Action Research Update #4

Action Research Update #4!

During the month of March, I made the following progress on my action research. One development I made with my action research is that I was able to collect the data and consent forms from my action research participants. The first part of March, I asked that anyone who participated or was planning to participate in my in my study to please partake in the research by the end of the first week in March. Overall, I was able to get nine research participants to partake in my study. I was very happy that nine high school teachers completed my survey and two high school teachers took part in my interview. Although this data size is fairly small, I believe the information I received provided me with a lot of information I needed to help me find patterns and themes about the differentiated classroom.

After I collected the data and consent forms, I spent a lot of time reading through, analyzing, comparing and developing charts that match the data. Before long, I started to see patterns and arrange my data into different sections. For instance, from my survey results, I divided my findings into responses that dealt with the six Colorado Quality Teaching Standards, responses that dealt with the content, process and product of differentiation, overall perceptions and understandings of differentiation, and the effectiveness and efficiency of differentiation.

Another development that I made with my action research was that I started to develop my DSIL website diagram that helped me organized my DSIL website. The DSIL diagram helped me imagine how I was going to explain my action research and where I was going to place the information on my website. I decided to place my action research and action research findings in the second to last link on my website because I wanted my results to have a lasting impression on my website viewers. My action research page includes my problem statement, my research purpose, my research questions, supporting literature quotes. In addition, from the data I received I was able to start putting my methodology research section into words. For instance, during this month, I included a section on my DSIL website about the participant demographics, the instruments I used to collect the data. My action research findings page includes my survey results, my interview results along with an analysis and discussion of the study.

Article #9

Article #9

“Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy”

Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T

According to Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T. (2014), authors of Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy, "differentiation makes sense because it offers different paths to understanding content, process, and products, considering what is appropriate given a child's strengths, interests, and style" (pg. 111). 

Dixon et al. (2014), begin their article with an overview of the education system and how it has changed and renewed over the years. For instance, examples that have altered classroom setting consists of Common Core State Standards, tall expectations and responsibility for all students, standards-based schoolrooms, multicultural diversity, acknowledgment of a number of intellects varied and educational approaches, along with swift societal and technological alterations (pg. 112). Overtime educators have realized that “what works for some students will not work for other students” (pg. 112).

After introducing the article, Dixon et al. (2014), discuss their review of recent literature about differentiating instruction and how it connects to teacher education programs, professional development as well as teacher efficacy.

Dixon et al. (2014), start by looking at material focusing on differentiating instruction in mixed-ability classes (pg. 112).  From their literature review, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that to differentiate instruction teachers must identify students’ differing “background knowledge, readiness, language, and preferences in learning and interests” (pg. 113). Next, the authors explain that teachers need to utilize their understanding of students to plan “content dimensions, process dimensions, and product dimensions” (pg. 113).

In addition, the authors state that in order for teachers to effectively teach a mixed ability classroom, teachers need to modify their instruction for students of differing skills in the same course with the commitment to enhance every student’s development and personal achievement by working with every student to find their strengths and weaknesses and helping them throughout the various educational stages (pg. 113).

Dixon et al. (2014) maintain that differentiation is a philosophy or an approach of thinking about instructing and educating instead of just an individual teaching technique (pg. 113). Dixon et al. (2014) believe differentiation should be focused on the student and should be meant to “serve levels of understanding within each concept taught” (pg. 113). Dixon et al. (2014), explain that the main objective of differentiation is guaranteeing that teachers center on processes and procedures that offer successful learning for a diverse group of individuals (pg. 114).

Once Dixon et al. (2014), discuss differentiating instruction in mixed-ability classes the authors then move to discussing their literature review of professional development in differentiation (pg. 114). From their literature reviews, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that in order for teachers to become adequate at differentiation, schools need to provide professional development opportunities for their educators (pg. 114). Dixon et al. (2014), state that instructors need to be on the same page regarding differentiation and teachers need to practice differentiation techniques on a frequent basis (pg. 114).

