DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION TO CHALLENGE ALL … · DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION TO CHALLENGE ALL STUDENTS Tom Palmer Melissa Maag A Seminar Paper Submitted ... (talented and gifted)

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION TO CHALLENGE ALL STUDENTS

Tom Palmer Melissa Maag

A Seminar Paper Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Master of Science in Education

Curriculum and Instruction

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Oshkosh, WI 54901

May 2010

Approval Project Advisor: ________________________________________________April 23, 2010________ Dr. Eric Brunsell Date

2

Table of Contents Abstract 3

Introduction 4 Statement of the Problem 4 Situating the Problem 5 Literature Review 6 Methodology 11 Research Treatment 11 Data Collection 12 Data Analysis Activities for challenging students 15 Activities for engaging students 18

Correlation between students’ perceptions of 20 feeling challenged and engaged and assessment scores Flexible groups, independent study, and 21

WebQuests challenge and engage students ..

Conclusion 23 References 24 Appendix A- Parent Research Study Permission Form 26

Appendix B- Student Research Study Permission Form 28

Appendix C- Teacher Journal 30

Appendix D- Pre-Interview Questions 31

Appendix E- Post Interview Questions 32

Appendix F- Pre & Post Survey Questions 33

3

Abstract The purpose of this research was to look at three methods of differentiation and

determine their impact on student perceptions of challenge and engagement in the

science classroom. We employed three research methods of differentiation during a

nine-week unit in our Human Brain and Senses unit. The three methods employed

were flexible grouping, independent study, and WebQuests. We collected data both pre

and post unit by giving a Likert-Scale survey to sixty-six students, interviewed eight

students, compared assessment results, and kept a teacher journal. Our data collected

suggested that the three methods of flexible grouping, independent study, and

WebQuests appeared to be both engaging and challenging to the group of students

tested.

4

Introduction

Background

The study took place at River Bluff Middle School in Stoughton, Wisconsin. The

participants in the study were sixty-six 8th grade students, ages 13-14. There were an

equal number of male and female students, with little ethnic diversity. Stoughton Area

School District is located 12 miles south of Madison, Wisconsin. It is a smaller district in

a rural area, and is largely a working-class community with few racial minorities (94%

white) and many lower socio-economic status families. Nearly 12% qualify for free or

reduced lunch. The district is comprised of two elementary schools, one middle school,

and one high school. Total enrollment is approximately 3,400 students.

This 2009-210 school year is the third year of our new K-8 FOSS (Full Option

Science System) Curriculum in our district. FOSS is a hands-on, inquiry and research-

based program from Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California-Berkeley. This

curriculum has one universal lesson plan for each investigation, designed to meet the

needs of all learners. Teachers in our district have found that the FOSS curriculum

tends to teach to just one student – for our purposes, the at-level or average student.

This curriculum does not address the other ends of the spectrum – the above-level

(talented and gifted) or the below-level (learning difficulties) student. We are interested

in looking for ways to address curricular needs for above level students specifically. We

engaged in research that showed us how to address the students at these two ends of

the spectrum.

Our look focused on whether students that were offered a research-based

differentiation classroom model, specifically the three methods of flexible grouping,

5

independent study, and WebQests, will change their perceptions of feeling challenged

and engaged in the science curriculum. Several other questions we will focus on

include:

1. What activities would be most useful for challenging students?

2. What activities would be most useful for engaging students in the curriculum?

3. Is there a correlation between students’ perceptions of feeling engaged and challenged in the Science curriculum and their assessment scores?

4. Do students perceive flexible groups, independent studies, and WebQuests as

ways of being challenged and engaged?

6

Literature Review

Differentiation is a word that is tossed around academic circles all across the

United States. Go into any classroom, any school, and any staff meeting and you will

hear it spoken. Differentiation is a broad word, which can mean many things. According

to Tomlinson (2005), there are many ways to differentiate correctly. All teachers need

to take a good close look at the diversity of the learners in their classroom. Teachers

need to accept the responsibility for the success of each student in their classroom and

realize there may be more than one route to that success.

For our purposes, we will use differentiation to mean tailoring education and

curriculum to meet all learners, rather than teaching with a one-size fits all approach

(Caralon, 2007). Because of the ability of differentiation to meet the needs of all

learners’ within one classroom, and at times with standardized curriculums, it is a model

that is being employed at many schools. Differentiation is an approach used as one

way to reach students and help them reach their full potential (Rakow, 2007).

