Lerer (2011). The flute player may also play the oboe and the clarinetist may play the

saxophone. At other times, these players are given more challenging pieces of music to play.

Music teachers can invite students to use expressive elements to add something to the

interpretation of the piece that is beyond the correct rhythm and pitch of the notes. As an

alternative, teachers can allow students to enhance the ensemble pieces by adding to or rewriting

their music using octaves, runs, or trills (Grant & Lerer).

Interest. Content, process, and product can be differentiated according to student

interest and is a useful strategy in enhancing motivation. Interest refers to a child’s connection,

curiosity, attention or passion for a particular topic or skill and is tied directly to heightened

motivation and enhanced learning (Tomlinson 2010). It is imperative to keep students motivated

as it increases the amount of effort and energy that learners expend in activities toward learning

goals. All students in a class however do not have the same interests, thus the need for

differentiation. Some ways in which teachers can differentiate in response to students’ various

interests include: providing a variety of avenues for student exploration of a topic, diagnosing

student interests through a questionnaire, giving students a choice of tasks and products, and

encouraging investigation or application of key concepts and principles in student interest areas

(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Also, when a teacher is excited or passionate about a topic and

shares the passion with the class, similar interests are likely to emerge in the students as well

(Marzano, 2007).

Interest within the music classroom. In keeping motivation and interest high during the

music rehearsal period, Mark and Madura (2010) state that a well-executed rehearsal should

resemble an interesting concert. For example, an engaging rehearsal should have plenty of

39


variety with more accessible and memorable music at the beginning and end while alternating

with more challenging pieces in the middle. Attention should be paid to contrasting styles,

genres, keys, meters, and tempos to keep student attention high as well. Mark and Madura add

that recognition of the unplanned and sometimes unexpected artistic “moment,” when the

ensemble musically peaks, can create a tremendous impact. An effective rehearsal might begin

with a 15 minute warm-up followed by 15 minutes of three or more high-quality and level-

appropriate concert pieces. To keep interest high, those three pieces might alternate in the

following ways: fast, slow, fast tempos; accessible, challenging, accessible; or familiar,

unfamiliar, familiar music. Music teachers can place faster-paced pieces at both the beginning

and end of a rehearsal. This engages and motivates students early in the class period and has

them depart with an up-beat piece in their memory. The middle portion of rehearsal may be

slower-paced with the most challenging piece as its focus, or the middle portion may consist of

alternating faster and slower-paced works. Other possible contrasts include alternating between

full and small ensembles and stylistic differences in music (Mark & Madura).

Another key to an interesting and motivating rehearsal is to keep a quick pace, and not

dwell on any one problem or piece for too long (Standerfer, 2011; Mark & Madura, 2010).

Tomlinson (1999), recommends spending no more minutes than the age of the student on one

activity. For example, a 15 year old student should not exceed 15 minutes on one task as it may

begin to tax his or her attention span.

There are many topics that can motivate students as they learn music. Students' interest in

music class may stem from an interest in a particular style of music. Tapping into what your

students are interested in can provide an exciting connection to music, according to Standerfer

(2011). Standerfer states that teachers may also allow students to choose their own topic. For

40


example, a high school music teacher allowed her choir to perform an art song recital where the

students were able to choose from many styles and composers, including Italian light arias,

German lieder, or English ballads. Grant and Lerer (2011) state that in selecting band repertoire

for students, band teachers should search music that is interesting and appropriately challenging

to perform.

Another strategy in engaging music students’ interests is to have them assist in selecting

concert literature, according to Scruggs (2009). Allowing student input on repertoire can be an

extremely valuable strategy, but teachers must be certain their students have the foundation to

make informed musical decisions. To begin, Scruggs states that music directors must facilitate a

discussion with student musicians about good programming. Programming for festivals or

contests is generally different than for spring “pops” concerts, so the reason for the concert and

the audience must first be considered, according to Scruggs. Additionally, the program should

reflect a variety of styles, and this diversity should pique the audience’s interest and moderately

stretch the players’ musical abilities (Grant & Lerer, 2011).

Learning Profile. According to Tomlinson (1999), learning profile refers to how we

learn or ways in which individuals learn best and describes a variety of preferences students have

for processing information. It may be shaped by intelligence preferences such as analytic,

practical or creative and critical thinking, gender, culture, or learning style. Some learners need

to collaborate with peers to learn well while others work better alone. Some students learn easily

as a part-to-whole concept while others need to see the big picture before specific parts make

sense. There are students who prefer logical or analytical approaches to learning or others may

favor creative, application oriented lessons. Also, some students are highly auditory learners

while some have a more visual or kinesthetic learning preference (Nordlund, 2003).

41


According to Tomlinson and Allan (2000), numerous researchers have concluded that

addressing an individual’s learning styles through flexible and compatible teaching results in

increased academic achievement. Studies find that when students are matched to instruction

suited to their learning patterns, they achieve significantly better than students whose instruction

is not matched (Tomlinson & Allan).

Cultural differences. Regarding the cultural element in a learning profile, Mark and

Madura (2010) and Nordlund (2003) state that teachers must be aware and knowledgeable of

possible cultural differences of students in the music classroom. Without an understanding of

different cultural norms, the music teacher may misunderstand a student’s behavior and

inadvertently stifle learning, according to Mark and Madura. An example of this, according to

Nordlund, is the student with limited English proficiency who fears and avoids speaking aloud in

class. The teacher may consider the student to be quiet, shy, or unintelligent, while all three of

these characteristics may be far from the truth. Also, a mismatch occurs when a student who is

socialized to act one way through his or her gender or culture finds that the classroom is based on

a different set of assumptions and attitudes (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Children of different

cultures may be unfamiliar with the cultural norms that guide the other classmates. According to

Nordlund, the goals of learning profile differentiation are to help diverse learners, whatever their

culture or gender, understand and match modes of learning that work best for them.

Addressing various learning profiles. Some strategies in which teachers can

differentiate in response to student learning profile include presenting information through

auditory, visual, and kinesthetic modes and allowing students to work alone or with peers. Other

strategies include diagnosing a student’s learning profile with questionnaires, providing learning

42


opportunities in various intelligence or talent areas, and creating a learning environment with

flexible spaces and learning options (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2005).

Music classroom learning profiles. Research has shown that students have different

learning styles in the music classroom as well. In order to accommodate all students’ learning

styles, teachers need to provide instruction that utilizes at least three modes of learning - visual,

aural, and kinesthetic when possible (Debrot, 2002). However, the most important principle for

lesson preparation is that materials are presented in as many modes as possible. Debrot adds that

some music students learn best through the auditory mode while others learn by visual mode or

kinesthetic mode. Visual learning in a music classroom might occur through reading materials,

posters, PowerPoint presentations, or teaching demonstrations. Aural learning can occur through

the teachers’ verbal explanations, class discussions, recorded musical examples, or teacher

modeling of a desired tone. Kinesthetic learning may take place through movement such as

dances and instrument fingerings. According to Mark and Madura (2010), the most effective

music program for most children is a hands-on, participatory program that emphasizes varied

activities such as dance movement, instrument performance, rhythm, sound exploration, and

melody.

Standerfer (2011) provides an example of a musical learning profile where a third-grade

music teacher’s students practiced treble clef note names at one of three stations. The visually

oriented learners practiced with a computer program. Kinesthetic students spelled words with

their bodies using the large staff on the floor. Auditory students created melodies on keyboards

with earphones and notated their compositions on staff paper. The third-grade teacher thus

differentiated the process of practicing note names by student learning profiles, such as visual,

43


kinesthetic, and auditory learning styles. Students were also engaged in an activity that was most

comfortable for them (Standerfer).

Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Theories for diverse learning and thinking styles, such

as Gardner's Multiple Intelligences (1999), highlight the importance of adjusting instructional

strategies to match the ways students learn best. Gardner advocates for providing all students

with multiple options for taking in information and making sense of ideas. In planning for

differences in learning preferences, teachers should consider providing a variety of activities that

explore the same concepts. Alternatively, information may be provided to all students in a

variety of ways so that they can choose what is most useful to them (Tomlinson, 1999).

Additional Instructional Strategies that Support Differentiation

Portfolios

The use of portfolios is another strategy that supports differentiation. Portfolios are

organized collections of students’ work over time and provide supportive evidence to

substantiate the feedback and grades that have been given (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

Portfolios contain evidence of student growth, with samples of work such as homework, tests,

projects, and assignments that are added periodically to show progress over a span of time,

according to Gregory and Chapman (2007). The use of portfolios also allows students to reflect

on their progress toward learning goals. Both teacher and student are involved in selecting

pieces to put in the portfolio after the teacher establishes the criteria for selection, according to

Tomlinson and Imbeau.

Chunking

The term chunking means to divide a topic of study into smaller and logical portions of

information (Marzano, 2007). Learning is more efficient, according to Gregory and Kuzmich

44


(2005), if students receive new information in small chunks and can thereby overcome the limits

of the working memory. Performance and understanding of concepts can then be verified

through ongoing formative assessment during and at the end of each chunk of learning in a unit.

Grouping information together in classes or categories is a method of chunking and affects how

teachers plan lessons to differentiate. Being able to see how information fits together in chunks

is therefore a hallmark of learning and is a way of working with increasingly larger amounts of

information (Marzano).

Technology can Facilitate Differentiated Music Instruction

According to Frankel (2003), music technology is the perfect tool for music educators to

facilitate differentiated instruction in that teachers can incorporate the use of music software to

drill music fundamentals. Students are often at different levels of music theory and can thereby

work at their own pace. There are computer-assisted instruction music software programs such

as, Music Ace, Alfred's Essentials of Music Theory, and Practica Musica that contain instruction,

drill, and practice exercises at varying levels. These programs also allow students to work at

their own pace. Also, the website www.musictheory.net has trainers that can be accessed by

students in class and at home. All of these use different instructional methods and are presented

in different formats including visual and audio means. Furthermore, according to Frankel, the

use of PowerPoint can enhance lectures and make them more interesting for students, especially

the audio and visual learner.

There are also software programs that can facilitate music practice and record student

assessed performances. Frankel (2003) emphasizes that a very valuable resource for practice at

home is a website http://psdweb.parklandsd.org/hpo/, called Home Practice Online. The website

contains accompaniment files for many of the compositions that the students are performing for a

http://psdweb.parklandsd.org/hpo/

45


concert as well as exercises that are used during the lessons. Students use the MIDI files

contained on the site to accompany their practice sessions. It is the perfect tool to help motivate

students who really need it to practice (Frankel). Frankel also states that SmartMusic with a

Hybrid Agent is one of the best examples of how technology can monitor student practice and

differentiate instruction, even outside of the classroom. SmartMusic is software that allows

music students to perform assigned exercises and repertoire with a computer-generated

accompaniment and record their performance for assessment by their music director at a later

time. This software can be loaded on a student’s computer at home where they can submit their

performances directly to their music director over the Internet (Frankel).

Interactive whiteboards. Interactive whiteboards, including the popular SmartBoard are

becoming a common component of classrooms. Research indicates the use of interactive

whiteboard technology in the classroom enhances student engagement, appeals to a variety of

students and learning styles, allows for easy integration of media, and improves teacher

productivity and student achievement. The quality of presentation made using an interactive

whiteboard motivates students as they are keenly attuned to visual stimulation and are better able

to focus and concentrate for longer periods of time (Marzano, 2009). In a music class context,

teachers can show music students the correct instrument fingering directly from the whiteboard

by touching a particular note on the screen using the SmartMusic software program.

Whiteboard and music notation software use. There are many ways that the

implementation of Finale music notation software with the whiteboard can be used together. The

difference between merely projecting the image from the computer onto the screen and an

interactive whiteboard is the ability to directly interact with the images and materials on the

screen. Depending on the system, this is done either through the use of a special pen provided by

46


the manufacturer or by using a touch-screen format (Marzano, 2009). Using the Smart Ink

palette within SmartBoard, the Finale document can be written on and projected on the

SmartBoard screen. This is useful in many situations such as introducing a new rhythm, writing

in the counting for a difficult rhythm, or pointing out the whole step or half step relationship in

scales (Wardrobe, 2013). It also allows the teacher to point out accidentals, dynamics, and other

items in the music to students by visually showing them how to mark on their part (Wardrobe).

