differentiating instruction to challenge all … · differentiating instruction to challenge all...
Post on 09-Apr-2018
228 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Teacher Observations
Sub-question #2
Do students perceive flexible groups,
Independent Studies, and WebQuests as
being fair?
Student Interview
Student Survey
Teacher Observations
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
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.”
5= strongly disagree 4=disagree 3 =neutral 2=agree 1 =strongly agree
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
5= strongly disagree 4=disagree 3 =neutral 2=agree 1 =strongly agree
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
5= strongly disagree 4=disagree 3 =neutral 2=agree 1 =strongly agree
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.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
3. Exploring my own topic during a WebQuest and learning more about that topic is important to me.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
4. Exploring my own topic during an independent study project and learning more about that topic is important to me.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
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.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
7. The use of the computer for research for WebQuests makes school fun and interesting.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
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.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
34
10. I like being grouped with students who have similar interests and abilities as
me.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
11. When grouped with students who have similar abilities as me, I feel challenged.
1 strongly agree 2 agree 3 neutral 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree
top related