FOSS (Full Option Science System) is a hands-on laboratory science program

developed at the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California-Berkeley. It is

composed of 27 units subdivided into four themes: Scientific Reasoning, Earth Science,

Life Science, and Physical Science. Each unit lasts 9-12 weeks. At 8th grade we

implement the units of the Human Brain and Senses, Electronics, and Planetary

Science.

An important question to today’s science educators is “How do students best

learn science?” In a simplistic way, constructivist researchers think the term “hands-

on/minds-on” describes the way humans inquire about the world around them. People

7

learn by doing and thinking about that which they do. New science programs have

veered away from the traditional textbook to a process based on student inquiry

(Lowery, 1994). FOSS is committed to a developmental scheme through inquiry with

selected topics targeted for certain age/grade ranges. It also provides a balance of

discovery and guided learning activities. FOSS incorporates interdisciplinary subjects,

such as language and mathematics, as well as the use of tools, equipment, and

extension activities for enrichment. Each module of FOSS includes appropriate kits for

implementation. FOSS takes an in-depth rather than a spiral approach to teaching

science (Holahan, 1994). It tends to teach to one learner – the at-level student. As a

result, differentiation needs to be examined to support all learners.

Differentiation may be the key to meeting the needs of learners of all ability

levels. A large amount of research has shown that the extent to which a teacher

differentiates, or ways they adjust instruction to help students learn information,

remember it, and demonstrate that they have learned it, strongly affects the

achievement of their students (Gregory and Chapman 2002). Differentiation is a way of

thinking about teaching and learning that is based on the understanding that since all

students are different, classrooms need lots of options to assist student learning

(Heacox, 2002). Through differentiation, students have choices about how and what

they learn by setting learning goals and making the classroom connect with their

interests and experiences, with the hope that being a partner in their learning will lead to

lifelong learning (Tomlinson 2000a; 2000b). Using a model of curriculum planning, such

as differentiation, may be one way to overcome a significant weakness in the structure

of FOSS units: one lesson plan for all students, regardless of ability. According to

8

Sondergeld (2008) in a qualitative interview, teachers and students benefit from a

differentiated curriculum.

One differentiation strategy designed to meet the needs of a variety of students is

using flexible grouping arrangements in a static classroom setting. Flexible grouping is

defined as grouping students by interest or ability, depending on the day and the lesson

(Dexter, 1998). According to Dexter, when asked about how this worked for some

particular students, they responded that they felt engaged and challenged (due to the

flexible grouping), and students indicated an interest in getting more challenge in the

curriculum. Flexible grouping is one possible arrangement to meet the needs of all

learners.

All students are entitled to a worthwhile education, but with the emphasis on

standards-based education and state-mandated testing, attention to gifted students is

decreasing (Powers, 2008). Three strategies to use for gifted students, in particular, is

to compact the curriculum, use pre-testing, and tiered lessons (Lewis, 2007). Another

practice recommended for sound gifted education is the use of independent study.

Independent study is regarded as the highest level of learning because it connects the

interests and maturity level of the student to the critical thinking skills needed for gifted

education: decision making, inquiry, investigation, problem solving, questioning, and

reflection (Pugh, 1999). Classroom teachers tend to shy away from the use of

independent study because of a lack of experience and unfamiliarity with how to monitor

and assess the learning that takes place (Betts, 2004; Douglas, 2004; Tomlinson, 1995,

2004).

9

The Powers Plan for independent study usually takes two weeks of class time to

carry out. The Powers Plan offers three particular themes for gifted students. First, it

fosters critical thinking skills in those students that are ready for higher-level learning.

Second, it provides choice and subject depth for those students that are curious and

interested in a topic. Finally, the Powers Plan allows students to use computer and

research skills they don’t normally use. The Powers Plan has six parts: preparation,

planning, probing, product, presentation, and portfolio (Powers, 2008).