Dixon et al. (2014), maintain that professional development needs to introduce teachers to differentiation and also permit instructors to work on differentiation techniques in a workshop atmosphere where the instructional trainers can help teachers compose and reflect on their individual lessons, and also convince teachers of future accomplishments in the classroom (pg. 114). Dixon et al. (2014), believe that permitting instructors to observe other teachers differentiate plans, offering comments to one another once the observation is complete, and allotting time for teachers to work together on collective plans offer strengthening for actually teaching what teachers have learned about differentiation (pg. 115).

After talking about professional development in differentiation, Dixon et al. (2014), highlight the importance of teacher efficacy based on their literature review (pg. 115). According to Dixon et al. (2014), “teacher self-efficacy is defined as beliefs that are related to the effort teachers invest in teaching, the goals they set, their persistence when things do not go smoothly, and their resilience in the face of setbacks” (pg. 115). Dealing with teaching concerns and having the ability to not be overwhelmed by uncertainties are essential assets for every teacher to possess (pg. 116). Dixon et al. (2014) maintain that realizing ways to instruct to various skill levels is a difficulty instructors can surpass, particularly if teachers have a strong belief in their individual talents along with their teaching skills (pg. 116).

After discussing differentiating instruction, professional development and teacher efficacy, Dixon et al. (2014), explain that the purpose of their study is to explore the connection among “differentiated instruction and teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs” (pg. 116). After explaining the purpose of their study, the authors present two research questions. Research question one asks, “Do teachers who express higher teacher efficacy differentiate instruction more in their classrooms than teachers who feel less efficacious?” (pg.117). After posing this research question Dixon et al. (2014), hypothesized that “greater teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs would be associated with greater levels of differentiating instruction in their classrooms” (pg. 117). Research question two asks, “Does professional development in differentiation relate to teacher efficacy? (pg. 117). After asking this research question Dixon et al. (2014), hypothesized that “greater professional development in differentiation would be associated with greater levels of teacher efficacy and sense of self-efficacy beliefs” (pg. 117).

Once Dixon et al. (2014), explain their research questions and hypotheses, the authors move to the methods section. During the methods section, the authors explain that four schools from two districts took part in this study. District one is set in a high socioeconomic status setting made up of white collared workers. District two is positioned in an industrial city made up of blue collared workers (pg. 117). The researchers visited each school two times. During the initial visit to the schools, the researchers asked every school educator to complete a demographic questionnaire along with an instructional strategy questionnaire and a teacher efficacy questionnaire (pg. 117). During the second school visit, educators were asked to reply to a ten item questionnaire that centered on differentiation in education (pg. 117).

While at the schools, Dixon et al. (2014), asked 45 school teachers to take part in their research. Of the 45 teachers asked to participate, 41 teachers agreed to participate. Of the 45 participants, 34 teachers were female and 7 teachers were male. In addition, of the 41 teachers, 18 teachers taught in the elementary setting, 13 teachers taught in the middle school setting and 10 teachers taught in the high school setting. All but two teachers taught core classes.

After Dixon et al. (2014) explained their participants, they then move on to explaining the research instruments they used to conduct the study. The first questionnaire focused on questions asking participants about their instructional strategies (pg. 118). The second questionnaire focused on questions regarding efficacy and teaching efficacy (pg. 118).  Both questionnaires used a Likert-type reply approach and allowed participants to choose from a number of choices. The response choices ranged from “none at all to a great deal for each item” for the first questionnaire to “strongly agree to strongly disagree” for the second questionnaire (pg. 118). During the second school visit, participants replied to a 10-question questionnaire that centered on differentiation in instruction (pg. 119).

Dixon et al. (2014) explained that they used a number of methods to analyze the results. For instance, to answer their research questions, the authors conducted a predictive discriminant analysis with the TSES and TES scales. To analyze personal efficacy and teaching efficacy, student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategy, the authors used a predictive discriminant analysis. The authors also explained that they utilized a simple linear regression with TSES when predicting differentiation (pg. 120). In addition, the authors explained that they utilized a stepwise multiple regression to analyze personal efficacy, teaching efficacy, student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategy to predict differentiation (pg. 120).

