Does Differentiated
Instruction and Student Choice Affect Retention Rate of Students?
Patricia A. McCarrin
Coursework for Leadership for Middle Level Science
Contact Information: mccarrinp@tesd.k12.pa.us
Abstract:
This Action
Research Project (ARP) systematically studies the potential benefits of
providing differentiated instruction with student choice. My interest in
studying this problem stems from my work as a support teacher for gifted
students. Part of my responsibility involves finding effective ways to
help teachers differentiate instruction to maximize student achievement.
Two classes
participated in the study. The study was conducted over five weeks. A
Pre-test, post-test and a post-post test was given to each student to gauge
retention. In the first class, instruction was teacher directed and a
culminating activity was not required. The second class had autonomy in
deciding how the material would be learned. They were also responsible
for a culminating activity, demonstrating their knowledge of the
concepts. Several assignments were required of both classes. The
students that were given free choice in choosing assignments received a four
point higher average on the post-post test than the students that had no
choice. I found that students that were given free choice along with
differentiated instruction retained more information over a longer period of
time. This study leads me to conclude that allowing students more freedom
to choose how they learn benefits their ability to retain information.
Purpose or
Background:
Research/Theoretical
Background:
Students come to
school with a variety of learning backgrounds. They have different
strengths and weaknesses that can affect their rate of acquisition and
retention. Teachers have to be aware of “who they are teaching as well as what
they are teaching” (Tomlinson 2003). The challenge teachers’ face is how
to construct lessons so the pace the students move will adjust to the
individuals in their classroom. There are several student factors that might
influence this pacing difference. There are increasing numbers of English
language learners, a growing achievement gap for minority learners, special education
has moved toward inclusion which mandates students spend more and more of their
day in the regular classroom and the needs of the gifted students who can work
at a much quicker pace need to be addressed (Tomlinson 2003). If public
schools fail to meet the challenge of accommodating this population it could
cause the demise of the public school system in the
Differentiated
instruction has moved to the forefront as the preferred method of
teaching. It is meant to accommodate the diverse population that teachers
are finding in their classroom. No longer are students required to adjust
to the curriculum because research has shown that many students may not be
reaching their potential without the learning adjusting to them. Teachers
are challenged to know their students. They must look at them as
individuals so they can make learning meaningful
(Bush, 2006). They must use methods that tap into the learning styles of
their pupils and be flexible and creative in planning lessons.
In moving
back to a format that is a modified version of the one room school house
students learn to work collaboratively and effectively within a
community. Differentiation better prepares students to cope in the real
world, promotes tolerance and growth in how people interact with one
another. It is an opportunity for students to learn how to value each
other’s abilities in a caring, risk free environment if the teacher carefully
constructs lessons and gives choices to academically stimulate the student (McAdamis, 1997).
Heterogeneous
classrooms that provide differentiated instruction are more stimulating and
interesting than classrooms that have a one size fits all approach.
Students have a variety of choices and chances to learn from lessons that are
carefully planned and designed to address an assortment of learning styles
(Tomlinson 2004). There are a couple of models of differentiation.
One is the Teacher-Differentiated Curriculum and the other is the
Learner-Differentiated Curriculum. The Teacher-Differentiated Curriculum
is one where modifications are made for the students. Learning styles are
taken into account and modifications are incorporated but the teacher is the
dispenser of knowledge. Everything is created by the teacher. In
the Learner-Differentiated Curriculum the students are in control of their own
learning. This is the ultimate goal. “Teachers are responsible for
the in-depth training in necessary skills, concepts, and attitudes for lifelong
learning. Facilitation includes the development of organizational skills,
learning plans, the pursuit of knowledge, involvement with mentors, and the
development of appropriate products, presentations and assessments” (Betts,
2004, pg.191). But teachers according to Sternberg and Zhang (2005) have
to pay careful attention to an even finer distinction, thinking style vs.
learning style. They believe this distinction is important based on the
following three view points:
In light of this
argument differentiation is important but so is choice. Choice along with
differentiation can motivate a student to pursue information because the
process is enjoyable which promotes greater enthusiasm and interest in
learning. Teachers, in planning differentiated instruction, should take
into account the thinking styles of their students. Are they internal or
external? Internal students prefer working independently while external
students prefer collaborative work. Are they liberal or conservative?