Finale can also be used in conjunction with an interactive whiteboard to create

customized etudes and exercises from the repertoire the students are rehearsing and project it on

the whiteboard screen for students to play as part of the rehearsal (Wardrobe, 2013). Etudes are

short musical compositions designed to perfect a particular music skill. Music teachers, for

instance, can use the Finale music notation program to customize warm-ups or rhythm exercises

directly relating to music that students are playing and/or struggling with. If teachers want to

highlight a section or point out a problem students are having during rehearsal, they can use the

interactive pen to write or highlight the section in the exercise from the front of the class. Music

teachers can also playback the exercise so the students can easily hear the example through the

system’s amplification system (Wardrobe).

Embedded programs in whiteboards. One of the benefits of interactive whiteboard

technology is the ability to embed video and audio clips of music in a presentation so the teacher

can access them more efficiently using the whiteboard’s touch screen capabilities (Betcher &

Lee, 2009). Music teachers can project websites and recordings from sheet music retailer, JW

Pepper or YouTube, allowing students to listen and watch performances of music they are

rehearsing. The opportunity for students to listen to a professional recording makes a significant

47


impact on both their personal motivation and performance abilities. In addition, teachers do not

have to contend with technological compatibility issues during their presentation.

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Abilities as Self-Regulated Learners

The ultimate goal in differentiation is for teachers to develop their diverse students as

self-regulated learners who can adopt effective critical thinking and creative problem solving

skills. According to Zimmerman (1990), self-regulated learners are those who assume personal

responsibility and control for their own acquisition of knowledge and skill. Self-regulated

learners are also meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their

own learning. Self-regulated learners consider their learning goals, plan accordingly, and

monitor their own learning progress as they carry out their plans in achieving their learning

objectives. Teachers are the chief architects of learning in self-regulated classroom, but students

should assist with the design and building of their own learning. Thus, together the teacher and

students plan for learning, set goals, monitor progress and analyze success and reasons for failure

(Tomlinson, 1999).

Implications of Vygotsky’s theory

This working definition of differentiated instruction and self-regulated learning reflects

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, the main tenet of which lies in the social, interactional

relationship between teacher and student (Vygotsky, 1978). The relationship between student

and teacher is reciprocal, the responsibility for development becoming a shared endeavor

(Tomlinson, 2001). The learners therefore, in responding to the teacher’s prompting, seek to be

independent and self-sufficient, striving for greater awareness of their skills, abilities and ideas,

taking increasing responsibility for their learning (Tomlinson). In addition, the difficulty of

skills taught should be slightly in advance of the child’s current level of mastery. Thus, teachers

48


scaffold student learning, i.e., gradually eliminate the external supports they have provided

where student responsibility increases and self-regulated learning habits become internalized and

automatic. Teachers should also scaffold lessons to motivate all students while extending

learning at their own level.

Self-Regulated Student Musicians.

In a differentiated music classroom, if music teachers want their students to develop as

creative, imaginative, and thoughtful self-regulated musicians, they must allow their students to

make their own performance decisions and engage in musical problem solving (Scruggs, 2009).

Grant and Lerer (2011) and Zimmerman (1990) highlight several factors which contribute to

active engagement in music learning. They assert that teachers should provide opportunities for

students to take responsibility for how and what is learned, the freedom to try things out in

authentic and meaningful contexts, and receive timely and relevant feedback within the context

of a positive and supportive classroom environment. Students who reflect on and analyze their

own performance are able to assess their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, students can

evaluate whether their strategies are effective in solving musical problems. This type of

metacognitive reflection provides students with a basis for setting goals that are personally

relevant and meaningful, according to Scruggs.

According to Mark and Madura (2010), to help students incorporate self-regulation and

metacognitive techniques into their music studying and performance practice, music teachers

should demonstrate its use in class by modeling the process. For instance, when teaching repair

strategies to fix comprehension gaps or music performance problems, teachers should note to

students when and where these strategies are to be used. It is also imperative to provide students

49


with opportunities to try out strategies while providing guidance and feedback, e.g., point out

signs to students that indicate a strategy isn’t working.

Teachers should also expect their students to be aware of their own mistakes, attempting

to correct errors themselves before the teacher intercedes, according to Scruggs (2009). Students

who are taught how to listen to themselves thus become their own best critics and are able to

listen critically to their performance while adjusting and making musical corrections as

necessary. Music students should ask themselves questions such as: Do I like how I sound?

Was that passage clean and rhythmically accurate? Am I playing the passage the way I would

sing it? Having students become more active in guiding their own learning, while reflecting on

their progress and identifying strategies that work best for their musical development, results in

enhanced performance achievement (Scruggs).

Players can also be encouraged to contribute to their music education by constantly

analyzing their group’s performance. Rather than immediately correcting performance errors,

the director can call upon students located around the ensemble to make their own

recommendations in improving performance (Scruggs, 2009). This is an essential part of the

ensemble learning process because students, like teachers, learn from observing the

performances of their peers. Furthermore, when students are not aware of who will be called

upon next for an opinion, they will begin to pay closer attention to what is occurring in other

sections (Scruggs).

Impact on Student Achievement

With all of the emphasis now placed on highly differentiated instruction, it may come as

a surprise that the research supportive of differentiated instruction’s effectiveness is still

somewhat limited, according to Tomlinson, Brimijoin, and Narvaez (2008). To date, there has

50


been no systematic empirical research on the potential impact of differentiated instruction on

student achievement. Thus, as schools and school districts dedicate significant resources toward

the implementation of differentiation, research is still warranted to substantiate its efficacious

impact (Tomlinson et al.)

There is, however, a growing body of anecdotal evidence to suggest the positive impact

of differentiated instruction. As one example, Tomlinson and her coauthors (2008) presented

evidence of academic improvement in two schools as a result of implementation of differentiated

instructional practices. Conway Elementary School and Colchester High School were described

as two ordinary schools in different districts of the United States, though student performance at

Colchester High was somewhat weaker than achievement at Conway Elementary prior to the

initiation of differentiated instruction (Tomlinson et al.). The results of the study are presented

in terms of percentages of students demonstrating advanced or proficient scores on normative

assessments for several years prior to the implementation of differentiated instruction and for

several years after implementation.

Data at Conway Elementary School indicated that more students achieved proficiency or

advanced level after a three-year implementation of differentiated instructional practices. In fact,

the data after the first year of implementation showed a significant increase in student

achievement, i.e. student achievement scores jumped as much as 30 percent in some academic

areas (Tomlinson et al., 2008).

Data for Colchester High School included the number of students passing the statewide

assessment in reading, writing, and mathematics. Again, these data represent the percentage of

students meeting educational goals both before and after differentiated instruction was

implemented. The assessment results from Colchester High compared scores in the specific core

51


subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics. These results indicated that in every area,

students’ achievement increased after the school implemented differentiated instruction.

Findings from Conway Elementary School and Colchester High School underscored that growth

was maximized when children were provided instruction to match their needs.

This literature review provided the necessary information to understand what a true

differentiated classroom consists of. As conveyed in the previous two chapters; students have

diverse needs, interests, and learning styles. Based on this knowledge, differentiated instruction

applies an approach to teaching and learning so that students have multiple options for taking in

information and making sense of ideas. The model of differentiated instruction as it applies to

the music classroom and other domains requires teachers to be flexible in their approach to

teaching while adjusting the curriculum and presentation of information. Tomlinson (2001)

identifies three elements of the curriculum that can be differentiated: content, process, and

products according to students’ readiness levels, learning profiles, and interests. The impact of

differentiated instruction’s effectiveness on student academic growth and achievement is

reflected in the studies at Conway Elementary School and Colchester High School. Further

research will be conveyed in Chapter Three to substantiate differentiated instruction’s impact on

enhanced student achievement.

Chapter Three will describe how the research was planned and carried out while

accounting for the application of the instructional process. Chapter Four will indicate the

findings and the effectiveness of various strategies based on assessment data. Finally, this

research project will conclude with Chapter Five, reflecting on lessons learned from the entire

process with recommendations and suggested research in the future.

52


Chapter 3

Overview of Application of Instructional Process

Given that the purpose of this study was to determine if differentiated instruction had an

effect on student achievement, Chapter Three provided a descriptive account of four classrooms

and the relationships of differentiated instruction to student achievement during my student

internship. The research design of this chapter included not only how data was collected and

analyzed but also how the study was planned and carried out. This research design described the

classroom setting, data collection methods, data analysis and interpretations, and specific

interventions and strategies used as plans of action. Forecasts of expected results were also

discussed. As I implemented differentiated instruction to my classrooms, I searched to answer

two research questions: 1) Does differentiated instruction have a positive impact on student

music achievement? and 2) Are there components of differentiated instruction that have a greater

impact on student achievement than others? The timeline for this study was approximately four

months spanning November 2013 to February 2014. The intervention and data collection

occurred during the unit taught at that time.

A review of the literature on best differentiated instruction practices in education helped

the researcher to determine what instructional strategies to look for in each of the classrooms and

to develop the questions for the student and teacher survey instruments. The literature review

also helped determine what differentiation variables would be measured in the quantitative piece

of this study.

53


Using a non-directional research hypothesis, I predicted that there were some sort of

effects associated with differentiated instruction and its impact on student achievement within

the results of this research study. This was due to the fact that my literature review had not

provided me with overwhelming or compelling evidence of differentiated instruction’s effect and

impact on student achievement (Mertler, 2012).

Student Participants and Setting

As a student teacher, I was placed in two schools, i.e., School #1 and School #2 located in

the same district in Security-Widefield, Colorado. School #1 enrolls 574 students grades 6-8 and

School #2 enrolls 1,252 students in grades 9-12 and are located within middle and working-class

communities.

The racial demographic of the district at the time of this study was approximately 78

percent white, 18 percent African-American, and four percent from other ethnic and racial

backgrounds. At Schools #1 and #2, 61 and 63 percent of students were white and 10 and 12

percent were African American. The remaining 29 and 25 percent of the students were Hispanic,

multi-racial, or Asian. Also between Schools #1 and #2, 47 and 39 percent of students qualified

for free and reduced meals.

According to the most recent accountability report at Schools #1 and #2, about 13.9

percent of the students received special education services and nearly 9.4 percent qualified for

English Language Learner support. Learning disabled students were in an inclusion setting for

all of their subjects and received extra remediation during an elective time. Gifted students were

54


grouped into a team at each grade level, but were not grouped according to their area of

giftedness, which still allowed for a heterogeneous group.

At School #1, the 60 member seventh grade and 53 member eighth grade concert bands

included: 28 boys, 32 girls and 24 boys and 29 girls respectively, all with a wide range of

abilities. The first School #2 band that I student taught included 40 members comprised of 22

boys and 18 girls. The second School #2 band had 63 members to include 28 boys and 35 girls.

There were 12 students at School #1 and five students at School #2 bands that had

accommodations or modifications under their Individualized Education Program (IEP) and

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Section 504 regulations require a school

district to provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified student with a disability

who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability.

With the exception of three students at School #2, all special needs students in Schools #1 and #2

bands had a Level 1, Response to Intervention strategy and were thus were able to be fully

integrated into the regular classroom. Within these diversified classroom settings, differentiated

instruction proved to be a critical area of research.

School #2 Performing Arts

For the purpose of my research, I focused on the music portion of School #1 and #2

performing arts. Performing arts are creative activities that are performed in front of an

audience, such as drama, music, and dance.

District support. About 85 percent of the students in Schools #1 and #2’s district took

part in a music class indicating strong support of the arts by the district and school’s

administrators. Just recently this district was honored for outstanding commitment to music

55


education, one of 307 districts nationwide to receive the Best Communities for Music Education

designation by the National Association of Music Merchants. This type of support and emphasis

on music education ran counter to the trend in many schools. Budget cuts and concentration on

core academic classes such as science, math and reading for state assessment tests have

decimated many performing arts programs.

Ensembles. Within School #2’s Performing Arts Department, there were nine

ensembles: the Chamber Orchestra and String Orchestra; Women's Ensemble, Chamber Choir,

and Classic Chorale choirs; Jazz Band, Symphonic Band, Wind Ensemble, and Chamber Winds,

and the Gladiator Marching Band. Collectively, these music groups performed a wide variety of

styles, including classical, jazz, popular, and patriotic music. These ensembles had also garnered

numerous awards.

Music Awards. The Chamber Orchestra earned first place in the Cavalcade Showcase of

Music, which was regarded as one of America’s first-class high school and middle school music

competitions. This ensemble had also auditioned and been selected to perform at the prestigious

Colorado Music Educator's Association (CMEA) conference at The Broadmoor. The individual

members of the orchestra have won auditions to perform in honor ensembles as well. Fifteen

percent of the orchestra members were selected to perform in honor groups around the state,

notably the Colorado Springs Honor Orchestra. As of the 2013-2014 school year, School #2 had

four orchestras with over 130 students, making it the largest orchestra program in the state.