Another way for all students to deepen their understanding and stretch their

thinking is to use a WebQuest, an inquiry-based activity in which some or all of the

information that learners interact with comes from various Internet sources (Dodge,

1995). Usually, the WebQuest content is related to the regular classroom curriculum

and implemented when the teacher wants to help the students to use newly gained

knowledge to better understand a complex topic (March, 2000). This allows the student

to go beyond the normal bounds of the classroom by examining the core curriculum in

more depth. Also, technology is recognized for its motivating features (Bergen, 2001)

so WebQuests are a great way to combine the use of technology with real world tasks

that engage students in higher-level thinking skills.

WebQuests are fairly easy to design and follow five basic steps. All WebQuests

have an introduction, task, process, evaluation, and conclusion. The introduction of a

WebQuest generates interest in what’s to come. It also gives students a peek at their

upcoming project and taps into to the their background knowledge. In the task (or

problem), students are shown a specific open-ended activity and their role in the activity

is explained. The task has to be real and something to which the students can relate.

10

The process outlines the steps a student must go through in the WebQuest. For

evaluation, most WebQuests use a scoring rubric. A good evaluation allows students to

judge their own work. In the conclusion, the teacher explains what the student should

have learned and the purpose of the task. A good conclusion will help the learner to

reflect on what they learned and will also set the stage for learning in the future

(Schweizer & Kossow, 2007).

Meeting the learning needs of all students by the use of flexible grouping,

independent study, and WebQuests in the Science curriculum could change students’

perceptions of feeling challenged and engaged.

11

Methods

Research Treatment

Data was collected before and after a 9-week unit on the Human Brain and

Senses. Every three weeks, one option to differentiate students’ learning (flexible

grouping, WebQuests, and Independent Study) was offered to all students in the

differentiated classrooms. All three options were based on the same learning targets as

used in the traditional classroom. The only difference was the way students reach

these targets – through differentiated tasks.

For flexible grouping, students were grouped based on different characteristics.

Sometimes they were grouped according to interest, sometimes they were grouped

according to ability, and sometimes they chose the group that they worked in.

For WebQuests, students were given a WebQuest assignment in which they

selected a sense to study in further depth, and then used different websites to gather

research about their chosen sense. The very nature of WebQuests ensured that for

that time, students were working on an assignment that reached their ability level

because they self-selected their work and project.

Like WebQuests, Independent Studies were also a multi-week process that was

tailored for individual learning. Students chose a project from a menu of choices, based

on their ability and interest level. Students were then given time in class to research and

prepare a final project of their own choosing.

12

Data Collection Techniques

To determine how differentiation impacted students’ perceptions of challenge and

engagement, several data collection tools were used. A summary of these techniques

is found in Table 1.

Table 1:

Summary of Data Collection Techniques

Data Sources Research Questions

1 2 3

Focus Question

Will flexible groups, Independent Studies,

and WebQuests change students’

perceptions of feeling engaged and

challenged in the Science curriculum?

Student Interview

Student Survey

Teacher Observations

Sub-question #1

Is there a correlation between students’

perceptions of feeling engaged and

challenged in the Science curriculum

and their assessment scores?

Compare Assessment Scores from classroom 1 and 2


Sub-question #2

Do students perceive flexible groups,

Independent Studies, and WebQuests as

being fair?

Student Interview

Student Survey


13

For our study, one of the five classes taught by each teacher remained as a

traditional, non-differentiated classroom. These students followed the FOSS curriculum

as written, with no changes involved. The differentiated classroom received the

changes of curriculum in the form of independent study and flexible grouping.

We used an individual oral interview prior to instruction, and again at the end of

the unit of study. The same researcher administered the interviews. Through the use

of the interviews, we gauged student interest and their perception of being challenged in

the science curriculum. The researchers interviewed 8 students, chosen in advance to

show a range in the levels of learners.

After the interviews were transcribed, each researcher analyzed the data

separately and identified patterns across the data. We then came together and

compared their results and looked for patterns that emerged from the responses. To

check for validity, questions on the interview were designed to match statements on the

survey.

We also incorporated a Likert-scale survey given to students pre and post unit to

assess their perceptions of challenge and engagement in the curriculum. Between the

pre and post survey, we used research-based methods of differentiation, specifically

independent study, WebQuests, and flexible grouping.

Steps were taken to make sure that the surveys were reliable and valid for the

area of study. To test for reliability, the same person administered the survey to all

students. There are statements within this survey that restate the idea, to check internal

consistence and reliability. The researchers acknowledged the bias of a science

teacher asking questions and interpreting data about science class.