Liberal students like to be creative and go beyond the parameters that are
offered. Conservative students are more comfortable working within a
given structure or rubric that helps them outline what they need to do
(Sternberg and Zhang, 2005). Choice allows students to work in their own
comfort zone.
In addition
testing is a key component of today’s school system. Test scores have not
been satisfactory to many that compare the schools in the
Differentiation
has its challenges, more because it has not been a common practice and
“teachers tend to teach the way they are taught” (Edwards, et al. 2006
pg.581). One particular challenge is grading. If students in the
classroom are working at different paces and producing different quality work
then making grades equitable and fair is a cause of consternation for many who
are instituting differentiation. But teachers that are changing their
classroom instruction also need to change the focus of their grading
system. Students in a differentiated classroom have more control over
their learning and are expected to have more “commitment to the learning
process” (Tomlinson 2005). Teachers have to think of grading as a
two-fold process, giving effective feedback and also as a means to evaluate
their own instruction (Marzano 2000). Grading
is not a one shot deal. It needs to be on-going with the goal of fine
tuning learning and instruction based on clearly defined goals. “Lessons
are not about treating everyone alike, but working to ensure that each student
has the support he or she need.” to produce an end product that shows mastery
of the concepts presented (Tomlinson, 2005). If this can occur the
grading barrier will disappear and grading will serve a more useful
purpose.
Bringing
differentiated instruction to the classroom has its challenges but as you will
see in the following study it also has its rewards.
Methodology
Question: Will students that engage in
differentiated instruction and have options for choice retain concepts longer
than students that engage in more traditional differentiated instruction?
Rationale
for Study:
Students are expected to learn basic core information at each grade level. They
are expected to draw on this background knowledge as they progress through
school and increase the amount of information to show a certain level of
competence when they graduate from the system. There is a variety
of competence shown on standardized tests due to the many variables that each
student brings to school. This study is one attempt to investigate a
possible method that would lessen the information gap between the most and
least competent of students.
Demographic
Information
The students that
participated in this research project were a group of 6th grade
students in a moderate to upper socio-economic class in a suburban school
district. There were 46 students in all who participated. In class
1 there were 14 boys and 9 girls. In class 2, the class that had student
choice, there were 9 boys and 14 girls. The ethnic makeup of class 1 was 3
Asian Americans and 20 Caucasians; class 2 was 4 Asian Americans and 19
Caucasians. The average age was 11.5.
Unit Goals:
The students will
learn the cell theory, the difference between a plant and animal cell, the
names of the parts of the cell, and the function of each part of the
cell.
Learning
Methods and Strategies:
Materials
List:
Pre-Test, Post
Test, Post-Post Test
Projector for
display of power points
Computer lab with
internet access
Textbooks –
Prentice Hall Science Explorer: Cells and Heredity
Teacher-created
labs
Teacher-created
strategy worksheets
Games created by
teacher
Prior to
introduction of unit but not before the pre-test students spent two days
learning to work with microscopes. They looked at slides and read about
scientists involved in the cell theory. Throughout the unit both classes
conducted an on-going investigation on diffusion. They had placed an egg
in vinegar and each day examined it and recorded the results.
Unit
Activities:
All activities
took place in 45 minute sessions. The choice class had several
teacher-chosen whole class activities. In other classes, they were able
to choose the activity they wished to work which included activities such as
games and interactive or informative web pages. The choice class chose
the activities they preferred to do for
homework. The other class was teacher directed whole class activities
every day. All were required to complete the same assignments. The class
with the culminating project will have three days in class to work on their
project and one day to present. The traditional class will all work on the same
thing each day. (See Appendix)
In both classes
learning styles were addressed through differentiated mediums such as films,
labs, text and music.
National and
State Learning Standards Assessed by this unit:
State Standards:
3.1.7A – Explain
the parts of a simple system and their relationship to each other
3.1.7B - Identify
different types of models and their functions
3.1.7
- Describe the effect of making a change in one part of a system on the system
as a whole.