School #2’s vocal music groups have also performed at the CMEA conference with their

Women's Ensemble and Chamber Choir and had consistently sent members to various honor

choirs such as Adams State and All State Choirs. In 2011, the Women's Ensemble and Classic

56


Chorale traveled to San Antonio to compete in the Heritage Festivals and received top honors in

their divisions.

The School #2 band program had also reaped awards. The Jazz Band placed 3rd at the

Cavalcade Showcase of Music and had performed at the Mile High Jazz Festival and the

UNC/Greeley Jazz Festival. The Gladiator Marching Band had a history of excellence and a

remarkable year in 2011 where the band placed 8th at the Southern Regional State Qualifying

Competition. Also in 2013, the Gladiator Marching Band returned to the Colorado Bandmasters

Association State Marching Band Competition at Hughes Stadium, finishing in 14th place.

Protection of Human Rights

In 1991, the United States Department of Education and seventeen federal departments

and agencies adopted a set of regulations known as the Federal Policy for the Protection of

Human Subjects also known as Common Rule (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2004). This research

was completed following these regulations. Participants were protected by anonymity and they

were informed about the research study prior to participating. In addition, the researcher

received consent from all building principals prior to the start of this survey research. This

research was strictly voluntary. Participants were able to contact the researcher at any time with

questions and/or clarification of the study. The survey results were made available at the

conclusion of the study for anyone who wanted a copy.

Institutional Review Board approval. As the researcher, I submitted an application to

Colorado College’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval to conduct human subject

research at Schools #1 and #2. Approved assent forms, survey questions, and an IRB application

57


form, are contained in the Appendix. It was also necessary in accordance with the IRB to

receive written consent from the principals at my placements to recruit study participants,

distribute surveys, and to conduct classroom observations. See Appendix A for the principal

assent form.

Students who volunteered to participate were required to have their parents sign an assent

form, as directed by the IRB. The IRB assent form explained objectives of the study, data

collection procedures, privacy information, and requirements of the participants. Students took

an informed letter of assent as referenced in Appendix B, home to parents for approval of

participation.

Anonymity was maintained throughout the research by assigning pseudonyms when

needed to highlight student discussion and responses. In order to maintain confidentiality, all

electronic data was password protected and all non-electronic data under lock and key in my

cooperating teacher’s file cabinet. All sensitive data was also destroyed after completion of the

research project.

Data Used for Differentiated Instructional Decision Making

Effective data-driven differentiated instruction follows a regular cycle as noted in Figure

1: assessing student learning, analyzing assessment results to identify student strengths and

needs, planning and implementing instruction, and monitoring student progress to further adjust

instruction as needed.

58


Figure 1.

Within this cycle, data is employed to identify specific areas of difficulty in order to plan well-

targeted intervention and bring about increased achievement. As a first step in differentiating

music instruction in my classroom, test data was analyzed and used to assist in instructional

decision-making for the classes and individual students. The process for examining test data for

individual students at my placement was basically the same as for the whole class, i.e., all

assessments involved data collection, analysis and instructional modifications (Stiggins &

DuFour, 2009).

Assessments

Appropriate assessment allows teachers to monitor student progress, make instructional

decisions, evaluate student achievement, and evaluate and modify programs. It is also important

to use frequent and varied assessments to gauge not only student ability in conceptual areas, but

student attitude, confidence, and level of understanding.

59


Common Formative Assessments (CFA)

The District music teachers and I used a variety of data sources derived from teacher-

created common formative assessments to look for trends and patterns and to permit consistent

evaluation of program progress across district schools. According to Stiggins and DuFour

(2009), common assessments, also known as Common Formative Assessments, are created by

teams of teachers and used commonly across domain-specific classrooms where teachers pool

their collective expertise in making sound instructional decisions and modifications based on test

results. Teachers use data information from benchmark assessments to identify students who

require help or greater challenges with respect to specific learning targets (Mertler, 2002).

Rather than interpreting standards in isolation, team members ensure that they share similar

interpretations of state standards while deconstructing broad content standards into more specific

objectives (Mertler).

According to my cooperating teacher, once student assessments were completed and data

reports made available, the music teachers within School #1 and #2’s district gathered as a team

to review their students’ test results. The assessments used in this district measured student

learning across the Colorado Academic Standards and were representative of a quality and

balanced music curriculum. The music teachers at Schools #1 and #2 gathered and analyzed

their own data to determine whether students were reaching benchmarks. The data my district

music teachers analyzed included criterion-referenced tests, formative assessments, and student

work samples. Taken together, these sources provided a rich data set for the district music

educators within the district to use in setting goals and devising action steps to improve

instruction. From there, the district music teachers planned their own appropriate instructional

modifications in order to differentiate instruction.

60


Data Collection Instruments

I hypothesized that data collected from all sources within this research, including CFA

scores, students and teacher surveys, and administrator interviews, would reasonably point to the

same conclusion that children achieve higher in music performance when music instruction is

differentiated.

Playing Test and Music Theory CFAs

The first data collection instrument used in this study to assess student achievement in

music performance and music theory were Common Formative Assessments. The CFAs at

Schools #1 and #2 were administered at the beginning of the year in late August and then in

December. They were given again in early February of the 2013-2014 school year. The first

piece of collected data was a unit pre-assessment where data collection from the CFA

commenced in August spanning a period of approximately five weeks.

To assess student readiness before and after differentiated instruction, my cooperating

teachers and I ensured the assessments included diverse sample test items to lead to evidence of

student achievement. We therefore supplemented the performance-based assessments or playing

test with music theory written exams. Each music ensemble member was given three playing

tests throughout the semester and two written examinations that were based on teacher and

district-created benchmarks. Some assessments were given greater weight than others and were

calculated by multiplying the scores by a weighting factor.

CFA Summative Playing Tests. For the summative playing tests, students performed

assigned scales and short music compositions. The playing test was given live in class,

individually with a teacher or as a take-home test. Students who tested at home were responsible

61


for turning in an audio recording through Charms for grading purposes. Charms is software that

allows music students to perform assigned exercises and repertoire while recording their

performance for assessment by their music director at a later time. This software can be loaded

on students’ computer at home or as apps on their iPhone where they can submit their

performances directly to the music director over the Internet.

Rubrics. Students’ music performances were then graded based on performance

rubrics. The School #2 rubric below is on a four-point scale that was used to evaluate music

scales and excerpts (also see Appendix C).

4 points – Required scales are performed smoothly and accurately as eighth notes, at

a tempo of quarter note = 144 beats per minute.

3 points – Required scales are performed smoothly and fairly accurately as eighth

notes, at a tempo of quarter note = 120 beats per minute. Errors are present, but less

than one per scale.

2 points – Required scales are not performed smoothly, with multiple errors per

scale.

1 point – Key signatures for required scales are not known. Students are unable to

complete scales without repeated corrections.

My cooperating teachers and I ensured that our students understood the definition and

function of rubrics and were shown concrete exemplars of student work in order to display what

good performances looked like. Since rubrics listed the success criteria and provided

descriptions of levels of performance, students were able to use them to monitor and evaluate

their progress during an assessment task. Rubrics were also ideal since they were an objective

measurement of student performance and were nearly void of any judgment or bias.

62


CFA Written Assessments. According to my cooperating teacher at School #2, the

music theory, appreciation and history written assessments in the district were useful in

measuring concrete levels of knowledge. These assessments included multiple choice, true-false,

matching, and fill-in-the-blank items that were used to evaluate music theory and history.

Students in Schools #1 and #2 matched music notation with musical terms as well as identified

rhythmic notation, i.e., matched the correct counting to a given rhythm. Although not a major

part of the band class experience, these written assessments were highly relevant to music

proficiency and were treated as such.

The listening portion of exams was also useful for evaluating music theory and history

content. Students identified elements of music in relation to tonality, meter, style, and form after

listening to recordings in class. Students also listened to recordings and identified the

composers, time periods, and musical features. Prompts for individual questions included video

or audio recordings. It should be noted that both the playing assessments and written music

theory tests were combined as cumulative scores in the CFAs.

After the students at Schools #1 and #2 completed their paper assessments and recorded

the answers on a Scantron answer sheet, the class results were collected and analyzed using an

Excel spreadsheet. The assessment scores were combined into a measure of central tendency by

calculating the mean. The mean score, i.e., numerical average for a set of responses, thus yielded

an accurate representation of overall achievement level (Creighton 2007). My cooperating

teachers and I were then able to determine how to improve instruction and student achievement

according to evidence-based assessment data.

63


Student Survey Questionnaire

The second survey data collection instrument I used was a questionnaire, the Evaluation

of Teaching Scale Student Survey (see Appendix D). The questionnaire in this study contained

28 items relating to the effects of differentiated strategies and learning environment on students.

Students were also able to provide feedback on their learning environment. In a

differentiated classroom, the environment should be safe and non-threatening to encourage

learning (Tomlinson, 2007). Children who experience discomfort through rejection, failure,

pressure, and intimidation may not feel safe within the learning environment. Also, students

must be appropriately challenged, the learner should be comfortable enough to accept the

challenge that new learning offers and the content should be neither too difficult nor too easy

(Tomlinson).

Students used a Likert Scale to answer their survey questions. When responding to a

Likert questionnaire item, respondents specified their level of agreement or disagreement on a

symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements. Responses to the survey questions

were represented by symbols such as Q1 (Question #1), SA (Strongly Agree), D (Disagree) and

so on. After analyzing these surveys, I collected the raw data into a form that could be

manipulated. Percentages were also determined for those participants counted as “not sure”

(NS). I then recorded totals from responses per question and calculated data percentages for

each using an Excel spreadsheet as reflected in Appendix E.

A concern with the use of the student questionnaire was whether it was understood by the

student participants. A questionnaire must be easy to read and the directions should be self-

64


explanatory (Creighton, 2007). To ensure clarity, validity, and reliability of the instrument, the

questionnaire was given to my two cooperating teachers for review so that suggested

modifications could be made. The results of my cooperating teachers’ review were positive for

all items including potential for consistent responses.

Teacher Survey

The third instrument used in this study was a survey administered to School #1 and #2

junior high and high school teachers. The teacher survey was designed to determine teachers’

sentiments about differentiated instruction, its impact on student achievement, and whether or

not they utilized differentiated instruction in their teaching. Results from this survey were also

used to answering the second research question relative to the most effective differentiated

instructional elements for improving student performance. Respondents rated each statement

(i.e., hardly ever, sometimes, frequently or always). The responses were then scored for

analysis. A copy of the teacher survey can be found in Appendix F.

Principal Interview

Finally, principal interviews at Schools #1 and #2 were conducted as the fourth

instrument. These interview questions focused on the number of classes schoolwide that utilized

differentiated instruction and the link between differentiated instruction and student

achievement. At no time during the principal interviews were teacher survey results discussed

with the administrators. As the researcher, I provided the administrators with an overview of the

study to ensure their understanding of its goals. The interviews were not recorded; however, I

did take copious notes (see Appendix G).

65


Data Analysis

Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the collected

information and determining the conclusions, significance, and implications of the findings.

Analyzing data information also involves examining it in ways that reveal the relationships,

patterns, trends (Mertler, 2012). Furthermore, the measurement of learning and the analysis of

the resulting data are used to measure evidence of student achievement, teaching practices and

teacher effectiveness (Mokhtari et al, 2007). From there, the student and class data are compared

to standards of performance, thus allowing teachers to evaluate student achievement, monitor

student progress, make instructional decisions, and evaluate and modify programs (Mertler,

2002).

Quantitative and qualitative analysis

After collecting the data from the CFA assessments, I conducted both a quantitative

analysis of CFA test scores and surveys and qualitative analysis of direct observations and

interviews as a means to outline findings from the data. These targeted assessment tools helped

me better shape my differentiated teaching strategies. This approach also allowed me, as the

researcher, to analyze relationships between the differentiation variables. The procedures for

analyzing the data included: (a) data organization; (b) categories, themes, and pattern

identification; (c) and data examinations to answer the research questions identified in the

introduction of this study.

In analyzing my students’ data, I predicted that number–based quantitative and narrative-

based qualitative data could each play important roles in understanding students’ data stories and

66


learning. According to Mertler (2012), qualitative data is subjective and should be collected in

conjunction with quantitative objective data to assist in instructional decision-making. By

combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, one can often determine not only what teaching

strategies worked or didn’t, but why (Mertler). Mertler adds that qualitative data collected from

interviews and direct observations can often tell teachers things that numbers in quantitative data

cannot. In analyzing qualitative observational data, teachers should gauge the rate of discipline

referrals, behavior patterns, attendance rate, extra credit work, effects of cultural issues, and

student engagement in class (Mertler).