Once Dixon et al. (2014) discussed how they analyzed the data, the authors then focused on the results of the study. From the results, Dixon et al. (2014) explained the following. Regarding professional development, the outcomes illustrated that more “professional development in differentiation was positively associated with both teacher sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy” (pg. 121). In addition, the results showed that more “professional development in differentiation was positively associated with both Personal and Teaching Efficacy” (pg. 121).

Regarding efficacy, the data illustrated that “both teacher sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy were positively associated with differentiation” (pg. 121). In addition, the results showed that only “Personal Efficacy significantly predicted differentiation” (pg. 122). Regarding instructional strategy, the data illustrated that “only Instructional Strategy significantly predicted differentiation” (pg. 122).

After explaining the results, Dixon et al. (2014), then moved to the discussion section of the paper. During the discussion, the authors suggested that based on their findings, teacher education programs ought to deliver training highlights the philosophy about differentiation along with the progression of differentiated instruction so that new instructors can go into teaching prepared to account for a variety of learners (pg. 122). In addition, the authors explain that professional development is just as significant to effective differentiation since professional development gives insight into how to differentiation and why differentiation is essential in 21^st century classrooms (pg. 122).

Dixon et al. (2014) explained that they found that “teachers who had more professional development in differentiation, regardless of school, felt more efficacious in differentiating instruction in their classes”(pg. 123). From their study, the researchers also found that extra professional development time forecast added efficacy (pg. 123).

The authors explained that their “data revealed that grade level and discipline taught did not matter in how efficacious a teacher felt in implementing differentiation, but professional development did” (pg. 123). As a result, teachers who had extra training in differentiation had extra efficacy beliefs that they could really incorporate these strategies in their classrooms. Dixon et al. (2014) also explained that their data illustrated that “both sense of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy were associated with differentiation” (pg. 123).

During the discussion section, Dixon et al. (2014), also highlighted the answers to their research questions and hypotheses and explained that their research established their “beliefs that differentiation is associated with greater efficacy beliefs” (pg. 125). In addition, the research illustrated that their “belief that more professional development in differentiation is associated with greater levels of teacher efficacy and sense of efficacy beliefs” (pg. 125).

After discussing the study and results, Dixon et al. (2014), then provided the limitations of the research. One limitation of the research was that their sample size only came from four schools in two different school districts. The authors explained that another limitation of the study was that data were self-reported and they had to trust data was reported "truthfully and adequately" (pg. 125). An additional limitation of the research the authors highlighted was that "there were no data that actually indicate the precise formula for what works best in increasing teacher behaviors according to professional development” (pg. 125). In addition to explaining the research limitations, the authors also explained that additional research is essential to build upon what is known about differentiated instruction (pg. 125).

Once Dixon et al. (2014) provided the research limitations, the authors then moved to the conclusion. During the conclusion, Dixon et al. (2014) state that “when teachers are efficacious in their beliefs about their ability to teach students effectively, they are more likely to differentiate” (pg. 125). In addition, Dixon et al. (2014) specified that differentiation is a reasonable and useful method to meet students’ educational requirements in a diverse educational setting, and that differentiation is supportive in helping educators meet their educational goals (pg. 125). Dixon et al. (2014) end their article by saying that they believe their study illustrates that “teacher efficacy and professional development were important to teachers in the process of differentiating instruction” (pg. 125).

Reflection

After reading and analyzing this article by Dixon et al. (2014), I was very impressed by how organized the article was constructed. The authors did a great job at providing a number of headings and sub headings to highlight important parts of the research. For instance, the authors separated the article into sections that contained the literature reviews, the methods, the results, the discussion, the limitation and the conclusion. Each of these sections was also divided into smaller sub sections as well.

In addition to doing a great job at organizing the article, Dixon also did a great job of clearly identifying their two research questions along with providing hypotheses to each question. I also think the authors did a great job at referring back to their research questions during the discussion section of the article. Out of all of the articles I have reviewed the past year, I believe this is the only article that clearly stated if their hypotheses were correct.

One area I would think the authors could have enhanced was the analysis section. Dixon et al. (2014), did a nice job at providing a detailed analysis section, however, this section contained a number of research acronyms and information that was difficult to understand.