3.3.7B
- Describe the cell as the basic structural and functional unit of living
things.
· Identify the levels of organization from
cell to organism.
· Compare life processes at the organism
level with life processes at the cell level.
· Explain that cells and organisms have
particular structures that underlie their functions.
National
Standards:
Life
Science: Content Standard C – Students should develop an understanding of the
structure and function of living things.
Assessment:
Questions on the
test were designed to access students’ background knowledge on cells and cell
theory. They format used was specifically designed to not reveal any
information that would allow students to guess answers.
The students
follow the bell curve for ability. The majority fall in the average to
above average group. All of the students were told that this was a study
being conducted to determine how students learn material best. All of the
students were told that their grade would not be affected if they chose not to
participate.
The test that was
given all three times was exactly the same and meant to measure information on
cell theory, organelles and their function. The results of the pre-test showed
that students had very little background knowledge on this subject. The
highest score was a 3. The scoring was based on information that the
students wrote down to answer the question. One point was given for each
piece of correct information.
The results were
as follows.
|
|
Class 1 |
Class 2 |
|
Pre-Test Average |
.5 |
.478 |
|
Pre-Test Median |
0 |
0 |
|
Post-Test
Average |
9.9 |
18.7 |
|
Post-Test
Average – Outlier removed |
No outlier |
18.6 |
|
Post-Test Median |
11 |
18.5 |
|
Post-Post Test
Average |
13.35 |
17.45 |
|
Post-Post
Average – Outlier removed |
13.89 |
18.18 |
|
Post-Post Test
Median |
14.5 |
18 |
Implications:
This study sought
to discover if students would retain concepts for a longer period of time if
they were able to learn them in a variety of ways and choose the way they were
to learn the information. During the unit the students in both classes
seemed enthused and eager to learn. The evidence shows that the students
that had differentiation plus free choice scored higher in both the post-test
and the post-post test. However there were too many variables affecting
the study to be able to rely on the evidence shown by the testing. Two different
teachers were teaching the classes. The teacher that taught the class
with free choice (class 2) was a guest teacher. The teacher that taught
the other class (class 1) was the students’ regular classroom teacher.
When the post-test was administered class 2 had ample time to complete it and
were encouraged to put down as much as they knew. Class one was told the
same but they had about 5 minutes less time to complete it. One class had more
homework than the other class even though it was interest based. The
students in class 1 took the post-post test three days after class 2.
There was no base line for ability.
Further research
is needed to verify the findings of this action research and to investigate if
differentiation and free choice really do help students retain information for
longer periods of time. One future consideration would be to not just
measure between the two classes but measure the difference for the individual
student. Over a year period alter the lessons between differentiation and
choice with traditional methods and compare the scores of individuals rather
than the whole class.
Bibliography
Betts G. Fostering
Autonomous Learners Through Levels of Differentiation.
Roeper Review [serial online]. 2004;
26(4):190-191
Bush, Gail. Differentiated Instruction. School Library Media Activities
Monthly; 2006; 23(3):43-45.
Cirin Rob, et al. National Employers Skills
Survey. Key Findings. 2005.
(http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/Lsc/2006/research/commissioned/nat-nationalemployersskillssurvey2005keyfindings-re-june2006.pdf)
Accessed
Edwards C, Carr S,
Siegel W. Influences of Experiences and Training on Effective Teaching
Practices to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners in Schools. Education.
2006; 126 (3): 580-592. Available from: EBSCO MegaFile,
George P. A Rationale for Differentiating Instruction in the Regular
Classroom. “Theory Into Practice” (2005);
44(3): 185-193 Available from: EBSCO MegaFile,
Henry, C. No One
Size Fits All, Universal design strives to teach
students with different learning syles. Education. 2005;83(43):96-98.
Holloway J.
Preparing Teachers for Differentiated Instruction. “Educational Leadership”
(2000)
Hunter
R. Mastery Teaching.
Lister,
Dena and Ansalone, George. Utili
Marzano, Robert J. Transforming Classroom Grading.
McAdamis, S. A District Plan for
Acceleration and Enrichment. Gifted Child Today Magazine. 1967:
23(3):20. Available from: EBSCO MegaFile,
McBride B.
Data-Driven Instructional Methods: ‘One Strategy Fits All’ Doesn’t Work in Real
Classrooms. The Journal. 2004;
31(11):38-39. Available from: EBSCO MegaFile,
Smith, Abigail.
Results from a Survey of Teach For
Sternberg,
Robert J. & Li-fang Zhang.
Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction.
Theory Into Practice. 2005; 44 (3): 245-253.
Tomlinson
C. Differentiation in Practice.
Tomlinson
C. Differentiated Instruction.
Theory Into Practice. 2005;44(3):
183-184.
Tomlinson C.
Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice. Theory Into Practice. 2005; 44(3): 262-269.
Tomlinson C. The
Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Tomlinson C.
Fullfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom.
Tomlinson
C. Sharing Responsibility for Differentiating Instruction. Roeper Review.
2004; 26(4): 188-189. Available from: EBSCO MegaFile,
Day 1
Class 1 – Pre-Test
Class 2 – Pre-Test
Day 2
Class 1 – Students were assigned to read pages 23
to 31 in textbook
Prentice Hall,
Science Explorer.
Class 2 – Students are shown a brief power point
about cells and watch a 3 minute clip “The Inner Life of the Cell.” They
are told that they will need to learn the following over the next two weeks:
Students are
told:
There will be a
variety of activities available to them to help them learn the concepts but not
everyone has to do the same activity.
Students are given
handouts with information on the organelles.
There will be
homework but they will choose which homework they do.
Some activities
will be as a whole class but other days will be complete choice. There
will be a culminating project at the end of the unit of their choice and design
that will demonstrate what they learned.
Homework choices
were reviewed. Students picked a homework.
Day 3
Class 1 – Starter:
discussion of difference between plant and animal cell
Students study
organelles. Rotate around class defining each organelle
Homework - Packet – 1-1 (See
Appendix)
Class 2 – Students are given a list of words that
they will be expected to know at the end of the unit. Short power point
is shown with review of cell theory.
Teacher made games
are available for students.
Internet access is
available – students are given a list of sites to explore.
Choose
Homework
Day 4
Class 1 – Students go to computer lab to work on
creating a cell using power point that is creative and contains all of the
organelles.
Home work – Packet
1-2 (See Appendix)
Class 2 – Same as class 1
Choose
Homework
Day 5
Class 1 – Complete organelle in computer lab
Homework – Packet
1-2 Enrich (See Appendix)
Class 2 – Same as class 1
Choose
Homework
Day 6
Class 1 – Organelle
Theater – Students work in groups to come up with a skit that demonstrates the
function of their organelle.
Class 2
– Free choice (Computers are available)
Day 7
Class 1 - Students work in packet (see appendix)
1-1
Class 2 – Free Choice
Day 8
Class 1 - Students make jello model of cell
Class 2 – Same as class 1
Day 9
Class 1 - Students work on analogies of
organelles. They work in groups and cut out pictures from magazines to create a
poster to show how their organelle can be compared to something they
know.
Class 2 – Students begin work on their culminating
project
Homework – work on
project
Day 10
Class 1 – Students work on analogy posters
Class 2 – Students continue work on culminating
project
Homework – work on
project
Day 11
Class 1 - Students watch movie on cell and its
parts
Class 2 – Same as 1
Homework – work on
project
Day 12
Class 1 – present posters
Class 2 – present culminating projects
Day 13
Post –Test for
both classes
Class two utilized
some of the homework they generated in class each day. If a student made
a song or poem they had an opportunity to sing it to the class. If they
created a riddle on a particular organelle, they were permitted to read it
aloud and call on someone to answer and affirm or deny the response.
During class two there were “Ding, Ding Moments.” The teacher would say
‘Ding, Ding” and everyone would stop. A question was asked and the person
that answered it received a Hershey kiss.
Post – Post Test
given to all students three weeks after post – test.
Patty
McCarrin - September 30, 2007
Back to e-portfolio