In the music classrooms at School #2, quantitative data included weekly practice logs and

performance participation in addition to playing assessments and written work. The minimum

expectation for practice outside the classroom was 60 minutes per week. For performance

participation, a student received full performance credit if he or she arrived to class on time with

all necessary materials and a willing spirit to learn. However, infractions such as tardiness or

unpreparedness could have led to deductions from the participation grade.

Intervention effects on dependent variable

One of the most important issues in interpreting my experimental research findings was

the discernment of how differentiated instruction as the intervention or independent variable,

influenced the student achievement outcome or dependent variable. In experimental research,

the researcher has control over one or more of the variables included in the study that may

influence or cause the participants’ behavior (Mertler, 2012). Collecting and analyzing data

from School #1 and #2’s CFAs helped me determine whether my intervention brought about

significant changes to the dependent variable. Generally, researchers do not consider a result

significant unless it shows at least a 95 percent certainty that it is correct. This 95 percent

67


certainty is called the .05 level of significance, since there is a five percent chance that it is

wrong. Thus, if the data analysis finds that the independent variable or the intervention

influenced the dependent variable at the .05 level of significance, it means there is a 95%

probability that the program or intervention had the desired effect (Mertler, 2012). Regarding

my research, a correlation analysis was conducted at my placement for each independent variable

to determine if the frequency of differentiation had an effect on the student achievement

dependent variable.

Data interpretation. After collecting, organizing and analyzing the data results, my

cooperating teachers and I determined whether differentiated instruction, worked or made a

difference in student achievement. In data research, dependent variables such as student

achievement, test scores, or content proficiency are effected and influenced by independent

variables or interventions (Mokhtari et al, 2007). The following were evaluation criteria

questions as they related to effectiveness, results, impact, and sustainability. Did the

differentiated instruction achieve what it is set out to achieve? Have there been any changes in

the target group as a result of the intervention? Were the outcomes continued after the

intervention had ceased? (Creighton, 2007).

Differentiated Instruction Action Plans during Research

After collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, I developed action plans for

differentiation by first identifying areas of the curriculum in which the class and individual

students were succeeding or struggling. I then modified instruction for individuals or groups of

students based on their learning needs, e.g., revisited content areas, used alternative instructional

approaches, slowed or sped up the curriculum pace, increased instructional time for struggling

68


students, or enriched coursework (Mertler, 2012; Mokhtari et al, 2007). Furthermore, I

incorporated ability grouping, music technology, and sectional and individualized instruction as

additional differentiated instructional intervention methods.

Ability Grouping in the Music Classroom

Ability grouping is the practice of splitting a mixed-ability classroom of students into

groups based on skill level and review of performance data (Yee, 2013). Similarly, in the music

classroom, ability grouping involves placing students in music ensembles that are most

appropriate to students’ ability level. Ability grouping allows music students to showcase their

talents through repertoire that is level-appropriate yet challenging. Once placed, students can

move into higher-level groups if their skill levels increase. Students may also move into lower-

level groups should the need for more intensive remedial instruction arise.

Ability grouping at Schools #1 and #2. At my placement, the data from pre and post-

performance assessments were used as a tool to group students into level-appropriate music

performing ensembles. Students who desired to move up to more proficient performing

ensembles for the second semester did so through an audition and/or with the band director’s

recommendation and consent. Thus, rather than having all music students remain in the same

group from the previous semester, my cooperating teachers and I moved struggling and advanced

students to less proficient and advanced ability ensembles, respectively.

According to my cooperating teacher, the most significant effect ability grouping had on

the class was optimistic student attitudes. Students did not feel left out, confused, threatened or

bored, thus enhancing their positive frame of mind toward the music class. Students in general

69


seemed to enjoy their music ensembles more when they performed their music with peers of

similar ability.

Sectionals and Individualized Instruction

Furthermore, in meeting the needs of my students, my cooperating teachers and I

continued to offer sectionals and individualized music instruction. In addition, we occasionally

hired instructors on all instruments to teach private lessons and/or conduct sectionals after

school.

Sectionals. During sectionals, various parts or sections of the large group at School #2

split up and rehearsed in other rooms during full ensemble rehearsals to focus on their own parts.

It was a chance for percussion, brass, and woodwind sections to practice their parts on their own

before coming back together to rehearse as a full group. Implementing a full rehearsal after a

sectional served as an effective strategy since it provided students with closure, confidence, and

cohesion. Also, for accountability, the members of each section returned to the full group to

perform the portion of music they were assigned to work on during sectionals.

Sectionals also promoted student leadership while serving as an efficacious time saver.

These sectionals were important in that the section leaders could solve problems unique to their

specific group of instruments. As a result, full rehearsals were more productive, i.e., avoided

other students in full rehearsals having to needlessly wait as other sections worked on their parts.

It was also important to assign competent students to lead each section, that is, someone

with strong music and leadership skills. Section leaders also had to ensure their sections

understood specifically what they were trying to fix within the music.

70


Individualized instruction. At Schools #1 and #2, music students seeking to improve

their playing ability had the option of receiving individualized instruction, i.e., private tutorial

assistance. Individualized instruction also enabled my cooperating teacher and I to adapt

instruction to the needs of students, allowing students to make progress at their own pace. A

chief justification for individualized instruction was that it provided every student an opportunity

to achieve mastery of performance tasks while improving playing test scores. Students’ mastery

of content also improved their motivation, self-esteem, critical thinking ability, and attitude

toward the subject matter.

In the music classroom at Schools #1 and #2, it was imperative for my cooperating

teacher and me to hear students alone to accurately assess their abilities and needs. As a result,

we were able to plan well-targeted interventions to bring about increased achievement. With a

student/teacher ratio of 30 to one or higher, it seemed impossible for my cooperating teacher and

me to incorporate individualized instruction. However, in order to overcome this problem, we

offered individual instruction before and after class by posting sign-up rosters, allowing students

to schedule specific time slots.

Due to the fact that differentiation is a compilation of best practices discussed in Chapter

2, I hypothesized that the more differentiated strategies I used, the greater the academic and

performance achievement of the student. In applying the above differentiated music proficiency

strategies, I was able to gain a more critical perspective of differentiated instruction, its successes

and perhaps its limitations. My goal was to gather sufficient data to determine whether my

intervention in using differentiated instruction met the needs of students and whether it had an

impact on student achievement. The next chapter focuses on data analysis findings and

interpretation results of this study.

71


Chapter 4

Introduction

The findings of this study were data collected to answer the following research questions:

1) Does differentiated instruction have an impact on student achievement? and 2) Are there

components of differentiated instruction that have a greater impact on student achievement than

others? These questions were answered by using quantitative data and presented in graphical,

visual form. Furthermore, the qualitative data analysis were presented in narrative form using

interview transcripts and observational notes to describe the most meaningful analyses trends.

Also, in response to the last question, the researcher was able to analyze information around the

variables studied to determine any causal relationships between the variables and student

achievement.

In order to answer the second research question, six independent variables were analyzed

to determine if any of the variables either together or alone had an impact on student

achievement. These variables include learning environment designs, content differentiation,

interest accommodations, readiness differentiation, pre-assessment, and learning style

accommodations. By using multiple instructional techniques, teachers can connect better with

students’ preferred way of learning, bringing about greater engagement and active participation

in the lesson (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

The remainder of this chapter is divided into six sections: research implementation, data

analysis designs and interpretations, survey results, qualitative analysis, and triangulation of data.

The final portion of this chapter is a summary of the overall data results and findings.

72


Research Implementation

After submitting an IRB application for review, the Standing Chair of the IRB at

Colorado College and principals of Schools #1 and #2 granted the researcher permission to

administer the student and teacher surveys. Before conducting these surveys, the purpose of the

research study along with the roles of the researcher were clearly defined to the participants.

Data Analysis Designs and Interpretations

This study followed a mixed method design and consisted of two parts. First, a

quantitative analysis of test scores from the Common Formative Assessment (CFA) and teacher

and student survey results were analyzed as a means to outline broad relationships from the data.

Second, results from the quantitative findings then directed the researcher to frame the

qualitative design. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis of classroom observations and interviews

with administrators was conducted.

Pretest-Posttest Comparison Group Design

In investigating the cause-and-effect relationship between differentiated instruction and

student achievement variables while ensuring strong validity, the researcher used a Pretest-

Posttest Comparison Group Design as noted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A pretest-posttest comparison group design

is a design involving both treatment and

comparison group participants. The

treatment group participants are pretested,

exposed to different interventions or

73


treatment conditions and following a passage of time, are then post-tested. However, unlike

treatment groups, comparison or control groups are not exposed to the independent variable

treatment conditions (Mertler, 2012). This design allowed the researcher to compare the final

posttest results between the two groups, while measuring the overall effectiveness of the

intervention or treatment. The researcher’s pretest-posttest comparison group design was

considered a strong research design since it controlled the influence of confounding extraneous

variables by including a comparison group. This design was also key in establishing persuasive

evidence of the intervention's, i.e. differentiated instruction, effectiveness.

T Tests

To check for any significant differences that were inherent between the differentiated

(treatment group) and non-differentiated classrooms (comparison group), t–Tests were run. The

t-Tests were used to compare the means of the outcome variables for the differentiated and non-

differentiated classrooms and to determine if differentiated classrooms had higher levels of

achievement on the CFA scores in music.

Repeated-Measures t Test. Using a Repeated-Measures t Test as inferential statistics,

the researcher took two measures, i.e., pretest and posttest on the same individuals in the

treatment and comparison groups of both Schools #1 and #2. Inferential statistics are statistical

techniques that allow researchers to test statistical significance of the difference between two or

more groups or to test the degree of relationship between two variables (Creighton, 2007). Using

this type of pre-posttest design was the best way for the researcher to be sure that the

intervention had a causal effect. This Repeated-Measures t Test was also valuable to the

researcher because it illustrated and documented as a criterion-referenced test, School #1 and #2

74


students’ academic gain. Criterion-referenced tests compare students to a predetermined set of

standards regardless of how other students perform (Tomlinson, 1999).

Both tests were administered (a) at the beginning of the school year and before the

introduction of differentiated instruction (September, 2013) and (b) at the end of the

implementation of differentiation instruction (January, 2014). The pretest and posttest mean

scores of the CFAs were calculated and then statistically compared in order to see if the

difference between their averages was statistically significant.

However, the weakness of this design was that so many variables unaccounted for in the

study could have influenced the scores on the posttest, when it may be assumed that the

treatment caused the desired performance. As a result of these limitation, the researcher also

used an independent measure t Test.

Independent-measures t Test. An Independent-measures t Test was also ideal for this

research design where treatment and comparison groups were compared to one another on a

common dependent variable, i.e. test scores. First, the researcher compared the treatment

group’s pretest and posttest scores in order to determine if the treatment had any effect. Second,

the pretest and posttest scores from the comparison group were also compared in order to see if

they were different. Third, the groups’ final posttest and gain scores were compared to

determine how much the scores improved from pretest to posttest. The researcher found that the

treatment and comparison groups had proficiency gains in their scores. Since the gains in the

comparison group test scores from School #2 were not due to the treatment, it was hypothesized

that it was due to the passage of time and natural maturation.

75


Treatment group results. In September, the treatment groups at Schools #1 and #2 had a

CFA mean score of 72.0 and 56.30 percent while in January, those scores increased to 77.0 and

62.0 percent respectively. The data also displayed that in September, 36.21 and 37 percent of the

classes in Schools #1 and #2 were at a proficient level. In January, however, the proficiency

scores increased to 44 and 45 percent. These proficiency results in January reflected a 21.5

percent and 21.6 percent increase respectively in the number of students performing at a

proficient level.

Comparison group results. In September, the CFA data reports on School #1 and #2

comparison groups revealed a mean score of 81.8 percent and 67.4 percent. However, in

January, these scores decreased to 73.4 and 66.3 percent respectively. To explain the decrease in

the mean scores, the researcher found that the conditions under which the students at Schools #1

and #2 took their pre-post assessments were not similar. In addition to different tests being

administered, there was a significant disparity in the level of difficulty between the pre and post-

tests at School #1 compared to School #2.