Finally, I liked that Dixon et al. (2014), focused not only on differentiated instruction, but also on professional development and teacher efficacy. By focusing on these three areas, the authors were able to make a correlation that I have not come across during previous literature reviews on differentiated instruction.

Reference

Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 37(2). pg. 111-127. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0162353214529042

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

Action Research Update #3

Action Research Update #3!

During the month of February, I made the subsequent development on my action research. One area of the action research that I made a lot of progress on was getting prospective participants to participate in my study. Around the first week or so of February, I emailed twenty-five high school teachers including math, science, social studies, and language arts from various schools in Colorado. I checked my email and my online survey on a daily basis to see if anyone had taken the time to respond to my survey. After a week, I began to become a little anxious because only two people had responded to my survey. After the first week I emailed another twenty-five high school teachers including consumer family studies, music, art, and foreign languages teachers. Before long, teachers from different schools and different content areas began filling out my surveys and providing me with their signed informed consent forms.  From the information provided, I was able to start to discover patters and themes forming from the research I developed. In addition, I was also able to get one person to respond to my interview questionnaire.

After around three weeks, I resent a final email reminder to each potential action research participant. To make sure I did not resend an email to teachers who already participated in my study, I created a list of names that would remind me not to contact these teachers again. I keep this list in a secure location to ensure no one’s names will be seen by anyone but myself. In the reminder email, I stated a lot of the same information I stated in the first email. I reminded participants, who I was, the purpose of the research, and that their principal had agreed to allow them to take part in the research. I also made the research concluding date very evident so potential participants would be aware how much time they had to participate in the research.
            In addition, to the progress I made with my action research, I also read and reviewed another article. The literature I reviewed this month is entitled Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: the Teachers’ Perspective, by Stavrou and Koutselini. This article considers differentiation from educator’s viewpoints and highlights the many challenges and successes teachers had when trying to differentiate. In the future, I am planning to review an article by  Dixon, F, Yssel, N, McConnell, J, & Hardin, T (2014), Differentiated Instruction, Professional Development and Teacher Efficacy.

Article #8

Article #8

“Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective”

By Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini

The following article entitled Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective, by Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini (2016), looks at differentiation through the educator’s viewpoint.

Stavrou and Koutselini begin their article with an introduction. During the introduction the authors explain that they believe that differentiation is not simply a teaching approach; instead differentiation can be a novel way of reflecting on education and instruction (pg. 2583). Stavrou and Koutselini (2016) ask “what is the best way of training and retraining teachers, so as to achieve conceptual change, which will then motivate them to engage consciously in the diversification of teaching techniques, as well as the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills required in their application?” (pg. 2582). In order to answer this question, the authors along with other researchers believe research needs to look at “how teachers understand, engage with and respond to diversity in their classrooms” (pg. 2582).

Based on research regarding differentiation in the classroom, Stavrou and Koutselini developed the following three research questions.  Question one asks, “What are the problems/challenges teachers facing in their effort to design and implement differentiated lessons in their class and how do they handle them in order to successfully teach in mixed ability classes?” Question two asks, “What is the effect of teachers’ active involvement in action research in their training and further professional development?” Question three asks, “To what extent can differentiated instruction and learning contribute to the improvement of students’ learning skills?” (pg. 2582).

After introducing their study and providing the reader with their research questions, Stavrou and Koutselini move to their methodology section. The authors explain that two teachers contributed in the action research. One teacher was a veteran teacher who taught over 21 years. The other teacher taught 10 years and earned a Master’s Degree in Special Education. The study consisted of a control group and an experimental group. The control group, which did not have any differentiated instruction, was made up of 81 students from four classes who were around 15 years old. The experimental group, which experienced differentiated instruction, consisted of 82 students from four classes who were also 15 years old. Both groups took pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

The authors explain that qualitative and quantitative obtained from the research data were utilized to look for “special learning conditions in classes and for a thorough analysis of the phenomena” (pg. 2582). Qualitative information consisted results from teachers’ lesson plans, teachers’ journals, student teacher interviews and classroom observations (pg. 2582). Quantitative information consisted results from pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