14

To test for validity, the researcher used many steps. Several questions on the

survey were designed to look for responses about how the curriculum challenged and

engaged students. The results were correlated across the test group and the control.

To determine the impact of differentiation on the students’ learning experience,

we employed the use of a teacher journal to record observations from the classroom.

We kept a separate log of student engagement after each method of differentiation. We

recorded how students responded to the different tasks, and comments heard from

students as the class occurred.

We also looked at student test scores to analyze student engagement and challenge.

Students from the traditional non-differentiated classroom and the differentiated classrooms,

took the same assessment, and their scores were compared.

Activities for challenging students

Through our nine weeks of implementing methods of differentiation, we found

that all three methods (flexible grouping, independent study, and WebQuests) both

challenged and engaged students.

When students were interviewed before and after the Human Brain and Senses

Unit, they spoke of being grouped with students with similar interests favorably because

they felt that they could relate to them better, and that they would have more in common

with them. According to a student in their post interview, flexible grouping was

challenging for students because “it puts everyone at their level of understanding.”

Another student commented that (she) “was working with kids that are thinking the

same way that I am.”

15

As teachers, we noted in our journals that students were pushing themselves to a

higher level when engaged in the flexible grouping activities. One teacher noted that

students were asking to move up a group, to the harder activity, because they saw that

it would offer them a harder challenge than the activity they were assigned at the

beginning of the hour. Students also self-selected to move down a level, to an activity

that was more appropriate to their learning. This self-selecting movement between

groups was not seen before the implementation of flexible grouping.

Students also reported favorably to the method of Independent Study in the

interview process. They generally felt that Independent Study was good because it

allowed them the freedom to choose their own level of challenge; maybe even

something that they have a deep passion about. According to one female student, the

good thing about independent study was “I liked choosing by picking the things that I am

more curious about and actually wanting to do it.” Independent Study motivated her to

learn more about what she was interested in. Another student noted, “I liked it because

you could choose what you wanted to learn about and your own area of study. It is

important to have choice because you would like it more and be more interested in it.

You get to choose what you want and what you are interested in.”

One teacher noted that the advantage of Independent Study is that it allows

students to relate to a subject that has meaning for them. A student interviewed

agreed, saying “I liked choosing it because it was easy better and cool that I could

interview my mom, rather than Mr. Palmer telling me (what I had to do) and then I didn’t

get it.”

16

When examining the post survey results, students reported that they agreed that

exploring their own topic during an independent study project was important to them.

Figure 1: Students agreed that exploring their own topic during an independent study

project was important to them.

Lastly, students noted that WebQuests were motivating to them because they got

to use the computers and chose their own area of study. On the post survey, 96% of

students either agreed or strongly agreed when asked about exploring their own topics

during a WebQuest (Figure 2). They also agreed that using the computer makes school

fun and interesting. Both teachers noted in their journals that students were excited and

engaged when in the Library to work on their WebQuest projects. Students were self-

motivated to work and research their chosen areas of study.

5= strongly disagree 4=disagree 3 =neutral 2=agree 1 =strongly agree


17

Figure 2: Students agreed that exploring their own topics during a WebQuest was

important to them.

Students also responded favorably in the interview process to WebQuests. One

student said “I like how it is on the computer, how you get to choose your own (thing) to

research and you choose what you learn.” Another student compared WebQuests to

the Independent Study that they had done. It is “a little mix of Independent Study and

class time. (Directions are) established what you need to do, but like with Independent

Study, you can get a lot out of it.”

18

Activities for engaging students

Overall, we found two themes that ran through survey results, interviews, and

teacher notes. One stand is that the use of technology, namely the computer, engaged

students, and the second is that the element of choice for students in critical for their

learning and engagement.

The answers on the post survey for questions 7 and 8 stood out to both teachers

(Figure 3). Both questions asked about the use of computers and whether they make

school interesting and fun. On the post survey results, students indicated that they

agreed with this statement. When looking back at the three methods of differentiation

employed, 2 out the 3 methods involved the use of computers.

Figure 3: The use of computers make school interesting and fun.

Both teachers noted that students were motivated to learn on the computers,

sometimes booting them up and starting before the bell even rang to begin class. One

student noted on their post interview that they “like how it (WebQuest) is on the

computer.”