Regarding the proficiency percentile scores, the September score, i.e. 29.0 percent and

57.00 percent at Schools #1 and #2, rose to 31.00 percent and 59 percent in January, thus

yielding a 6.9 percent and 3.5 percent improvement from September.

Treatment and comparison group correlated findings. The results of the treatment

group of the research that had received differentiated instruction were compared by multilevel

regression with the results of the comparison group that had not received differentiated

instruction. The comparison aimed at investigating the difference in achievement between the

76


two groups. Figures 2 and 3 summarize and compare the mean CFA score data for treatment

(differentiated) and comparison (non-differentiated) groups.

Figure 2. Graphical representation of School #1 CFA mean scores

Figure 3. Graphical representation of School #2 CFA mean scores

77


The correlation between students’ treatment and comparison group proficiency scores is

represented in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Graphical representation of School #1 CFA proficiency score differences

Figure 5. Graphical representation of School #2 CFA proficiency score differences

78


After carefully analyzing the CFA data and column chart, it was clear that the students in

the treatment groups who received differentiated instruction made greater gains on their CFA’s

than compared to the comparison group. There were also higher treatment group proficient level

percentages than compared to the comparison groups. However, after the mean and proficiency

scores for each group were calculated and statistically compared, the researcher had to find

whether the improvements were substantial enough to be statistically significant.

Statistical Significance

As a result of using inferential statistics, the researcher was able to determine statistical

significance between the two variables within the treatment study groups. Statistical significance

was determined by comparing the obtained p-value to the pre-established a-value (symbolized

with a Greek letter α). The p-value that the researcher obtained from his analysis indicated the

probability of chance occurrences in his study. The p-value was then compared to the pre-

established alpha level, which was set at 0.05. With the p-value of 0.032 being less than the 0.05

a-level, the findings reflected that the outcome difference between the pretest and post-test scores

was statistically significant between the School #1 and #2 treatment groups. By convention, if p

< 0.05 (i.e. below 5%) the difference is taken to be large enough to be significant; if not, then it

is not significant (Creighton, 2007). Therefore, the researcher could answer his first research

question in that the results of this t-Test indicated that there were significant outcomes in student

achievement scores as a result of my intervention efforts in implementing differentiated

instruction. However, statistical significance does not convey the size of the effect.

Effect Size

In statistics, an effect size is a standardized measure of the effect of an intervention on

outcomes or a measure of the strength of a phenomenon (Creighton, 2007). It is particularly

79


valuable for quantifying the effectiveness of a particular intervention, relative to some

comparison. For any particular intervention to be considered significant, it must show an

improvement in student learning of at least an average effect size gain of 0.40 (Hattie, 2012).

The d = 0.40 has therefore been established as the standard for identifying what is and what is

not effective improvement (Hattie).

Effect size results. The type of effect size used in this study was a comparison of

progress over time between treatment and comparison groups. As stated previously, the students

at Schools #1 and #2 were administered a similar test relating to the curriculum in September and

January. The researcher then used the data from these two tests to calculate an effect size. The

most efficient way for the researcher to calculate this effect size was to use Excel, using the

following formula (see Table 1.)

Table 1:

Effect Size = Average (post-test) – Average (pre-test)

___________________________________________

Spread (standard deviation, or sd)

Appendix H illustrates the effect size calculations and differences between Schools #1 and #2

treatment and comparison groups.

It was concluded after using this formula that the effect sizes in the treatment groups at

Schools #1 and #2, i.e. d = 0.60 and d = 0.54, were significant between differentiated instruction

and student achievement variables. Also, the effects at Schools #1 and #2 treatment groups were

substantially higher (d = 0.60 and d = 0.54) than for schools #1 and #2 comparison groups (d = -

0.05 and d = -0.06).

80


Correlation Coefficients

The relationship between variables is measured statistically by calculating a correlation

coefficient (Mertler, 2012). A correlation coefficient is used to measure the degree of

relationship that exists between two variables, i.e. the direction and strength of the relationship.

The coefficient, symbolized by r, is reported on a scale that ranges from -1.00 to +1.00. The

direction is indicated as either a positive or a negative value on the scale. A positive correlation

indicates that as the scores or values on one variable increase, the values on the other variable

also increase.

Variable Correlation coefficient results. A correlation analysis was conducted on the

independent variables by using a correlation coefficient calculator to determine the relationship

strength between differentiated instruction and its influence on student achievement. The results

of data analysis revealed a strong correlation at +0.85 between differentiated instruction and

student achievement variables. The accompanying level of significance of this correlation

outcome displayed p < .05. However, even though there were strong and significant

relationships between these two variables, the researcher could not conclude that one caused the

other. Additional variables could account for the causal influences that have not been included

in this study. According to Mertler (2012), researchers cannot use the results of a correlational

study to explain causation.

Data Reliability and Variability Results

Table 1 below illustrates the September pre-test reliability indicators, deviation scores, score

ranges, and sample sizes within School #1 and two School #2 bands, respectively.

81


Table 1.

It should be noted

that School #1 had a

low test reliability

score in September,

i.e. .78 score below

the .85 acceptable

reliability cut-off. Reliability is a concept related to the consistency of quantitative data. Also,

the standard deviation, i.e., average distance of scores away from the mean, indicated that the

music assessment scores were significantly spread out. According to the researcher’s

cooperating teachers, the test sample size numbers were sufficiently high enough in establishing

conclusive and accurate results since they were above the 30 student sample size standard.

The reliability scores in January for School #2’s treatment and comparison groups

revealed a .92 score which is .07 higher than the .85 acceptable cut-off. However, School #1

January reliability scores for both treatment and comparison groups indicated a low test

reliability score of .79.

Surveys

Through survey research, the researcher acquired information from students and teachers

about their opinions, attitudes, or characteristics on differentiated instruction and then tabulated

their responses (Mertler, 2012). Upon completion of the surveys, the data was aggregated, and

percentages of response were calculated. The analysis of this data involved calculating the

frequency counts or percentages of responses. Reporting the survey results allowed the

researcher to further investigate student achievement in relationship to each of the six variables.

82


These results also allowed the researcher to investigate the relationship of these findings with

classroom observations and administrator interviews in the qualitative analysis.

Student Survey Results

After receiving consent from the principals and 45 student parents of Schools #1 and #2,

student survey questionnaires were conducted to assess how students felt about differentiated

instruction’s effectiveness. The data collected from the student surveys provided validating

insights into effects of differentiated strategies and learning environment on students.

First research question. Students were asked to indicate whether the researcher’s use

of differentiated instruction strategies had a positive effect on their learning and academic

achievement (see Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6.

83


Figure 7.

In an effort to determine to what degree participants agreed or disagreed per question, the

researcher added the sum of “strongly agreed” to the sum of “agreed” and then did the same for

the “disagreed” comments to get combined total percentages. School #1 reflects that 74 percent

of the students generally agreed while 16 percent generally disagreed that differentiated

instruction had a positive effect on their learning. School #2 reflects very similar results, i.e. 72

percent agreed and 15 percent disagreed on the positive effects differentiated instruction had on

their learning and achievement.

Second research question. Also, the student surveys sought to answer the second

research question by gathering information concerning the effectiveness of the six differentiated

variables under study. A regression analysis was therefore conducted on the survey scores to

each independent variable to determine if the variables or variables occurring in combination had

an effect on student learning and achievement. Regression analysis is a statistical process for

84


estimating the relationships among variables. However, correlation is not causation. Results are

shown in detail in Figures 8 and 9 between Schools #1 and #2. The Excel statistical program

was used to analyze this data (see Appendix I).

Figure 8

Figure 9.

Tables 3 and 4 categorize the impact effectiveness of the six differentiated variables to

achievement at Schools #1 and #2.

85


Table 3.

School #2 Most Effective Differentiated Instruction Variables

Rank Variable

Number

Variable Description

1 6 Learning Style Accommodations (Product Choice)

2 3 Interests Accommodations

3 1 Learning Environment

4 2 Content Differentiation

5 4 Readiness Differentiation

6 5 Pre-assessment

Table 4.

School #1 Most Effective Differentiated Instruction Variables

Rank Variable

Number

Variable Description

1 6 Learning Style Accommodations (Product Choice)

2 3 Interest Accommodations

3 2 Content Differentiation

4 1 Learning Environment

86


5 4 Readiness Differentiation

6 5 Pre-assessment

Students at Schools #1 and #2 indicated that the differentiation variables of learning style

and interest accommodations had a greater impact on their motivation and achievement.

Learning styles were accommodated by offering students product and process choices that were

interesting to them. The learning environment was also a significant differentiation variable as

indicated on the students’ survey responses. Furthermore, the surveys indicated moderate

effectiveness levels of content and readiness differentiation in the classroom.

School #2 Teacher Survey Results

During the teacher survey at School #2, 30 teachers responded to 10 out of 37 questions

using a Qualtrics Survey and Likert scale to rate the impact of differentiated instruction on

student achievement. An analysis of the teacher surveys revealed that 87 percent of the teachers

rated the impact of differentiated instruction on student performance in their classroom as

significant (see Figure 10). However, only nine percent of the teachers surveyed rated

differentiated instruction’s impact on student performance as moderate.

87


Figure 10.

When teachers answered the second research question relative to which are the most

effective differentiated instructional strategies for improving student performance, five strategies

emerged as being most significant (see Figure 11).

Figure 11.

88


First, according to the teachers surveyed, differentiating instruction and pacing according

to students’ readiness was the most important strategy used. Tiered activities were the second

most frequently used and effective strategies for the implementation of differentiation. Teachers

use tiered activities so all students focus on key concepts and skills but at different levels of

complexity. The goal in tiered activities is to match the task’s degree of difficulty and its pacing

to student readiness. Having students select activities and products through choice charts based

on their learning style, interests, and learning strengths, was selected as the third most effective

strategy. Finally, pre-assessing students’ readiness, interest, and learning profiles along with

flexible grouping were among the fourth and fifth most frequent and effective strategies.

Qualitative analysis

Given the scope of this study, it was determined that neither quantitative nor qualitative

data alone could produce the results necessary to determine whether differentiated instruction

increased student achievement. This study provided a descriptive account of four classrooms

and the relationships to differentiated instruction and student achievement. Qualitative analysis

was therefore used in addition to quantitative analysis. According to Hattie (2012), a

combination of qualitative and quantitative study methods allows the researcher to confirm or

collaborate findings via triangulation. Triangulation is a process of relating multiple sources of

data in order to establish their trustworthiness or verification of the consistency of facts

(Creighton, 2007). According to Creighton (2007), the more multiple impact measures

qualitatively understood and linked to quantitative measures the greater the probability of

understanding.

In order to address the second research question on whether there were components of

differentiated instruction that had a greater impact on student achievement than others, the

89


researcher relied on quantitative and qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis was conducted

as a means to help explain and support the quantitative findings. Furthermore, both classroom

observations and administrator interviews added important qualitative data and greater insight

into the participants’ thoughts and opinions. The qualitative analysis also helped define what

was happening instructionally in each of the four classrooms that may have had an impact on test

data. The qualitative data that were gathered consisted of the following: journal entries of

classroom observation and administrator interviews.

Classroom Observation

Through classroom observation qualitative methods, several themes emerged, as the

interaction of students to peers and students to teachers were observed. The following is the

summary of classroom observation journal entries and reflections.

At School #2, learning styles were accommodated by offering the students choices that

were interesting to them. It was noted that the more choices the researcher provided students, the

more motivated they were to learn. For example, choice charts were created by the researcher

and cooperating teacher to allow students at School # 2 to choose a preferred music composition

project. The researcher ensured that students of mixed readiness worked together in a flexible

grouping settings that drew upon the strengths of each student. Initially, these students did not

appear to be enthused about the composition assignment. However, after empowering groups to

choose their own name, group leader, and music composition theme, students were very

motivated in completing the assignment. Many students also expressed appreciation for being

given the opportunity to select an activity based on their interests and learning strengths.

Students from Schools #2 enjoyed picking components of this activity that piqued their interests.

90


The concept of learning styles was identified as a theme in the qualitative analysis of this

study. Being able to identify, accommodate, and teach to students’ various learning styles can

assist students to achieve better results academically and improve their attitudes toward learning

(Creighton, 2007). Identifying learning styles enables a teacher to capitalize on students’

strengths and become familiar with concepts students may find challenging (Creighton). The

researcher observed that when learning styles were incorporated, the attitudes of students toward

learning improved significantly, as they felt their individual strengths were being accommodated.