After explaining the methodology section, the Stavrou and Koutselini then discussed the results. According to the analyzed data, teachers faced a number of challenges regarding differentiation. One difficulty was “the lack of a structured curriculum based on prerequisites, substantive and transformational knowledge and skills which can function together in every class and from class to class” (pg. 2583). Another challenge was the “teachers’ inability to sufficiently ascertain their students’ readiness even though they had studied the results of the pretest” (pg. 2583). Teachers also had a difficult time “designing appropriate activities in order to address students’ readiness, interests, learning style and incentives” (pg. 2583). In addition, “teachers’ had fear and uncertainty about their ability to successfully differentiate their lessons” (pg. 2583).

In order to surpass the challenges, teachers looked for solutions and tried to solve their differentiation issues. One way teachers worked to overcome their difficulties was to choose an assortment of different material that matched the students’ interests and readiness levels (pg. 2584). Another way teachers tried dot overcome their difficulties was that teachers taught various reading techniques and tried to improve metacognitive abilities (pg. 2584). In addition, to surpass their differentiation issues, teachers developed a plethora of different activities that focused on the students interests.  Examples of activities were having students develop speeches to use for a debate and to compose articles in a magazine (pg. 2584). Additionally, to combat their concerns with differentiation, teachers promoted a “non-competitive class” environment that allowed for students to understand how to work in groups and teams. Furthermore, teachers worked on helping students improve their cooperation skills by working on active listening skills and being aware of others viewpoints (pg. 2584).

After discussing ways teachers tried to solve their differentiation issues, Stavrou and Koutselini then discuss the contributions of teaching on learning. The authors believe that the strong interaction of instructors during the action research and the way instructors responded to students’ variances played a big part in the success teachers had with their instruction (pg. 2584). Prior to teachers getting involved in the action research about differentiation, students felt like the way teachers presented information was “useless” and students believed the way teachers presented the information either on the blackboard or in their notebooks was challenging to get through. However, once teachers focused on differentiating lessons, the significance of education changed for the students (pg. 2585).

Once teachers differentiated, students felt like the skills and techniques teachers used were actually “useful and permanent knowledge” (pg. 2585). In addition, students felt like the resources that were implemented during instruction were stimulating. According to the students in the study, differentiation made the educational setting imaginative and an environment of “acceptance, encouragement and the expression of personal interest” (pg. 2585). Students believed that this type of educational setting allowed them to work alongside their peers, to communicate, to discuss their viewpoints and talk about their differences. The authors explain that this educational setting inspired the all types of students to learn efficiently and effectively (pg. 2585).

After discussing the results, Shavrou and Koutselini then focus on the conclusion. During the conclusion, the authors summarize the article and reiterate the importance of differentiation.  Shavrou and Koutselini believe that differentiation provides teachers with many benefits. The authors explain that when teachers are able to change from theory to practice, they can obtain abilities that permit them to create and utilize differentiated lessons and feel self-assured and excited about their students’ achievements (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini believe that the data on student’s performance from the study illustrates how effective the teachers were with their differentiated instruction (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini end by saying that “it is obvious that learning is the outcome of quality teaching which is not based on what the teachers do, but on how and on what students are working on and how they feel” (pg. 2586).

Reflection

After reviewing Shavrou’s and Koutselini’s article, I feel as though this article was very informative. I liked that Shavrou and Koutselini considered differentiation from both the teacher’s perspective as well as the student’s perspective. I also liked that the authors explained that differentiation in not easy and that many teachers including the teachers in the study faced numerous difficulties when trying to differentiation. I also liked that instead of being discouraged by differentiation difficulties, the article explained that teachers actually attempted to solve their differentiation concerns.

I feel as though Shavrou and Koutselini did a great job at explaining what elements made up the qualitative data and how the qualitative data was analyzed. However, I think the authors could have improved upon explaining in greater depth how the quantitative data was utilized and analyzed.

Although the authors did use various heading throughout the article such as the introduction, methodology, results conclusion, I do feel like the article would have been a little more clear if the information was divided into more sections.