19

Another motivating factor for students is the element of choice. Both teachers

noted in their journals that students were excited to choose an area that had interest

and meaning to them. Students, too, appreciated the choice. “Liked it because it was

something that I could understand. It was inquisitive and I could learn more about it.”

Another student, too, noted that choice was a good thing about WebQuests. “Like

choosing our own topic and its’ cool going on your own.”

Correlation between students’ perceptions of feeling engaged and their assessment

scores

When comparing students’ assessment scores across the control and

experimental groups, there was very little correlation between students’ perceptions of

feeling engaged and challenged in the science curriculum and their assessment scores

(Table 2).

Assessment Comparison

Control Group

Experimental Group

Exam 5 (after flexible grouping) 85% 85%

Exam 7 (after independent study)

The two-tailed P value equals 0.1505

91% 95%

Table 2: Assessment Comparison

Looking at the assessment results for Exam 5, where the control group and

experimental group both had the same average of 85%, it is plain to see that the

method of flexible grouping had no significant effect on their scores.

20

Exam 7 had the experimental group averaging slightly higher at 95% versus

91%, with a p value equal to .1505. By conventional criteria, this difference is

considered to be not statistically significant. Both teachers feel that it is not statistically

high enough to say that they were more challenged or engaged in the curriculum. More

research and method implementation would be needed to say with certainty that there is

a correlation between students’ perceptions of feeling engaged and challenged in the

Science curriculum and their assessment scores.

Flexible groups, independent study, and WebQuests challenge and engage students

When looking at the method of flexible grouping, students scores on the pre and

post survey show that students feel more challenged when working with students of

similar ability (see figure 4). Students moved in the direction towards agreeing to the

statement between the pre and post results.

Figure 4: Students feel more challenged when working with students of similar ability.

One topic that the teachers would like to address is the nature of WebQuests and

Independent Study, and students’ perceptions. Students were neutral when asked


21

about whether they like to learn by themselves on both WebQuests and independent

study (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Students like to learn by themselves on both WebQuests and independent study.

Students also commented in their post interviews about this topic. It may be due

to the fact that because students self-select their topic and project, there are fewer

teacher-established expectations. One student noted that “sometimes I can’t think

about what I want to learn about or (what to) do for the final project” as a bad thing that

came out of the Independent Study. Another student said one bad thing was ”not

always are expectations established.”

CONCLUSION

The three methods of flexible grouping, Independent Study, and WebQuests

appeared to be both engaging and challenging to the group of students tested. During

the course of the study, we saw and heard students’ positive remarks and behaviors as

a direct result of what we implemented. The data also supported this positive response

to differentiation. We are hoping to implement these methods not just as a part of the

study, but in our practice as teachers. Our goal for the future is to seamlessly weave


22

these methods into our other FOSS Units (Electronics and Planetary Sciences). For

example, we would like to create a project for students to learn about the planets in our

Solar System much like our Senses WebQuest – one that gives them choice to study

something that they are interested in and involves the use of computers for up-to-date

information about the planets in our Solar System. When doing research for our project,

we did not come across mention of how student choice can be a motivator for students

to complete a project. We are hoping to look more into student choice and how that can

positively affect students and differentiation in the classroom.

While the results show that these three methods of differentiation positively

impacted our students, it is possible that other variables could have caused the change.

The changes could be attributed to variables such as the time of the year implemented

(WebQuest project was assigned and completed right before students had their Spring

Break), the content of the unit (Human Brain and Senses), and make-up of our classes,

rather than attributing to the implementation of differentiation.

23

REFERENCES Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008, March 1). Closing the Achievement Gap with

Curriculum Enrichment and Differentiation: One School's Story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ810785) Retrieved March 3, 2009, from ERIC database.

Bergen, D. (2001). Differentiating curriculum with technology-enhanced class projects.

Childhood Education, 78, 117-118. Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation, Roeper

Review, 26, 190-191. Carolan, J., & Guinn, A. (2007, February 1). Differentiation: Lessons from Master

Teachers. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 44-47. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ766352) Retrieved February 6, 2009, from ERIC database.

Dexter, D. (1998, May 1). Cluster Grouping: A Strategy for Effective Teaching. Gifted

Child Today Magazine, 21(3), 14-18,20,48. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ571824) Retrieved March 13, 2009, from ERIC database.

Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved October 27, 2005 from

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html Dooling, J. (2000). What students want to learn about computers. Educational

Leadership, 58(2), 20-24. Douglas, D. (2004). Self-advocacy: Encouraging students to become partners in

differentiation. Roeper Review, 26, 223-227. Holahan, G., & McFarland, J. (1994, March). Elementary school science for students with

disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 15(2), 86. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database.

Lewis, J., Cruzeiro, P., & Hall, C. (2007, January 1). Impact of Two Elementary School

Principals' Leadership on Gifted Education in Their Buildings. Gifted Child Today, 30(2), 56-62. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ756555) Retrieved February 9, 2009, from ERIC database.

Lowery, L. (1994, March). Inquiry: The emphasis of a bold, new science curriculum. T H E Journal, 21(8), 50. Retrieved April 5, 2009 from Academic Search Elite database. March, T. (2000). “WebQuests 101: Tips on choosing and assessing WebQuests.

Multimedia Schools, 7, 55-58.

24

Powers, E. (2008, Summer 2008). The Use of Independent Study as a Viable Differentiation Technique for Gifted Learners in the Regular Classroom, Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65. Retrieved February 7, 2009 from MasterFILE Premier database.

Pugh, S. (1999). Developing a foundation for independent study. Gifted Child Today,

22(2), 26-33. Rakow, S. (2007, August 1). All Means All: Classrooms that Work for Advanced Learners.

National Middle School Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED497569) Retrieved February 6, 2009, from ERIC database.

Schweizer, H., & Kossow, B. (2007, January 1). WebQuests: Tools for Differentiation.

Gifted Child Today, 30(1), 29-35. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. EJ50569) Retrieved February 15, 2009, from ERIC database.

Sondergeld, T., & Schultz, R. (2008, December 1). Science, Standards, and

Differentiation: It Really Can Be Fun!. Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 34-40. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ781689) Retrieved March 3, 2009, from ERIC database

Tomlinson, C. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. (2004) Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review,

26, 188-189. Tomlinson, C. (2005, August 1). Differentiating Instruction: Why Bother? National Middle

School Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED497093) Retrieved February 6, 2009, from ERIC database.

25

January 19, 2010 Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s),

We are the 8th grade science teachers at River Bluff Middle School. We are contacting you to request permission for your child to participate in a research study as part of our Master’s Degree Program in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. We have provided the students with an assent form that briefly describes our study and requires their signatures if they are willing to participate.

The subject of our research is to see if students who are offered a research-based differentiation classroom model, specifically independent study, WebQuests, and flexible grouping, will change their perceptions of feeling challenged and engaged in the curriculum. Children who participate will be given a brief survey at times that asks them about using independent study, WebQuests, and flexible grouping, and whether they feel challenged and engaged in the curriculum. They may also undergo a 15-minute interview. Their names will not be required on the survey, but we will ask for grade level and gender. The survey takes about 10 minutes to complete and will be given during science class. If a child wants to stop filling out the survey or stop the interview it will not be a problem. Student test scores may also be compared.

Although all studies have some degree of risk, the potential in this investigation is quite minimal. All activities are similar to normal classroom procedures, and all performance is anonymous. Your child will not benefit in any way by taking part in this study. Your child’s grades will not be affected in any way, whether they want to take part in the study or not. The data we collect may lead to an increased understanding of the role differentiation in the science classroom, and whether students feel more challenged and engaged in the science curriculum due to differentiation. We will record no information about you or your child that could identify you.

If you have any questions prior to participation or at any time during the study, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Palmer at (608) 877-5574 or Ms. Maag at (608) 877-5563. If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this study, please call or write: Chair, Institutional Review Board For Protection of Human Participants c/o Grants Office UW Oshkosh Oshkosh, WI 54901 920/424-1415

Your child’s participation in this study is completely voluntary. Please sign and return the attached permission slip below if you are willing to allow your child to participate. Your support is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Appendix A

26

____________________________ has my permission to participate in the above mentioned

(Child’s name) research study that will be conducted by Mr. Palmer and Ms. Maag.

Signature of Parent/Guardian___________________________________________

Date_______________

27

January 19, 2010

You are invited to take part in a research study to see if students who are offered a research-based differentiation classroom model, specifically independent study, flexible grouping, and WebQuests, will change your perceptions of feeling challenged and engaged in the curriculum, and accomplish a higher level on assessments. This study is being conducted by Tom Palmer and Melissa Maag, your 8th grade science teachers at River Bluff Middle School in Stoughton, WI. We are doing this study in order to complete our Master’s Degree in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to fill out a short survey at different times, and may undergo a 15-minute interview. You will not write your name on the survey, but you will be asked to write your grade level and gender (whether you are male or female) on the survey. We will record no information about you that could identify you.

You may skip any part of the survey and interview questions that you want, and you may decide to stop participating at any time you feel like it with no penalty to you. One of your parents will also be required to provide permission for you to participate in this study, and they will be given a phone number to contact Mr. Palmer or Ms. Maag, in case you or your parents have any questions about the research.

Although all studies have some degree of risk, the potential in this investigation is quite minimal. All activities are similar to normal classroom procedures, and all performance is anonymous. You will not benefit in any way by taking part in this study. Your grades will not be affected in any way whether you decide to participate or not in this study. You will not receive any benefits from taking part in this study, but your answers may help us better understand the role of independent study and WebQuests and whether students feel more challenged and engaged in the science curriculum.

If you have any questions prior to participation or at any time during the study, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Palmer at (608) 877-5574 or Ms. Maag at (608) 877-5563. If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this study, please call or write:

Chair, Institutional Review Board For Protection of Human Participants c/o Grants Office UW Oshkosh Oshkosh, WI 54901 920/424-1415 If you agree that you want to participate in this study, please sign below:

Appendix B

28

Student name (Please Print) _____________________________________ Student signature______________________________________________ Date____________ Instructor Signature ___________________________________________ Date___________

29

Appendix C Journal Protocol (teacher ONLY) What to include • Actions, comments, and questions of students will be recorded • Degree to which it seemed the lesson challenged students

30

Appendix D Pre-unit interview Questions

1. What specifically do you like about Science class?

2. What don’t you like about science class? Why?

3. What units do you like to study in Science class?

4. What makes you connect with a particular unit of study?

5. Have you ever been grouped with other students who have similar interests or abilities as you?

6. Would you be interested in being grouped with other students who have similar

interests and abilities as you? Why?

7. Have you ever done a WebQuest before?

8. Would you be interested in doing a Webquest in science class? Why?

9. Have you ever done an independent study project before?

10. Would you be interested in doing an independent study project in science class? Why?

31

Appendix E Post-unit interview Questions 1. Did you like the flexible grouping MRI picture activity we did in class? Why or why not? 2. Did you like being grouped with other students who have similar interests and abilities as you? Why or why not? 3. Did you do an independent study project for science class? 4. Were you familiar with independent study? Have you ever participated in independent study before? 5. How did you like choosing your own area of independent study? How important was it to have choice in your area of study? 6. Give some good things about an independent study like this? Were there any bad things about this independent study? 7. Would you do an independent study project like this ever again? Why or why not?

8. Have you ever done a WebQuest before? 9. What are your feelings after doing a WebQuest in science class? 10. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the WebQuest a better experience for students in the future? 11. Would you want to do another WebQuest in the future? Why or why not?

32

Pre & Post Survey Please rank these questions on a scale of 1-5, with one being you strongly agree; to 5 being you strongly disagree. 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree

1. I feel that choosing my own area of interest when using a WebQuest is important to me.

1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree

2. I feel that choosing my own area of interest when doing an independent study

project is important to me.


3. Exploring my own topic during a WebQuest and learning more about that topic is important to me.


4. Exploring my own topic during an independent study project and learning more about that topic is important to me.


Appendix F

33

5. I like to learn by myself on WebQuests. 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree

6. I like to learn by myself on independent study projects.


7. The use of the computer for research for WebQuests makes school fun and interesting.


8. The use of the computer for research for independent study projects makes

school fun and interesting. 1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree

9. I like being grouped with students who have similar interests as me.


34

10. I like being grouped with students who have similar interests and abilities as

me.


11. When grouped with students who have similar abilities as me, I feel challenged.


Documents

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION TO CHALLENGE ALL … · DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION TO CHALLENGE ALL STUDENTS Tom Palmer Melissa Maag A Seminar Paper Submitted ... (talented and gifted)