At School #1, flexible grouping allowed students to work in pairs, groups, or

individually, while working towards the same standards and objectives. Students were provided

time at the beginning of class to interact with each other while reflecting on and discussing new

music concepts. Students were also permitted to check and correct their peers’ work and offer

feedback. The students liked the idea of being able to converse more often with each other

during the class period. Music vocabulary seemed to improve with student interactions as they

would use specific music terminology more often instead of speaking in general terms. Also,

students were observed solving their own problems or seeking help from other students before

going to the teacher. When students had a question with which they needed help, they worked

this out with a partner or as a team. Flexible grouping in this setting therefore proved to be an

effective method to motivate and inspire students.

The role of student feedback regarding lessons influenced a major shift in the

researcher’s pedagogy. When the researcher and his cooperating teacher asked for input,

students felt more vested in their learning. Student feedback also allowed the researcher and

cooperating teacher to receive valuable information on making curriculum adjustments while

determining which students needed assistance with the content.

91


However, it was observed that some students during direct instruction, exhibited off-task

behaviors due to a lack of motivation and engagement. These students were hyperactive,

withdrawn, disruptive, distracted, and uncooperative during direct instruction. During this time,

noise levels at the beginning of band classes were above acceptable levels. Students also thought

that just because the researcher was not working with their group during rehearsal, they were free

to disturb. The off-task talking was distracting to others trying to work. The students had to be

reminded about acceptable noise levels and not to distract others during rehearsals. Noise levels

and productive work became acceptable with student redirection and firmer classroom

management.

The classroom observation qualitative findings as described above, assisted the

researcher in answering the second research question. Learning styles, flexible grouping, and

student feedback emerged as the top differentiated instruction variables that had greater impact

on student achievement than other variables.

Administrator Interviews

As part of the interviewer’s inquiry into the administrations’ use of data analysis and their

findings, the principals at Schools #1 and #2 were asked whether or not they see a direct

correlation between student achievement levels and differentiated instruction. Principal #2 stated

that according to their data and teachers’ current use of differentiated instruction, it was difficult

to measure the correlation between student achievement and differentiated instruction (M.

Houtchens, personal communication, January 14, 2014). Many other variables in addition in to

differentiated instruction may have influenced growth in their students’ test scores. However,

the principal from School #1 emphasized that when teachers differentiate their instruction to

92


meet the needs of their students, there are greater gains in student academic achievement. The

School #1 principal added that through persistent efforts in addressing students’ diverse needs

while holding them to high expectations, all students will achieve academic growth to their

fullest potential (M. diStasio, personal communication, January 25, 2014).

The principal at School #2 stated that although classrooms had some differentiated

activities, differentiation was not embedded into the culture of most classrooms because of the

student-to-teacher ratio issues (M. Houtchens, personal communication, January 14, 2014). The

administrator from School #2 stated that the most significant challenge in differentiating

instruction were large class sizes with its 30:1 student-teacher ratio. The teachers

overwhelmingly indicated to their administrators that a lower student-to-teacher ratio would

increase student achievement, enhance the students’ test scores and provide lasting academic

benefits. The principal at School #2 also emphasized that a reduced class size would provide

students with many benefits to include greater opportunities for participation, greater individual

attention, and improved instruction (Houtchens). The principal from School #1, however, stated

that the classroom size has no bearing on whether teachers can differentiated instruction and that

differentiated instruction was embedded in their school’s curriculum (M. diStasio, personal

communication, January 25, 2014). School #1 principal added that closely related to teachers’

understanding the change process toward differentiated instruction was their understanding on

why and how to implement it the classroom. As a result, teachers were more inclined to embrace

and enact differentiated instruction despite its many challenges (diStasio).

Furthermore, after identifying their teaching staffs’ level of understanding of

differentiated instruction concepts and level of implementation, it was determined that only 50

93


percent of teachers were differentiating instruction (M. diStasio & M. Houtchens, personal

communication, January 25, 2014). This correlation revealed a very strong relationship between

familiarity and usage. The interviewer consequently asked the administrators about what they

can do to overcome this problem and increase the use of differentiated instruction among their

staff. Both administrators stressed the importance of their role in providing all their teachers

with the necessary on-going support. The administrators indicated that additional differentiated

instruction training and professional development was needed to support teacher change toward

use of differentiated instruction (diStasio & Houtchens).

When asked about what types of specific evidence is found in the classrooms that

demonstrate differentiated instruction, both administrators were able to provide affirmation.

Both administrators revealed that pre-assessment of student interest and abilities, flexible

grouping, one-on-one individualized instruction, and choices in learning activities and product

alternatives, were all indications of teachers’ use of differentiated instruction (M. diStasio & M.

Houtchens, personal communication, January 25, 2014). The principal at School #1 added that

they have in-service professional development workshops specific to flexible grouping strategies

and curriculum compacting for advanced students (M. diStasio, personal communication,

January 25, 2014).

The principal from Schools #1 stated that differentiating curriculum and instruction is an

effective approach to use when providing for the needs of all students, including those with

special education needs such as students with learning disabilities, gifted and talented students,

and English language learners (M. diStasio, personal communication, January 25, 2014). She

94


also stated that differentiation is a viable approach to closing the achievement gap when teachers

use pre-assessment, formative assessment, and data analysis to drive instruction (diStasio).

Triangulation of data

The quantitative data methods of surveys and test scores and qualitative techniques of

classroom observations and administrator interview journal entries were all triangulated. Data

triangulation involves using different sources of information in order to increase the validity of a

study and allows the researcher to compare answers from different perspectives (Mertler, 2012).

After collecting all the data in this research, triangulation of both the quantitative and qualitative

data were used to explain why certain variables seemed to be a common thread throughout the

data analysis study. Triangulation was also used to determine whether all the data in the

researcher’s study findings pointed to the same conclusions. Triangulation of data in this study

has also strengthened the research findings since the credibility and validity of the data had

increased.

After reviewing the triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher noted

that it was not necessarily the struggling students who made the lowest gains and the brightest

students who made the highest gains in academic achievement. Also, triangulating data enabled

the researcher to consider reasons why some students had progressed while others not.

Triangulation also influenced the researcher’s instructional decision-making to better meet the

needs of students.

95


Overall Results and Findings

The data collected in this study along with its results and findings in answering the first

research question provided anecdotal evidence of student music proficiency growth and

achievement as a result of implementation of differentiated instruction. The CFA data supported

this statement since the treatment groups at Schools #1 and #2 made greater gains in their CFA

test scores between the pre and post-tests than compared to the comparison groups. Furthermore,

the data collected from student and teacher surveys, classroom observations, and administrator

interviews, reflected that students, teachers and administrators alike felt that students achieve

higher in their respective disciplines when instruction is differentiated.

The findings in answering the second research question also suggested that there were

components of differentiated instruction that had greater impact on student achievement than

others. Through the use of quantitative and qualitative data gathering, patterns emerged in

support of the differentiation variables that had a positive relationship to student achievement.

Differentiation strategies of choice and interest in relation to learning styles played a vital role in

achievement and student satisfaction in learning. This was an important finding, because it

helped identify the most effective use of differentiated instruction in Schools’ #1 and #2

classrooms. As a result of these comprehensive findings, the predicted non-directional research

hypothesis as stated in Chapter 3 was therefore accepted.

This chapter discussed research implementation, data analysis designs and

interpretations, survey results, qualitative analysis, and triangulation of data in order to answer

the two research questions. This research paper will conclude with chapter five which will focus

on summary of the findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for further research.

96


Chapter 5

Summary of Findings

This study was designed to determine if differentiated instruction had an impact on

student learning and achievement. The researcher also looked for differentiated instructional

strategies to see that any of these strategies had a greater impact on student achievement than

others. This study examined two middle school classes at School #1 and two high school classes

at School #2. The data revealed that after differentiated instruction was implemented, the

treatment groups’ test scores increased significantly compared to the comparison groups.

Through the use of quantitative and qualitative data gathering, patterns emerged in support of the

differentiation variables that had the most significant effect on student achievement. The

remainder of this chapter will discuss limitations of the study, suggestions for future research,

recommendations, and concluding remarks including the researcher’s future action plans.

Limitations of the Study

The following limitations are inherent in this study that have the greatest impact on the

researcher’s findings. Limitations are the shortcomings, conditions or influences that cannot be

controlled by the researcher that place restrictions on the methodology and conclusions.

Limitations in research can also include lack of adequate information on a particular subject

(Mertler, 2012).

The large class sizes at Schools #1 and #2 effected the researcher’s ability to fully

differentiate instruction and therefore may have limited the findings. The researcher

hypothesized that if classes were small enough to offer closer student-teacher relationships and

greater individualized instruction opportunities the performance of students in the treatment

97


groups would have improved more. Despite these limitations, the results of this study did reflect

statistically significant increases in student achievement and student motivation.

Regarding this study’s validity, it was difficult to discern if the positive change charted in

this study’s pre and post-test was due to differentiated instruction and learning in the classroom

or simply natural maturation. A maturation effect occurs when changes in the dependent

variable over time are due to naturally occurring internal processes, e.g. a child’s cognitive

development or intellectual maturation rather than to the independent variable in a study

(Creighton, 2007). Maturation changes may also occur during a study due to factors associated

with the passing of time rather than the intervention itself. One procedure to detect maturation

effects is to add a control group to the study (Mertler, 2012). For example, if the treatment group

improves the same amount as the control group, then the researcher should not conclude that the

independent variable is causing the change. Instead, the changes may be due to maturation.

Measuring the outcome variable several times before, during, and after an intervention can lessen

the impact of maturation (Creighton).

Another limitation and threat to this study’s validity were testing effects. A testing effect

occurs when being tested in one condition influences responses in later conditions (Mertler,

2012). The most typical example of testing effects is a practice effect, where performance at

post-test is higher than at pre-test simply because the participant is more experienced with the

test. Practice effects can be reduced by using a different form of a test at post-test (Mertler).

The researcher found that the conditions under which the students at Schools #1 and #2 took the

pre-post assessments were not similar. There was a significant disparity in the difficulty between

the pre and post-tests at School #1 compared to School #2. Also, the researcher later found that

students at School #2 took very similar tests during their pre and post-assessments. As a result,

98


the improvement on subsequent post-tests could have been attributed to familiarity with the

questions or the testing format. To overcome this limitation, the cooperating teacher at School

#2 could have ensured the test chosen had multiple (equivalent) forms available for post-testing.

Having a large pool of questions to choose from would have reduced the likelihood that students

received the same questions that appeared in the first test.

A potential internal validity concern with this study were students’ extreme high and low-

end test scores, otherwise known as a ceiling and floor effect. A ceiling effect occurs when

scores are at the high end of the scale. A floor effect is the same phenomenon but with scores

accumulating at the low end (Creighton, 2007). If the baseline is extremely low, then the

positive change could be much greater. Likewise, if the baseline is extremely high, the potential

to change positively is limited since the best score possible has a ceiling of 100. In this study,

the treatment group at School #2 scored so low on their pretest CFA scores that they could only

go up a significant amount; whereas the control group from School #2 scored so high that little

improvement was indicated in their post-test scores. As a result, the extreme individuals in these

groups showed more improvement or less improvement than an average subject.

This research was a study sample of convenience and was conducted over four groups of

study spanning approximately 16 weeks. A convenience sample is a study of subjects taken

from a group that is conveniently accessible to a researcher and not representative of the entire

population (Calhoun, 1994). A disadvantage of this type of sampling is that it may not be an

accurate representation of the population, which can skew results (Calhoun). In this study, an

increased number of treatment and comparison groups might have garnered more accurate

findings. In order to determine the validity of this research, it would have been also helpful to

99


conduct this study in other middle and high schools with demographics different than Schools #1

and #2.

The participants in this study represented a rather narrow range of ethnicity. A larger and

more diverse sample within this study would allow for a broader examination of special

education, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status populations. At the researcher’s student teaching

placement, the researcher was unable to discuss the ways African American or Hispanic students

performed, since they didn’t comprise of at least 25% of the total student sample.

This study and literature review did not provide research information regarding gender

differences and differentiation. It is important to consider gender differences in achievement in

context of other socio-demographic characteristics. Also, it would have been advantageous for

further analysis in determining possible factors that influence gender gaps and achievement.

Future studies may find that differentiation does or does not benefit one gender over the other or

that there are small gender differences in student performance. However, findings in this type of

study may reveal a significant gap in achievement and therefore the need for gender equality in

education.

Another limitation was the lack of prior studies on this research topic. Having the ability

to cite prior research studies would have formed a stronger basis of the researcher’s literature

review and helped lay a foundation for understanding the research problem under investigation.