Finally, I believe  Shavrou did a very nice job with their concluding section of the study because they added a summary of the entire article which helped me the reader get a clearer understanding of the purpose and findings of the study.

Reference

Stavrou, T., & Koutselini, M. (2016). Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers Perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(11) pg. 2581-2588. Retrieved from http://www.hrpub.org/download/20161030/UJER11-19507726.pdf

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

Action Research Update #2

Action Research Update #2!

During the month of January, I made the following progress on my action research. One part of the action research I conducted was that I contacted the school principals who agreed to be part of my action research during the fall semester of 2016. After initially reaching out to the principals, we then worked together to discuss my action research procedure. I informed the principals that I needed around five to ten participants from each school to participate in my study. During a scheduled faculty meeting, school principals briefly spoke to their staff members about the action research opportunity. After informing faculty of my action research, few faculty members from each school expressed interest in participating in my study.

Once I heard that teachers were interested in my study, I contacted the school principals again to inform them of the consent form process. Since some of the schools I am conducting my research at are a long distance from my location, I asked the principals if it would it be okay if I mailed hard copies of the consent forms to their school offices. I explained that if faculty members are interested in partaking in the study they could easily obtain a consent form from the office, sign the consent form and place it back in the folder in the school office. I would provide postage, a return address and an extra envelope. When the research deadline approaches I explained that I would simply need the school to mail the envelope containing the signed consent forms back to me. I believe mailing the hard copies of the consent forms would make it easier for the school faculty because they would not have to print the consent forms, then sign, then scan, then upload the signed forms and then email them back to me.

After I discovered the schools received the consent forms, I then started to gather prospective participant’s emails. Once I obtained the emails, I sent the participants a link to my survey that I created on Google Forms from my Western State email account.

On the survey, the first question I asked participants to answer was to include their name so I could match the name on the survey with the name on the signed consent form. I informed participants that their name and information would be kept confidential. I will continue to update the progress of my action research throughout the semester!

Article #7

Article #7

“The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges”

By Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L.

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013), authors of The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges begin their research by discussing the “impact of using a differentiated instructional approach to teaching second year students pursuing an undergraduate course in curriculum studies at a tertiary institution” (pg. 28). Joseph et al. (2013), divides their research into nine sections. The first section is the introduction section. In this section, Joseph et al. (2013) imply that the latest research indicates that although graduates from teacher education programs typically understand the notion of differentiated instruction, new teachers usually have a hard time incorporating process, content, and product differentiation in their classrooms (pg. 28). After discussing the difficulties of incorporating differentiation techniques in the classroom, Joseph et al. (2013), explain the chief components of differentiated instruction. Joseph et al. (2013), believe that student readiness, student interest, student learning profile, content differentiation, process differentiation, product differentiation, modelling differentiation are all key traits to develop a differentiated classroom (pg. 30).

Once the authors explain the introduction Joseph et al. (2013) then move to section two and explain the purpose of the study (pg. 31). The objective of the research was to understand the relationship between student achievement in a sophomore year undergraduate curriculum studies class and the utilization of differentiated instruction during a sixteen week semester (pg. 31). Section two also includes the three research questions that are the foundation of their research. Research question one asks, "What are the successes and challenges associated with the implementation of differentiated instruction at the tertiary level?" Research question two asks, "What is the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement in curriculum studies over a period of one semester?" Research Question three asks, "What are prospective teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction and its potential impact on their classroom practice?" (pg. 31).

After discussing the purpose of the study Joseph et al. (2013), move to section three, which explains the course overview (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013), explain that the curriculum studies class in the study is a required general education course for every student trying to earn their bachelor of education degree. The objective of the class is to help students think about important questions surrounding education such as “what should be taught, and who decides what should be taught?” (pg. 31).

Implementing differentiated instruction in a teacher education setting is the fourth section Joseph et al. (2013) discusses (pg. 31).  Joseph et al. (2013) believe that although differentiated instruction is becoming more widespread in many K-12 schools internationally, there has not been much research conducted about teaching differentiation to undergraduate education students (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013) believe differentiation instruction could be considered a novel method to utilize in the college setting (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013), provide a table chart that offers an explanation of the different strategies researchers of this study implemented to showcase differentiated content (topic), process (activities), and product (assessment) in a teacher education environment (pg. 31).

Section five looks at the methodology of the study (pg. 32). The researchers used a varied research technique that included the utilization of classroom observations, questionnaires, student and teacher interviews, focus group discussions, students’ semester grades, and student reflections, to collect the relevant data from undergraduate students trying to earn their a bachelor of education degree. The entire population of the study consisted of four instructors along with 434 undergraduates from two teacher program campuses (pg. 32). In order to analyze the data, Joseph et al. (2013) arranged and organized the information to find patters and themes (pg. 33). Joseph et al. (2013) provide information about the students by using a table. The table illustrates that 81% of the students are female, 88% have 0-4 year of teaching experience, 43% are primary educators, 49% of students like to work in groups and 53% of students say they are visual learners.

After explaining the methodology section, Joseph et al. (2013) then move to section six, which includes the results and discussion (pg. 34). During this section, Joseph et al. (2013) include the experiences of the four instructors. For instance, teacher 1 named Stephen said the following about differentiated instruction, “after several years of teaching curriculum studies, the decision to differentiate instruction came as a breath of fresh air as it provided greater opportunities for me to meet the varying needs of learners in my class" (pg. 34). Teacher 2 named Marlene agreed with teacher 1 Stephen about differentiation when she said, "from an instructor’s point of view, the practice of differentiation is an excellent strategy” (pg. 34). However, Marlene did say that” the “process differentiation is very time consuming as it requires careful planning; and while differentiating product has many advantages for the learner, a considerable amount of time must also be spent constructing a rubric to assess students with diverse interests and learning preferences" (pg. 35).

Teacher 3 named Gerard said, "from my observation, differentiated instruction allowed for building relationships of sharing, trust and cooperation, which are vital in creating an effective learning community" (pg. 35). Teacher 4 named Leela felt like differentiated instruction was very useful because it “allows for critical and creative thinking. Students displayed their creativity through creative dramatic presentations, skits, and dance. The different modes of presentations included poems, songs, talk shows, drawings, charts and demonstrations which provided variation. These varied strategies readily appealed to different learning profiles and proved to be very effective" (pg. 36).

In addition, the researchers explained the success and challenges they came across during the time they were working with students using a differentiated classroom approach. One success of the differentiated classroom setting was an “increase student motivation in approaching academic tasks” (pg. 36). Another success of the differentiated environment was the” improved study habits and problem solving skills for students” (pg. 36). However, one challenge of the differentiated classroom was that it was often “a very time consuming exercise with long hours of planning, organizing and scheduling individuals and groups in a large class setting” (pg. 36). Another challenge to of the differentiated classroom approach was that it made it “difficult to cater to individual needs and preferences especially those individuals who prefer to work alone” (pg. 36).

Section seven looks at the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement (pg. 36). According to Joseph et al. (2013), grades collected from the class projects were utilized to understand the connection between measures of student successes in the curriculum studies class and use of differentiated instruction during a semester. Joseph et al. (2013) provide a number of tables that compare student’s grades over four assignments in the course. The tables comparing student’s grades illustrate that “students who were exposed to a differentiated instructional approach generally obtained higher grades than their counterparts who were taught in the traditional whole class instructional setting” (pg. 37).

After revealing the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement, chapter eight consists of students’ perceptions about differentiated instruction and its potential impact on their classroom practice (pg. 37). Students in the curriculum study course took a survey that asked them to discuss their views regarding differentiated instruction and its possible impression on their teaching instruction. For instance, survey statement said "I believe that all instructors should use differentiated instruction in their classrooms” (pg. 37). The data revealed that around 95% of students said they agreed with the statement whereas only 3% of students did not agree. Another survey item stated, "I plan to use differentiated instruction in my practicum classes sometime in the future"(pg. 37). Nearly every one of the survey participants at 99% said that they were interested in employing a differentiated instructional method in their upcoming practicum courses they will take at the university (pg. 37).

Section eight also includes a summary of the focus group findings and illustrates the awareness of the students’ understandings of differentiated instruction (pg. 38). One question the focus groups responded to was “based on your experience in the curriculum studies class, what do you see as the benefits of differentiated instruction?” (pg. 38). Students responded by saying “differentiated instruction was useful for me. It was effective. It afforded me the opportunity to work with people other than the regular ones that I work with. I felt confident because I chose the mode of evaluation” (pg. 38). Another question asked the focus groups to discuss “what the drawbacks are (if any) of differentiated instruction?” (pg. 38). Students responded by saying “the existing standardized assessment and other school practices and regulations may constrain effective use of differentiation” (pg. 38).

Joseph et al. (2013) close their paper with section nine, the conclusion (pg. 39). The conclusion discusses a detailed summary of the action research and article. The conclusion also provides an overview of the importance of using differentiated instruction. In addition, the conclusion highlights the successes and difficulties of differentiation based on 4 teachers and 434 education students’ perspectives. Joseph et al. (2013) end the article by saying, “if (differentiation) adopted more widely, a differentiated instructional approach has the potential to revolutionize teaching and learning” (pg. 39).

Reflection

Overall, I thought the researchers and authors did a great job. I believe the article was very well organized and the authors did a nice job at dividing the article into 9 sections. If the sections were not outlined or as clearly headed and numbered, I believe the reader would have had a difficult time following all of the information presented throughout the article. 

I also liked that this article considered college students opinions that were in teacher education programs. By looking at undergraduate teacher student perspectives, the researchers were able to look at inexperienced teachers understanding and viewpoint of differentiation in the classroom, which is not very common in the research I have found up to this point.

After reading the article by Joseph et al. (2013), I was very impressed with the number of research methods the researchers used to study this topic. For instance, the researchers used “questionnaires, focus group discussions, teacher and student interviews, classroom observations, students’ semester grades, and student reflections” (pg. 32). Although, all of the instruments used to conduct the research gave a lot of great information about differentiation, the immense amount of information was a bit overwhelming to keep track of during the results and discussion section.

I really liked that the authors included tables into their article. I believe the tables allow the readers to see and better understand the quantitative and qualitative data the researchers received. However, I felt like some of the tables were a little confusing to understand. For instance, I felt like the table comparing students grades was well organized, but it took a while to take in all of the quantitative information from all four classes. I believe a more in-depth summary and explanation of the table with the student’s grades would have benefited the article.

I also like that the study highlighted not only the strength of differentiated instruction, but also the weaknesses as well. I believe including both the successes and challenges helps the reader understand differentiation from two perspectives.  In addition, I like that the study acquired viewpoints from four experienced teachers and 434 undergraduate students getting ready to be teachers. This quality sample size is more representative of the population.

Reference

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. International Journal of Higher Education. 2(3) pg. 28-40. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067355.pdf

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

Action Research Update

Action Research Update!

As you can see from my previous blog posts, I have read and reviewed a number of articles and texts. These literature reviews have helped me build my action research proposal and the material has helped me have a better understanding of differentiation in the high school setting in general. A couple months ago I submitted my action research proposal to my HRC department at my university and I recently learned that my action research proposal was approved! To continue developing and enhancing my research, I will continue to read, summarize and reflect on further literature relating to the differentiated classroom. So far this semester, two articles I have discovered that I am planning on reviewing are entitled, The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges, by Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013), along with an article called, Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective by Stavrou, E. and Koutselini, M. (2016).

In addition to the literature reviews, I will also be conducting my action research. My action research will require me to reach out to teachers at various high schools in Colorado to interview and survey teachers about their perspectives on differentiation. The interview I created includes ten open ended questions that will hopefully provide me with a lot of qualitative data. The surveys I created include around 20 questions that I hope will give me a lot of quantitative data. After I conduct my action research, I will then analyze the data and look for common themes and patterns to help me and the education field have a better understanding of differentiation strategies in the high school setting. I will share my progress and findings on my blog!