The literature review in this study also revealed that while much has been written about the

theory behind differentiated instruction, there has been a lack of deep understanding in how to

fully implement it. Many of the books and articles referenced in the literature review lack a

cohesive connection of theory with implementation. Many educators may know and understand

100


the importance of differentiated instruction, but may not know how to apply and use it in their

classrooms. In acknowledging the overall study's limitations, the researcher seized the

opportunity to make suggestions on how to overcome these limitations through future research.

Suggestions for Future Research

It is the researcher’s hope that the findings of this study, including the following

recommendations, will provide a foundation for future studies on the effects of differentiated

instruction on academic achievement in the music classroom. Additional research in the field of

differentiation will also add to the understanding about its impact on learning. The following are

the researcher’s suggestions for further study:

Differentiated instructional strategies offer a variety of avenues for more in-depth

research in the pursuit of effective methods of instruction. Since curriculum compacting, tiered

assignments and activities, and learning contracts strategies were not examined in this research,

the effects of these differentiated instruction variables must also be studied. Measuring the

effectiveness of all differentiated instruction variables as instructional methods will strengthen

the validity of the research where confident conclusions can be drawn. However, measuring the

effectiveness of these differentiation strategies or variables may be difficult because

differentiated instruction involves the use of many strategies at once.

This study might be repeated in several middle and high schools to determine if the

findings of this study have implications in other contexts and environments. Middle and high

school settings, organizational patterns, and instructional pedagogy vary. Therefore, it may be

important to determine if the planning, design, and implementation processes for differentiation

101


in this study have implications in other middle and high schools. The findings from this study

should therefore be tested in these environments.

Also, studies of the differentiated instruction effects at different grade levels should be

conducted to determine if the results are consistent across K-12 grades. A study might be

conducted in the elementary grades to determine whether the effects of differentiation are similar

to those identified from this research at the middle and high school levels.

Longer-term studies should be conducted to determine if greater gains are made when

children have longer-term exposure to the strategies of differentiated instruction. Longer studies

are also necessary to determine whether differentiated instruction consistently yields positive

results across a broad range of targeted groups.

Future research could be conducted to identify the current training programs that are

being offered in other schools and districts. This kind of study could establish the foundation for

a universal differentiated instruction training curriculum, which could be used to better prepare

future educators.

A study might be performed to determine the impact staff development and training in

differentiation has on teachers’ comfort level and implementation of differentiated instruction.

The finding from this research would support whether or not professional development enhances

teachers’ implementing of differentiated instruction or whether there are other reasons for lack of

implementation.

Another study may focus differentiated instruction’s effects on student achievement in

other curriculum areas. While this study provided positive outcomes in answering the two

102


research questions, there is need for further research to determine the extent to which a

differentiated instructional approach is equally successful in other subject domains. An

interesting study would investigate the effects of differentiated instruction on a student’s math,

science and language arts achievement.

A research question may address whether differentiated instruction has the potential in

closing the achievement gap while raising student performance: Does differentiated instruction

result in improved student achievement and the reduction of the achievement gap between

students from high- and low-SES families and among students of different ethnic groups? This

type of research question may launch a study in answering perhaps the most challenging and

perplexing issue confronting American schools.

Another study may focus on research questions relating to demographic diversity: Is

differentiated instruction inclusive of and appropriate for academically, culturally and

linguistically diverse (CLD) learners in content, process, and product? The gap in achievement

between CLD learners and non-CLD students provides the impetus for further research with

special emphasis on theory-to-practice approaches. This type of research may reveal

relationships between issues of student performance on assessments and their ethnic, gender, and

socioeconomic class. It also sets the stage for a closer look at ways in which culturally

responsive pedagogy may serve as a bridge to offer improved teaching practices for CLD

learners in the differentiated classroom.

It would also be very interesting to determine whether effective differentiation provides

all students with the opportunity to improve their academic achievement regardless of their

socioeconomic status (SES). A viable research question may look like this: Can differentiated

103


instruction maximize learning outcomes for all students regardless of their socioeconomic

background? The researcher believes that educators should not assume that underperforming

students always come from disadvantaged families or specific ethnic and SES groups.

Therefore, further research may make a strong case for differentiation in response to an

increasingly demographically diverse student population to include students within varying SES.

Recommendations

Today, teachers are responsible not only for meeting the diverse needs of all students but

also for ensuring improved educational outcomes. To that end, educators need to understand the

components of differentiation in order to design lessons around students’ needs. Differentiated

instruction should be seen as a process, not an instructional strategy itself. Also, Differentiation

must be conceived and practiced as a reflection and extension of educational best practice, not a

substitute for it. Therefore, differentiation variables should not be taught to teachers in isolation

of one another. Rather, differentiation training should allow teachers to see how all components

of differentiation fit together and complement each other into one package.

Implications for Practice

The best teaching practices are those that consider all learners in a classroom setting and

pay close attention to differences inherent to academic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic

diversity (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Differentiation is a framework used to implement the best

practices in teaching and learning that already exist and have been researched to be effective. In

order to differentiate instruction, the teacher must understand and apply best practices to student

learning in the classroom. However, further research on the application of these approaches in

classrooms is needed to further substantiate differentiated instruction’s effectiveness for

104


academically diverse and CLD learners. In implementing school reform efforts to improve

student achievement, reconciliation of best teaching practices and pedagogies are critical in

addressing the needs of students in increasingly diverse schools.

Recommendation to Teachers

Teachers must not expect their classes to learn the same material the same way and reach

identical benchmarks at the same time. Instead, they must foster mastery of key concepts more

than particular facts. In order to differentiate instruction, teachers must emphasize options, such

as multiple texts, group projects, assignments tailored at different levels of complexity, and

assessments that measure student performance with respect to a range of abilities.

In a standards-based climate, teachers may often feel they need to rush through the

material to cover the content. Teachers may be torn between an impetus to cover the standards

and a desire to address the diverse academic needs. However, there should be no contradiction

between effective standards-based instruction and differentiation. Therefore, as teachers teach a

standards-based curriculum, differentiation provides ways in which they can make that

curriculum work best for varied learners. Also, by taking time to assess students’ readiness

levels and interests, teachers will be able to accurately measure their students’ progress toward

learning goals.

The need for assessments. In order to help meet the needs of diverse learners, teachers

must use a combination of pre-assessments, formative and summative assessments to help gain

vital information on student readiness. When teachers are equipped with this important

information they will be able to make informed instructional decisions.

105


The first step to planning a lesson is based on pre-assessment data. Pre-assessments

provide teachers with important information about their students’ starting points prior to lesson

planning (Tomlinson, 1999). Teachers must also rely on frequent formative assessments in order

to follow the students’ progress while measuring student outcomes with summative assessments.

Research shows that this information is invaluable when working with the diverse needs of

learners (Tomlinson et al., 2008).

The need for differentiated instruction staff development. Given the increasing

diversity of learners in schools, differentiation should become the primary focus of teachers’

staff development instruction programs. Teachers must learn more about differentiation while

making plans to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms. Teachers should also

be trained to use instructional strategies that support differentiation based on single instructional

objectives. To that end, teachers should attend comprehensive staff professional development

programs that focus on identifying students’ varied interests, strengths and weaknesses, learning

styles, and academic needs. Teachers should also focus on cultural awareness and sensitivity

while differentiating lessons plans and enrichment programs. Lastly, teachers should also learn

how to provide tasks that involve varying levels of difficulty and incorporate appropriate levels

of challenge to account for individual readiness levels.

Socio-culturally centered teaching. Research strongly suggest that socio-culturally

centered teaching results in improved student achievement (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Teachers

should therefore take responsibility in understanding their students’ culture and community and

the role it has in education. Teachers should change existing curriculum practices as necessary

to incorporate cultural and linguistic diversity within the curriculum for all content areas.

106


Educators of CLD learners should also learn more about special education processes so they are

better equipped to provide best differentiated teaching practices and support for diverse students.

Teachers should collaborate with support staff, including CLD teachers, speech and language

therapists, and special education teachers in support of their differentiated curriculum. To that

end, teachers should ensure that all students’ backgrounds, cultures, languages, preferred ways of

learning, and traditions are represented in their classroom’s curriculum and operations.

Educators can also integrate the cultural content of the learner in shaping an effective and

inclusive learning environment. Teachers should therefore use their students’ language and

culture as resources to draw upon rather than viewing them as barriers to learning. Educators

who are culturally competent invest in understanding the diverse cultures of their students. They

also use that knowledge to build successful partnerships with both children and their parents

(Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

High expectations for students. It is recommended that teachers communicate high

expectations for all students by clearly establishing the criteria for success and high achievement

in advance of the learning experience. Also, it is imperative that all students receive the same

behavior from teachers in terms of quality of interaction. Teachers can ensure that their quality

of interaction are consistent among students by calling on struggling or low-expectancy students

to answer challenging questions as frequently as high-expectancy students (Marzano, 2007).

This approach helps create a culture of high expectations for every student.

Recommendations for Administrators

The researcher believes that it is the administrators’ role to provide on-going support for

their staff by designing comprehensive differentiated instruction professional development plans.

107


Administrators should also ensure that differentiated instruction is embedded in their school’s

mission, goals, and action plans. This comprehensive staff development program should also be

closely monitored and adjusted as needed. Furthermore, differentiated instructional strategies

that have been researched and proven to be effective must be expected in all classrooms. It is

this balance of expectations and support that will bring about instructional improvements for

students.

Leading second-order change toward differentiation. Significant school-level change

is unlikely to occur without effective principal leadership for that change. Administrators should

therefore implement second-order change toward differentiation by integrating it with the

academic curriculum and school mission. First-order change is incremental and does not require

a dramatic departure from the way educational practices exist. Second-order change necessitates

a dramatic departure from the status quo (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Effective leaders for second-

order change operate and motivate from a vision for the change. Visionary administrators should

establish the need for the change toward differentiation while leading teachers to embrace it.

Research and theory on change in schools indicate that second-order change as it relates

to differentiation is profoundly difficult, calling for persistent, sustained leadership and support

for the change (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). Second-order change also asks teachers to alter

beliefs and practices often dramatically while embracing the need for change. Teachers therefore

require support from their administrators in order to be successful in their efforts to meet the

needs of all learners. When all teachers embrace this important work, every student in their

charge will reap the benefits and rewards through increased student learning and achievement.

108


Relationship building. A key role of leaders for significant school change is relationship

building. As is the case with vision, positive relationships motivate and support change.

Therefore, administrative leaders should invest heavily in developing productive relationships

and climate of respect and caring among faculty members. It is also imperative that

administrators ensure that staff members understand the need for the change along with its

expectations while providing administrative support through the process.

Pacing. The scope and pace of change toward differentiation are critical to its outcome.

Administrators should not move too fast and overwhelm their staff, nor move too slow and lose

momentum. To move from vision, relationship building, and pacing to implementation of

differentiation, requires sustained, focused, and flexible professional development.

Professional development recommendations. Since it was found that only 50 percent

of the staff at Schools #1 and #2 were differentiating instruction, the findings in this study

suggest a need for professional development that focuses on educating diverse learners.

Administrators should therefore provide their teachers with administrative support and planning

time to integrate all differentiated instruction strategies effectively in their classrooms.

Staff development is essential to the success of this new initiative, with a significant

amount of time devoted to teacher training. Teachers also require continuous feedback from

their administrators on the effectiveness of differentiated strategies as they are being

implemented in the classroom. Without essential support structures from administrators and the

cooperation of all participants, it is unlikely that any differentiated program will endure.

Administrators should also ensure that their schools have a well-developed and

professional growth plan that reflects a commitment to life-long learning. The greater the

109


change effort towards differentiation, the more extensive support it requires. That implies long-

term presence of information, coaching, feedback, collaboration, guided reflection, and

reassurance.

Assessing the achievement gap. In measuring the achievement gap within all student

demographics, administrators should review State assessment data results disaggregated by

socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. From there, administrators can determine whether the

gaps in achievement between students with differing socioeconomic status and ethnic groups

have narrowed or not. Administrators should seek evidence from data on whether differentiated

approach to instruction has helped close the achievement gap between low and high-end bracket

students and among different ethnic groups.

Conclusion

This research paper commenced with an introduction and segued into a review of the

literature that elaborated on the following areas: the characteristics and major principles of

differentiated instruction, the methods to implement, and the theories and research studies

supporting differentiation. The third chapter described how the study was planned and carried

out while the fourth chapter focused on the data analysis findings. Finally, this fifth chapter

discussed limitations of the study with suggestions for further research, recommendations, and

concluding remarks on the researcher’s action plans.

Researcher’s Future Action Plans

Currently, since the findings of this study have given the researcher strong indications

that differentiated instruction accomplished its purpose in raising student achievement, the

110


courses of action as described in this study will remain the same. The researcher will also

explore methods to make differentiated instruction even more effective. Furthermore, the

researcher will continue to use quantitative and qualitative data to guide instruction.

As the researcher continues to differentiate classroom instruction, pre-assessing student

readiness will drive the researcher’s decisions on what differentiated instruction techniques to

use with students. The researcher realized through his student teacher experience that to

determine students’ understanding of content or skills, he had to pre-assess for those skills

immediately before he taught it. Therefore, the researcher concluded that the most effective

differentiation strategies were based on pre-assessment and ongoing assessment of students’

progress toward key goals.

The researcher’s professional growth and development will be aimed at students’

learning, varying needs, methods of addressing those needs, and student academic outcomes.

Student-focused staff development will assist the researcher in developing the knowledge and

skills to do the following:

1) Develop knowledge about individual learners, including their economic, ethnic and

racial backgrounds, interests, ways of learning, and readiness levels.

2) Connect with students and develop practices in ways that support and motivate

learning.

3) Use assessment data to modify instruction in ways that support student growth and

success.

4) Develop a broad repertoire of instructional strategies to address individual needs and

content requirements.

111


5) Increase understanding of the philosophy, implementation, and application of

differentiated instruction.

Concluding Remarks

Students in today’s schools are becoming more academically diverse. There are more

special education students, more culturally and linguistically diverse learners and a need to

challenge advanced learners. There is also a growing economic gap between segments of the

student population. Furthermore, research shows that there will be a steady increase in Hispanic,

Asian Americans, and African American students in the coming years (Brown, 2007). In

response to this diversity, No Child Left Behind legislation requires that all students achieve,

regardless of ethnicity and socio-economic status. Educators’ past practices have not, however,

fulfilled this requirement (Strauss, 2012). As the findings of this study have revealed, schools

that implement differentiated instruction in response to students’ diverse learning needs see

significant gains in academic achievement. Therefore, differentiated instruction may be the

solution that educators are searching for in allowing all students to succeed academically,

regardless of their diversity.

112


References

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

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurture shock. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.

Brophy, T. S. (2008). Assessment in music education: Integrating curriculum, theory, and

practice. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications, Inc.

Brown, M. (2012). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms,

and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 57-62.

Burnsed, C. V. (1999). The classroom teacher’s guide to music education. Springfield, IL:

Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, LTD.

Calhoun, E. F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student

learning: Doing it right - using it well. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Creighton, T. B. (2007). Schools and data: The educator’s guide for using data to improve

decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Debrot, R. A. (2002). Spotlight on making music with special learners: Differentiating

instruction in the music classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Frankel, J. (2006). Facilitating differentiated instruction with technology. Retrieved from

www.jamesfrankel.com/tempomarch2006.htm

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

113


Grant, G., & Lerer, A. (2011). Revisiting the traditional classroom band model: A

differentiated perspective. Canadian Music Educators’ Association, 24-27.

Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-based

classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gunning, T. G. (2012). Building literacy in secondary content area classrooms. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Jagow, S. (2007). Developing the complete band program. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music

Publications.

Mark, M. L., & Madura, P. (2010). Music education in your hands: An introduction for future

teachers. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Mertler, C. A. (2012). Action Research: Improving schools and empowering educators.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Mertler, C. A. (2002). Using standardized test data to guide instruction and intervention. Eric

Digest, 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/standardized-test.html

Mokhtari, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Edwards, P. A., (2007). Making instructional decisions based

on data: What, how, and why. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 354–359.

doi: 10.1598/RT.61.4.10

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/standardized-test.html

114


Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction. Landham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Piaget

rediscovered (pp. 19-27). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Scruggs, B. (2009). Constructivist practices to increase student engagement in the orchestra

classroom. Music Educators Journal, 95, 53-59. doi: 10.1177/0027432109335468

Standerfer, S. L. (2011). Differentiation in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 97,

43-47. doi: 10.1177/0027432111404078

Strauss, V. (2012, January 7). A decade of no child left behind: Lessons from a policy failure.

The Washington Post, pp. A12.

Swope, C. M. (1986). Individualized resource book for general music classes. Portland, Maine:

J. Weston Walch, Publisher.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

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

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

115


Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole

(Eds.), Mind & Society (pp. 32-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yee, V. (2013, June 10). Grouping students by ability regains favor in classroom. The New

York Times, pp. A2.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.

Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-14.

116


Appendix A

Principal Assent Form

I. Research Background (to be completed by researcher)

Title of the Study: How will differentiated instruction affect student learning?

Name of Researcher: Michael Woods Phone: (719) 622-1612

Street address: 4220 Saddle Rock Road. City: Colorado Springs: CO Zip: 80918

E-mail: [email protected]

II. Description of Research Proposal

The purpose of this research is to see how differentiated instruction affects student learning. The

researcher will use small group instruction and student interest projects to answer the main

research question. Students will complete pre-tests, post-test and surveys during the course of

the research. The researcher will record observations and conversations in a daily journal. The

researcher will also provide the principal with a copy of the executive summary.

III. Agreement (to be completed by principal)

I, ___________________________, principal of _______________________school, understand

ol,

the study and up to three years after the completion of the study.

ssion to the researcher to conduct the above named research in my school as

described in the proposal.

school as described in the proposal.

d that data should be released only by the departments that own them. My staff and

I shall not release data to the researcher without approval from the IRB.

_______________________ _____________

Signature of Principal Date

117


Appendix B

Parent/Guardian Research Consent Form

How Will Differentiated Instruction Affect Student Learning

Invitation to participate: Your child is invited to participate in a study of differentiated

instruction to see how it will affect student learning. This study is being conducted by Michael

Woods, music student teacher at Widefield High School, and a graduate student at Colorado

College. Mr. Duren, principal of Widefield High School, has approved this research study.

Basis for Subject Selection: Your child has been selected because he/she is in Mr. Colgrove’s

band class. This class was chosen based on a random selection process. If everyone agrees to

participate, there will be thirty five students who will meet the criteria for the study.

Overall Purpose of Study: The purpose of this research is to help me and possibly other music

teachers improve teaching strategies to benefit the students. The main goal of this study is to see

how differentiated instruction, specifically small group instruction, will affect student learning

and academic achievement.

Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to allow your child to participate, your child will be

asked to do the following:

1. You will take a unit completion survey to gather student responses about the differentiated

instruction. The identity of all participants will remain confidential. Students will not be

identified in the research report. All research and observations will be done in the classroom.

The implementations will span approximately 5 weeks, from January 2014 to February 2014.

Potential Benefits: Each participant will receive more individual and small group instruction.

Students will also participate in the development of a project based on individual interests,

hopefully, leading to ownership of education.

Alternatives to Participation: If you decide to not allow your child to participate, he/she will

still work on the same material. However, any teacher observations or student responses to

survey questions will not be included in the research report.

Assurance of Confidentiality: The identity of all participants and their data will remain

confidential and stored in a locked file cabinet or on a password-protected computer. Any data

collected will not be linked to the participants or the school district in any way. Following the

study and completion of my master’s degree, all data will be destroyed.

118


Withdrawal from the Study: Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or

not to allow your child to participate will not affect his/her grade. If you decide to allow your

child’s participation in the study, you are free to withdraw your consent at any time by

contacting Mr. Woods and your participation will be discontinued.

You are free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you have questions, you can

contact Michael Woods at (719) 641- 9977 or [email protected]. This project has

been approved by Colorado College (CC) Institutional Review Board. If you have questions

about the rights of research subjects, contact the Chairperson of the CC Institutional Review

Board (IRB), Mike Taber at [email protected].

Guardian Consent: You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to allow your

child or legal ward to participate. You signature indicates that, having read and

understood the information provided above, you have decided to permit your child or legal

ward to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

_______________________________ Participant (please print student name)

_______________________________ __________ Signature of Parent or Guardian Date

_______________________________ __________

119


Appendix C

120


Appendix D

The WHS Evaluation of Teaching Scale Teacher: __________________________________ Subject: __________________________________ Year Level: __________________________________

Please indicate the extent of your disagreement/agreement with the following statements by using the following scale:

STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY NOT AGREE DISAGREE SURE

1 2 3 4 5 ______________________________________________________________________________

This Teacher… 1. is committed to the learning of all the students in the class. 1 2 3 4 5 2. adjusts the lesson if we experience difficulties in learning. 1 2 3 4 5 3. enables us to develop confidence and self-esteem in this subject 1 2 3 4 5 4. creates a safe, positive, and non-threatening learning. 1 2 3 4 5 5. provides time of us to reflect and talk about the concepts that we 1 2 3 4 5 are learning through Noggin Warmer exercises. 6. tells us what the purpose of the subject is. 1 2 3 4 5 7. challenges students to think through and solve problems, either 1 2 3 4 5 by themselves or together as a group. 8. makes this subject interesting and stimulating for me. 1 2 3 4 5

121


9. discussed that students have different ways of learning music 1 2 3 4 5 10. offers individualized (private) instruction 1 2 3 4 5 11. allows for small group sectionals on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5 12. has a strong impact on student learning 1 2 3 4 5 and achievement. 13. varies the pace of learning for various learning needs. 1 2 3 4 5 14. shows a passion for teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 15. is thoroughly familiar with the content. 1 2 3 4 5 16. appropriately challenges the students. 1 2 3 4 5 17. sets high expectations for students. 1 2 3 4 5 18. posts learning intention statements and previews material 1 2 3 4 5 at the beginning of class. 19. clearly communicates what students are to learn, understand 1 2 3 4 5 and be able to do. 20. adapts content to all levels of student proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 21. monitors student progress regularly. 1 2 3 4 5 22. differentiates instruction; that is, varies instruction to meet 1 2 3 4 5 students’ learning needs. 23. regularly checks for student understanding 1 2 3 4 5 24. has a positive relationship with students 1 2 3 4 5 25. cares for the well-being of the class as a whole as well as each 1 2 3 4 5 individual student 26. asks the class and individual students how they learn best 1 2 3 4 5 27. provides students with choices in music and/or class assignments 1 2 3 4 5

122


Appendix E

Student Survey Excel Spreadsheet

*SA-Strongly Agree A- Agree D- Disagree SD- Strongly Disagree NS- Not Sure

123


Appendix F

124


Appendix G

Administrator Interview Questions

Do you feel that teachers at WHS are utilizing Differentiated Instruction to help meet the needs of the

diverse learners in their classroom?

What specific evidence do you see in the classrooms that show that instruction is being differentiated?

What can you do if there is a lack of differentiation?

From analyzing student assessment data from all kindergarten and first grade classrooms, do you see a

direct correlation between student achievement levels and the type of instruction being delivered? How

and where is it apparent?

Does the work of differentiated instruction impact student CFA scores?

What does your data analysis tell you about the learning occurring at WHS?

125


Appendix H

Effect Sizes

School #1 Treatment Group

A B C

Student September Test January Test

Student 02 40 35

Student 03 25 30

Student 04 45 50

Student 05 30 40

Student 06 35 45

Student 07 60 70

Student 08 65 75

Student 09 70 80

Student 10 50 75

Student 11 55 85

Etc.

Average (Mean) 72 = AVERAGE(B2:B53) 77.3 = AVERAGE(C2:C63)

Spread (sd) 12 = STDEV(B2:B11) 6 = STDEV(C2:C11)

Average of spread 9 = AVERAGE(B14:C14)

Effect size 0.6 = (C13-B13)/C15

126


School #1 treatment group calculations:

Effect Size = 77.3 - 72

______ = 0.60

9

School #1 Comparison Group

A B C

Student September Test January Test

Student 02 40 35

Student 03 25 30

Student 04 45 50

Student 05 30 40

Student 06 35 45

Student 07 60 70

Student 08 65 75

Student 09 70 80

Student 10 50 75

Student 11 55 85

Etc.

Average (Mean) 73.4 = AVERAGE(B2:B63) 81.8 = AVERAGE(C2:C61)

Spread (sd) 16 = STDEV(B2:B11) 17 = STDEV(C2:C11)

Average of spread 16 = AVERAGE(B14:C14)

Effect size -0.5 = (C13-B13)/C15

School #1 control group calculations:

Effect Size = 73.4 – 81.8

______ = -0.05

16

127


Appendix I

Documents

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM