Differentiated Instruction Pathways to Success

A Research Project Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Educational Leadership and Administration

At Gonzaga University November 4, 2011 By Heidee Walshe Lethbridge 4 Cohort Advisor - Dr. Albert H. Fein

I certify that I have read this manuscript and that, in my judgment, it is adequate in scope and quality for the degree of Masters of Educational Leadership and Administration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dr. Dan Mahoney, Ph.D Second Reader

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dr. Albert H. Fein, Ph.D Advisor

Acknowledgements

To the love of my life, Sean, Thank you for supporting me to fulfill one of my lifelong dreams. I love you with all of my heart. You are everything to me.

To my beautiful children, Shayla and Hayden. You have truly inspired me to complete this work. Always remember that your achievements in this world are infinite, if you have the right attitude. Never give up, always work hard, and keep your chin up. May Gods blessings always be upon you my little loves. I love you both to the moon and back.

To my mother, your gift to me has always been the lesson of perseverance. I could not have done this without you, thank you.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my cohort member, Terry Wilson. I felt your presence with us throughout each and every step of this process. You have touched my life immensely. I thank you for sharing your wisdom, passion, and laughter. You are truly an inspiration. Rest my friend, May God always be with you.

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies that promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. The aim was to investigate current teacher perspectives on the topic by exploring their experiences using this instructional method. A qualitative study conducted through individual interviews, examined six different elementary teacher perspectives on differentiated instruction. Participants responded to a series of open-ended questions that were associated to information highlighted in Chapter II such as: definitions, strategies teachers currently use, as well as the challenges classroom teachers encounter differentiating instruction. Data revealed that teachers require greater clarity about differentiation, as well as specific examples that support its effective implementation. Based on the information collected from the literature review and the data, a series of recommendations were made to support teachers wishing to extend their current instructional practices to include greater integration of differentiated strategies.

Table of Contents CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM........................................................8 Rationale..................................................................................9 The Diverse Classroom ...9 The Traditional Approach to Teaching and Learning ....11 Teacher-Centered Instruction and the Student Brain ....12 Statement of Purpose..........................................................13 Research Question...................................13 Summary......................................................................................... 14 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................................ 15 Differentiated Instruction Defined ........................................16 Differentiated Instruction Described .............................................16 Facts about Differentiated Instruction .......................16 Content ...................................17 Process ............................................18 Product....................................18 Environment............................................18 Misconceptions of Differentiated Instruction.....................19 A Chaotic and Unmanaged Classroom ...19 Individualized Instruction. ......................................20 Qualitative Workloads ............................................20 The Rotation of Groups ..21 Dumbing Down the Curriculum .21 Challenges of Implementing DI ..22 Strategies that Support Differentiated Instruction ..24 Learning Centers 26 Guided Reading .27 Choice Boards 28 Tiered Activities .29 Independent Study .29 Journals Reflective and Learning Tools ..30 A Word of Caution .30 Professional Development & Collaboration 32 Peer Coaching .32 Peer Collaboration ..33 Summary...........................................................................................34

II.

III.

METHODOLOGY............................................................................................ 36 Selection of Participants.... 36 Setting....................................................................................36

Data Collection.....................................................................38 Ethical Considerations......................................................... 38 Specific Procedures..................................................... 39 Data Analysis....................................................................... 41 Summary.............................................................................. 41 IV. FINDINGS...................................................................................................... .43 A Need to Act More Responsively ..............................................43 Pressures to Play the Game...............................................45 My Goal or Their Goal ....................46 Current Classroom Practices ...48 Student Motivation ..................................................48 Content Mastery ..49 Test Results .49 Strategies Teachers are Currently Using ........................ 50 Learner Profile Differentiation ................................... 51 Differentiating Assessment .................................51 Flexibility and Modifications ..52 Time Challenges .................................53 Lesson Planning..................................................53 Balancing Me-Time during Differentiated Activities .....54 Workshops and Conferences ...............................................55 Summary..........................................................................................57 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................58 Discussion of the Findings .............................................................60 Limitations ..61 Recommendations...........................................................................62 Key Structures.....................................................................64 Professional Growth Opportunities ........................64 School-Wide Planning.........................................................66 On-site Coach .....................................................................67 Mentorship .................................68 Learner Profiles ......68 Student Self-Assessment ....69 Diagnostic Assessments .69 Communication with Parents..69 Classroom Conditions ....70 Summary..................................................................................70 References.......................................................................................................72 Appendix A.....................................................................................................75 Appendix B.76

V.

Chapter I Introduction to the Problem Grade 5 students echo their leader as he articulates the proper pronunciation of the French word: rouge. The class follows in their textbooks unenthusiastically and responds, rouge. Jaune. This tedious vocabulary practice continues for another 20 minutes while, I, a first-time education practicum student, look on hoping to learn some teaching strategies from their teacher, my mentor. Is this really how one instructs students to speak French? Something told me no, there had to be much more to my future profession than this mind-numbing, choral practice. My subsequent teacher-mentor, a primary instructor, frequently used centers as a teaching strategy in her classroom. I was unfamiliar with her particular method and quickly developed a curiosity about this differentiated approach to teaching and learning. As I observed the teachers techniques, I began to notice some interesting trends. Once the children had finished their paper pencil desk work, they had permission to proceed to the learning centers where they were able to manipulate and further reinforce their skills. Of course there was one day that was exceptional Friday, when all students were given playtime at the centers, before all materials would be stowed away and new centers would take their place on Monday morning. Interestingly the students consistently perceived their learning centers as fun and games. They were blinded to the fact that they were actually becoming more proficient at developing their skills and demonstrating a greater mastery of the learning objectives. In spite of the many positive outcomes resulting from these learning centers, it did not take long before I noticed that this particular routine was one that rewarded quick finishers and strong students. The students that were more adept and able to attend to tasks regularly were the ones benefiting from these fun activities, while the students who struggled with their work or concentration were left at their desks to toil through their drill practice.

How then, do classroom teachers provide instruction that inspires and ignites a fire for learning; creating strategies that drive achievement and success while acknowledging the established curriculum standards; strategies that provide adequate challenge, choice, and reward for all students, despite their perceived talent or deficit? One possible solution to this common dilemma that teaching professionals may consider is a more differentiated approach to instruction. All students would benefit from classroom instruction and practice that offers a wider choice and is more suited to diverse learning styles. My own dissatisfaction with the traditional lecture style method led me to further investigate the topic of differentiated instruction. With the proper tools, teachers can tackle the challenges of accommodating all student needs while balancing their increasingly demanding workloads (Rock, Gregg, Ellis & Gable, 2008). A differentiated approach to teaching and learning in todays diverse classrooms could provide more avenues to meet the needs of the diverse student population in our classrooms (Nunley, 2004). Rationale Differentiated instruction is not a new phenomenon in education. Over the past decade, this form of instruction has gradually gained momentum in research as a notable strategy and has many teachers pondering further investigation of this topic. With todays typical highly diverse classroom, teachers are reaching for any tool that can be used to better serve their students. The Diverse Classroom Children learn differently (Sternberg & Zhang, 2005; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). One challenge facing 21st century educators is that children come into the classroom at different levels on their educational course (George, 2005; Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Peirce, 2009; Peterson & Taylor, 2009). Latz et al. state that a typical public school classroom contains 27

10

students whose academic performance spans five grade levels, confirming this great diversity. Students are of mixed cognitive abilities with richly diverse learning styles, personalities, and abilities. They also come from a mixture of racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds (Anderson, 2007; Brighton, 2002; Corolan & Guinn, 2007; George; Levy, 2008; Reed & Westberg, 2003; Peterson & Taylor; Rock et al.; Nunley, 2004; Tobin & McInnes; Making a Difference, 2010). Socio-economic factors are playing an increasingly pivotal role in education. Poverty continues to be one of the most persistent factors that negatively impacts student achievement (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008, p. 50). Poverty rates continue to increase and have become of great concern to urban school districts (Rock et al., 2008). In addition to lower overall school achievement, school communities of higher poverty rates tend to have a higher probability in readiness gaps in children entering school (Beecher & Sweeny; Rock et al.). [T]he Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15, guarantees a public education to all children regardless of their disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2000, p. 9). Students with cognitive disabilities require a great deal more from their teacher than simply attending to classroom instruction (Rock et al., 2008). These diverse learners require greater access to more group-individualized instructions with more accommodations and modifications for their learning deficits (Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Rock et al.). Since there has been greater integration of special needs students and a decrease in traditional pull-out programs in recent years (Latz et al., 2009), it is imperative that teachers become better equipped at supporting and adequately challenging all of the students in their classrooms (Kobelin, 2009). Rock et al. state that [m]ost general educators feel ill prepared to teach students with diverse learning needs (p. 34). Many educators continue to teach to the middle in the regular classrooms, resulting in the needs of

11

many students going unmet (Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Rock et al.). No longer can we teach to students in the middle ability range and hope that all the other students will receive something from the information. Learning experiences must match the many ways that students learn (Chapman & King, 2003, p. 12). The Traditional Approach to Teaching and Learning Most teachers approach their lesson delivery in the same way that they were taught in school (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 2002). They tend to follow a teacher-centered model of instruction (Tomlinson, 2001) even though they harbor deep uncertainties about [its] fundamental effectiveness (George, 2005, p. 186). As a primary teaching strategy, King-Sears (2005) concurs that large group instruction is an unsuccessful means of educating and preparing the leaders of tomorrow. Tomlinson (2001) refers to the traditional classroom as familiar, typical and largely undifferentiated (p. 2). This unitary approach is definitely counterproductive to what government and school districts are essentially striving to achieve (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Tomlinson). Whole-class instruction and one-size-fits all worksheet-based teaching activities are instructional strategies that will likely not support improved student engagement and achievement (McTighe & Brown; Nunley, 2004). The classroom environment has a major impact on student motivation (Chapman & King, 2003, p. 13). In time, if not properly motivated, students can come to feel restricted and bored with their learning, or worse, become anxious, overwhelmed test-takers because of the poor strategies they have experienced in school (Brighton, 2002). Learners need to be better prepared to be productive, thoughtful and contributing members of society by independently being able to tackle the demands of an ever-changing

12

world (Brendtro et al., 2002; George, 2005). They need to have the ability to reason and use higher level critical thinking skills (Brendtro et al.; George). Students can develop these higher level skills by being the workers in their classrooms while their teachers take on the role of facilitator for the information being presented (George). By developing each student to their capacity for achievement, Peterson and Taylor (2009) agree that schools can do a better job of preparing students for the real world as contributing members of society. The learner needs to be the main focus in education and be treated equitably (Levy, 2008). Teacher-Centered Instruction and the Student Brain The traditional educational practice just described, follows a linear logical step-by-step approach to teaching concepts in the classroom (Brendtro et al., 2002; McTighe & Brown, 2005). Brendtro et al. argue that this approach to lesson delivery presupposes that a childs brain learns best from reading text books and listening to verbal instruction and assumes that it is incapable of independently organizing information or of self-motivation and self-management. When the brain is insufficiently challenged, it does not adequately perform its physiological job of releasing the necessary chemicals to work at its peak effectiveness (McAllister & Plourde, 2008). According to Brendtro et al., this lecture style, whole-group instruction is an easy method of instruction for the teacher, but is in fact very hard on a students brain. Brain research suggests that the brain will not maintain its level of development if students are not challenged (McAllister & Plourde, 2008, p. 40). The brain will lose tone over time, if it is not vigorously used (Tomlinson, 2001). McTighe and Brown claim that the brain is a survival organ that must be engaged by its learning environment rather than threatened or negated by it (p. 236). When the brain perceives threats, whether overt or covert, it will automatically downshift (Brendtro, et al. 2002; McTighe & Brown, 2005). Nunleys (2004), research

13

suggests that stress affects the hippocampus and the pre-frontal cortex, the portions of the brain that are responsible for memory storage. When the brain has prolonged stress, Nunley argues, memory retrieval becomes increasingly difficult and problems of impulse control and sustained attention can result. Research indicates a correlation between stress and violent behaviors leaving the possibility open that teacher-centered classrooms may elicit regions of the brain that are responsible for violent behaviors (Nunley). How then can the teachers delivery of lessons adequately challenge the students brain without causing necessary overt stress, affecting the long-term retention of the intended outcome? Nunley suggests offering student choice allowing the creatures to take control (p. 50). Students learn best when they are highly motivated and excited about learning (Reed & Westberg, 2003, p. 27). Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies that promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. The literature review examined current research findings on the topic and explored a number of recommended strategies. The data collection provided me with greater insight on teacher perspectives on differentiation and the need for greater pedagogical support in developing teachers integration of responsive teaching strategies. This study serves as an aid to teachers to expand their classroom instructional techniques thereby promoting greater student engagement. Research Question Is there a difference in how teachers perceive differentiated instruction and to what degree do teachers implement these strategies into their daily lessons?

14

Summary Trends in education today support more inclusive learning. That being said, teachers have a great responsibility to their students, parents, and administration to deliver the best quality education possible despite high levels of diversity and other challenges that they face in the classroom. It is vital that teachers arm themselves with more proactive strategies in the field of education. In order to accomplish this feat, teachers must possess greater awareness of their individual students, their classroom dynamics, and their instructional strategies without losing sight of their goal: to promote learning for all students without exception. Education is constantly evolving and as teachers, we too, must be prepared to transform our ways.

15

Chapter II Review of the Literature The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies that promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. This literature review will examine current research findings on the facts and misconceptions surrounding the topic, challenges teachers face with its implementation, as well as a review recommended strategies for implementing differentiated instruction. Differentiated Instruction Defined Teachers are at a crossroads in education. In an effort to find a balance between accommodating student needs with reduced budgets to increased pressures to improve results on high stakes tests, teachers are challenged daily by these taxing demands. Those who embrace new strategies to add to their repertoire of teaching tools may find some solutions to these ongoing challenges in education. One strategy is differentiated instruction. Tomlinson (2001), describes differentiated instruction at a very basic level as Shaking up what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn. In other words, a differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquiring content, to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can learn effectively. (p. 1) A great many teachers feel drawn to the implementation of best practices in their classrooms (Anderson, 2007; Brighton, 2002; George, 2005; Levy, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008) since they observe that many children perform daily on the margins of their classrooms never fully engaged and rarely ever catching a glimpse of their brightest potential (Anderson, p.

16

49). Best practices are described as the solid, reputable, state-of-the-art work in a field, (Brighton, p. 1). Anderson observes that when teachers incorporate best practices into their classrooms, students are able to move forward in gaining the knowledge and proficiency of the skills they need to do well to meet the curriculum standards or outcomes. The process of differentiating instruction may do just that [By] ensuring that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that students readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning. A readiness match maximizes the chance of appropriate challenge and growth. An interest match heightens motivation. A learning profile match increases efficiency of learning. (Tomlinson, 2004, p. 188) Differentiated Instruction Described It is necessary to clarify what differentiated instruction is and what it is not. Many research findings suggest that there are a great many misconceptions about the topic. Represented in the following section are some of the most common facts and misconceptions in the literature about differentiated instruction. Facts about Differentiated Instruction A schools purpose should always be to maximize student capacities (Anderson, 2007; Peterson & Taylor, 2009). Good schools achieve this by nurturing and fostering a sense of responsibility (Tomlinson, 2004) and personal excellence in their student body (Peterson & Taylor). Tomlinson (2001) argues that the driving force behind differentiated instruction is just that, to maximize student capacity (p. 11). According to Anderson, the most important aspects of differentiated instruction are:

17

The elements of choice, flexibility, on-going assessment, and creativity resulting in differentiating the content being taught, or how students are processing and developing understanding of concepts and skills, or the ways in which students demonstrate what they have learned and their level of knowledge through varied products (p. 50). Differentiated Instruction is student-centered, thus learning experiences are most effective when they are engaging, relevant, and interesting (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 5). Content According to Tomlinson (as cited in Sandmel, Brindle, Harris, Lane, Graham, Nackel, Mathias, Little, 2009), teachers can differentiate content in two ways, either by altering materials the teacher uses with the students or by modifying student learning altogether. Because of the ever-present student diversity in the classroom, there too exists an enormous variance in students background knowledge (Chapman & King, 2003; Nunley, 2004; Rock, Gregg, Ellis & Gable, 2008). Nunley states that teachers must target this range in student readiness, or background knowledge, with strategies that will be discussed further in the latter part of this chapter. The goalis to strike a balance between instruction, remediation, and enrichment (Rock et al., p. 36). When differentiating content, [teachers] must make sure that the building blocks are in place for students before we ask them to move on to the next task (Levy, 2008, p. 162). Teachers can vary the complexity of the content for the individual learner, thereby challenging the student in a meaningful and appropriately manner (Brighton, 2002; King-Sears, 2005; McTighe & Brown, 2005; Nunley, 2004; Rock et al. 2008; Tomlinson, 2001). So long as teachers have a meaningful basis from which to differentiate (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 41), more specifically, that teachers secure a solid understanding of the learning outcomes for

18

their purposefully planned lessons (Making a Difference, 2010; Rock et al.; Tomlinson & McTighe). Process Differentiating the process, refers to the diverse activities the student will experience (Levy, 2008). Teachers must consider reflecting upon students learning preferences and interests in order to create meaningful activities (Anderson, 2007; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Sternberg & Zhang, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001; Sandmel et al., 2009). Students do not all learn the same way, so we cannot teach them all the same way, we need to adjust our teaching style to reflect the needs of our students (Anderson, p. 162). In order for the learning of our students to be actualized, it is important that teachers become more reflective in the differentiating process, ensuring they always build upon student knowledge (Levy, 2008; Minott, 2009). Product Students demonstrate their learning through the differentiation of product (Levy, 2008; Sondergeld & Schulz, 2008; Sandmel et al., 2009). Differentiated products challenge students at all levels to make decisions, be responsible for their own learning, as well as affording them opportunities to demonstrate what they know through products that are representative of their unique learning preferences, interests, and strengths (Anderson, 2007 p. 51). Environment In addition to differentiating content, process and product, some researchers argue that the classroom itself is an element that can be differentiated (Minott, 2009; Peterson & Taylor, 2009; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tomlinson, 2004). Peterson and Taylor suggest that classrooms should have accessible spaces for students to have flexibility either to work alone, in pairs or in small groups. Empowering students to make these decisions and take greater

19

responsibility for their learning environment, as well as the citizens within, is an excellent opportunity for individual growth (George, 2005; Peterson & Taylor; Tomlinson, 2004). In this view, differentiation becomes a sterling example of synergy. On a team, for example the coach has a critical role to play. So do the individual players who must focus and refine their individual rolesindividuals not only accept responsibility for their own talents and roles, but have the generosity of heart to look beyond themselves as well. Paradoxically, in so doing, they learn more about themselves (Tomlinson, p. 188). Teachers have the opportunity to model the idea that together, youngsters and adults can solve problems and share in the responsibility of the classroom community (Peterson & Taylor; Tomlinson). Misconceptions of Differentiated Instruction There too exist views shared by some scholars that disapprove this responsive teaching strategy. The following section will highlight some of the most frequent misconceptions of the topic represented in the literature. A Chaotic and Unmanaged Classroom Tomlinson (2001) states that teachers who differentiate their instruction must simultaneously manage student behavior and run student activities. In order for students to have purposeful dialogue and movement, there is a need for clearly understood classroom rules and established routines (King-Sears, 2005; Tomlinson). Researchers maintain that in a studentcentered classroom there are far fewer incidents of behavior problems because students have greater opportunity of choice and are more engaged in their learning (Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Peirce, 2009; Nunley, 2004).

20

Individualized Instruction The learning styles movement became a popular practice in education in the 1970s (Nunley, 2004; Tomlinson, 2001). During this time, the one-size fits all approach to instruction, as described by Nunley, was recognized as inadequate. Teachers were asked to look at each students skill set and match the student at his/her precise entry level (Tomlinson). Teachers, having several students in their classrooms, quickly became exhausted by the demands of individualizing assignments for their students (Carolan & Guinn, 2007; Nunley; Tomlinson). Furthermore, instruction became fragmented, thereby making learning irrelevant for students (Tomlinson). McTighe and Brown (2005) claim that when instruction is fragmented and not conceptually organized, student achievement is far from maximized. Quantitative Workloads Rock et al. (2008) caution teachers whose approach to instruction is to ask stronger students more difficult questions and allow struggling learners to skip questions in assignments or tests altogether. The authors refer to this as the watered-down approach to presenting curriculum and claim that teachers can actually do more of a disservice to their students by lowering expectations for the perceived struggling student. It is not helpful to struggling students to do less (emphasis added) of what they do not grasp. Nor is it helpful to advanced students to do more (emphasis added) of what they already understood before they began the task (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 41). According to Rock et al., the academic performance of the lower achieving students may actually be hindered by doing less work. According to Tomlinson (2001), these modifications are more a reflection of students learning profiles than actually differentiating their instruction. It is likely that the more or less approach to differentiation occurs when we lack clarity about essential outcomes and thus a meaningful basis

21

from which to differentiate (Tomlinson & McTighe, p. 41). Teachers can support student learning by challeng[ing] them [students] to work slightly above what they can do independently (Rock et al., p. 33). The Rotation of Groups According to Tobin and McInnes (2008), teachers have the wrong idea about differentiated instruction when they assume that rotating students through a series of learning centers is in fact responsive instruction. The researchers go on to argue that this turn taking approach to learning does not support the fact that all students in a classroom have different learning needs that cannot adequately be supported by doing the same activities. Thoughtful consideration of students interests, strengths, preferred learning modalities and background knowledge make responsive teaching successful (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Rock et al. (2008) support this argument by adding that it is an incorrect to assume that one way differentiation is effective and productive for student learning. Students have individual, unique and different needs. Their learning is not and cannot be adequately supported by doing the same learning activities. Dumbing Down the Curriculum Stanley and MacCann (2005) suggest that teachers expectations of their students can have a strong influence on their classroom participation and academic performance. Chapman and King (2003) echo this sentiment in their work. Teachers have a tremendous influence on students attitudes toward learning (Chapman & King). In their article, Stanley and MacCann examined Stevenson and Stiglers (1992) international comparative study of Asian and American students. The study connects high student performance to two factors. Asian students are successful in school because they are intrinsically motivated to do well, and their parents and

22

teachers place tremendously high expectations upon them. The authors conclude that the preconceived notion of an innate academic ability among Asian students is false. Asian students place a greater emphasis upon themselves to work hard and succeed in school than do their American counterparts (Stanley & MacCann). Based on evidence from this study, Stanley and MacCann argue that by giving students choice through differentiated instruction, educators are essentially dumbing down curriculum and inhibiting the strongest students to ever reach their full potential. They suggest that students in the differentiated classroom will more likely than not take the easy way out, completing only the simplest of the choice tasks. Providing differentiated courses to cater for a wide range of ability can lead to students being contented with lower performance than they are capable of achieving (Stanley & MacCann, p. 8). Rock et al. (2008) present a similar argument. If teachers choose to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms, students may be perceive workloads to be unfairly distributed (Rock et al.). Tomlinson (2004) argues that together, teachers and students alike must share the responsibility for learning. Teachers must teach responsively to ensure their role as coach is maintained, matching tasks at appropriate levels of difficulty as well as keeping learning profile compatibility in mind when planning (Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson, 2004). There should be a balance between student-selected and teacher-assigned tasks and working arrangement [in the differentiated classroom] (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 20). The key is to have something for everyone (Nunley, 2004, p. 123). Challenges of Implementing DI Testing in Canada and the United States is becoming a common practice in education (Nunley, 2004). Indeed, many school teachers are feeling an increased pressure from their administration, district and provincial or state government, to improve results on high-stake

23

achievement tests (Anderson, 2007; Brighton, 2002; Latz et al., 2009; Rock et al., 2008; Yuen, Westwood & Wong, 2004). Current grade level curriculum standards are demanding and with the diversity that exists in the classroom, teachers often feel overloaded trying to get their at risk students to grade level (McAllister & Plourde, 2008). Some fear that by offering a differentiated approach, classroom instruction may possibly stray from the mandated curriculum standards, thereby resulting in lowered standardized test scores (Latz et al.; Rock et al.; Yeun et al.). McTighe and Brown (2005) maintain that curriculum standards can and must coexist with differentiation. Many teachers find little support from their employers to invest a great deal of time and energy (Corolan & Guinn, 2007; King-Sears, 2005; McAllister & Plourde, 2008; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Yeun et al. 2004) into changing their current teaching strategies (Latz et al., 2009) when there remains much controversy over goals, strategies and methods of accountability (George. 2005). Others find it difficult to balance accountability standards with the implementation of best practices (Brighton, 2002) even though they truly believe that best practices are the more effective teaching model (George). Best practices are described as the solid, reputable, state-of-the-art work in a field (Brighton, p. 1). According to Anderson (2007), when teachers incorporate best practices into their classrooms, students are better able to move forward in gaining the knowledge and proficiency of the skills they need to do well to meet the curriculum standards. Brighton (2002) describes an extreme case where a teacher reorganized her entire social studies program around the use of best practices, more specifically differentiated styles of teaching. The classroom was filled with learning, from rich discussions on history to tiered leveled assignments which drove students to become more self-directed and masters of the

24

objectives (Brighton). The feedback the teacher received from her class, learning coach and principal was very positive (Brighton). Unfortunately the teachers school board put a great deal of pressure on her to adopt a more lecture-dominated style of instruction, prompting the teacher to abandon her differentiated style of instruction. Brighton concluded that because of the threat of negative consequences such as the termination of her employment, forced transfer or loss of accreditation, the teacher was motivated to choose against her better judgment and comply with her districts strategy of test preparation. Researchers suggest that many educators realize that there is a great variance among students needs in the regular classroom (Nunley, 2004; Tobin & McInnes, 2008), but are simply unsure as to how to adequately modify student learning and accommodate student diversity (King-Sears, 2005; Latz et al., 2009; McAllister & Plourde, 2008; Nunley, 2004; Rock et al., 2008; Tobin & McInnes; Yeun et al., 2004). Strategies that Support Differentiated Instruction The first step that teachers must consider when differentiating content, process and product for their students is looking at the provincial student learner outcomes or state curriculum standards (Levy, 2008; Sondergeld & Schulz, 2008; Making a Difference, 2010; Rock et al., 2008). Educators are bound to teach the mandated curriculum (Rock et al.), but need to consider how to make instructional strategies a good fit for a wide range of learners (Sondergeld & Schulz as cited in Gould, 2000, p. 74), while still keeping activities engaging and interesting (Chapman & King, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001). Once the curriculum is identified, educators are ready to analyze their students. In their work, Rock et al. (2008) caution that [t]he focus of differentiated instruction is on the learner, not the content (p. 35). The researchers emphasize that classrooms must shift and become

25

student-centered as opposed to content-centered (Rock et al.) In order for this divergence to take shape, classroom assessment becomes an increasingly key factor. You cannot build the top floor of a building without the support of the floors below it (Levy, 2008, p. 162), therefore, teachers must employ multiple approaches to collecting data assessments in order to properly and objectively assess their students skills and development (Levy; Making a Difference, 2010; Rock et al.; Sandmel et al., 2009; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). The different methods of assessments that teachers can administer in order to fully assess these developmental skills include: pre-assessment or diagnostic assessment, formative assessment and summative assessment. Anderson (2007) emphasizes that ongoing assessment of students knowledge and understanding of concepts and skills remains of utmost importance. In classes with less successful students the traditional tellem-and-test-me methods are clearly inadequate (George, 2005, p. 190). Differentiated instruction is the choice for teachers who will not accept a classroom where growing numbers of students are increasingly less successful, (George, p. 190). Whenever possible, teachers should include their students in the assessment process (Making a Difference, 2010). Students need to become more than mechanical appliers of predigested information and mechanical skills (McTighe & Brown, 2005, p. 240). Teaching students to become more self-evaluative and self-reflective are crucial elements to an effectively differentiated program (McTighe & Brown). According to Tomlinson and McTighe (2006), [t]he most effective learners are metacognitive; that is, they are mindful of how they learn, set personal learning goals, regularly self-assess and adjust their performance, and use productive strategies to assist their learning (p. 79).

26

Once pre-assessment strategies are in progress, the teacher becomes armed with data in relation to his/her pupils knowledge and skill sets (Rock et al., 2008; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). The teacher can use this information to compile individual student learning profiles which will determine student readiness, interests and preferred learning styles, as well as any strengths or weaknesses the student might have (Anderson, 2007; Making a Difference, 2010; Rock et al.; Sternberg & Zhang, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001). Using the knowledge obtained by creating learning profiles, the teacher is now able to begin [c]onnecting kids to content (cited by Tomlinson in Rock et al., p. 36). Learning is supported through prepared activities while the teacher maintains the flexibility to modify the level of difficulty of the tasks (Making a Difference; Rock et al.). In doing so, students can arrive at the same desired curricular outcome by way of many avenues of understanding (Rock et al.; Sondergeld & Schulz, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001). Since there are numerous strategies identified in the research to maximize achievement in teaching and learning activities, this section will address: learning centers, guided reading, choice boards, tiered activities, independent study, and journals. Learning Centers King-Sears (2005) suggests three important features for successful implementation of learning centers. First, the tasks must be of increasing levels of proficiency and must be able to be completed independently. Second, the process must be rehearsed. Student movement and transitions must be practiced and rules must be established (King-Sears; Nunley, 2004; Tomlinson, 2001). Third, teachers must be aware. In other words, the teacher must be cognizant of how well students are accomplishing tasks, promoting student accountability, as well as discern the moment in time when the activities should be changed.

27

When faced with organizing student groups, the teacher can exercise his/her discretion based on observations (Levy, 2008). Ability groups are never to be considered stagnant; in fact they are very adaptable (King-Sears, 2005; Levy). Educators also have leeway in varying the complexity of the tasks. The primary task for teachers is ensuring that each student who uses the Learning Center has appropriately challenging content to practice and use (King-Sears, p. 403). Nunley (2004) suggests that the classroom teacher prepare two to three choice centers for each learning objective. Attaching a color code to the activity aids primary students in their understanding of the procedure. For example, students must complete a red and yellow activity in a specified time frame. Teachers attach a different learning objective for each colored activity. King-Sears (2005) notes that teachers will invest considerable time in creating centers and practicing the process with their students but maintains that the effort is well worth its time. Students learn how to work independently on meaningful tasks at learning centers, and teachers have an organized format for providing small group instruction (p. 405). Guided Reading Research indicates that small-group instruction effectively reduces the number of struggling readers to 4.5% or less of the school population (McInnes & Tobin, 2008, p. 4). Tobin and McInnes highlight one teachers effective use of small group instruction in guided reading practice in their research. In this particular example, guided reading groups are homogeneously organized by the teacher according to student similar skill level. Each small group receives 30 minutes of practice and instruction time with the teacher (Tobin & McInnes, 2008). The first ten minutes of guided practice is focuses on students taking turns reading aloud in their small group. The teacher listens to individuals in the group and indicates, by a finger

28

tapping motion, whose turn it is to read. Tobin and McInnes describe the second ten-minute section as the instruction block. Students focus on word work by manipulating words and word parts. Students use a variety of tools such as, whiteboards, mini pocket chart, letter tiles, sticky wickies, etc for their word work practice. The final ten-minute section focuses on the introduction of a new book. The guided reading group concludes the time spent with their teacher by working on literacy skills such as, prediction, vocabulary building exercises and comprehension strategies. [D]ifferentiationwith literacy learners has also been shown to be effective in getting students motivated and in increasing fluency in reading and writing (p. 4). While the teacher works with small groups in guided practice, the remaining members of the classroom are engaged in literacy centers (Tobin & McInnes, 2008). The researchers state that the teacher provides a variety of choice activities to students according to their readiness profiles. This is just one particular example of how a teacher successfully implemented guided reading into the language arts classroom. What works for one student will not necessarily work for another student (Sandmel et al., 2009, p. 32). McTighe and Brown (2005) suggest that the teacher look closely at the diversity of students needs and modify accordingly. Evidently, what works with one particular class, may not work for another. Choice Boards Choice boards offer students the flexibility in how they might demonstrate the knowledge and skills obtained in their learning (Anderson, 2007; Nunley, 2004). After direct instruction, students are presented with the opportunity to make decisions by actively participating in the learning process (Anderson). According to the researcher, the teacher creates varied skill leveled activities on the choice board, and students are instructed to complete a specified number of

29

those tasks (Anderson). All options on the choice board vary on how students demonstrate their performance while maintaining the same learning outcome. Tiered Activities Tiered assignments are also referred to as Parallel Tasks (Tomlinson, 2001). As their name suggests, tiered tasks result in students demonstrating the same intended learner outcome only on three separate levels of difficulty (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Nunley, 2004; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). By keeping the focus on the same activity, but providing routes of access at varying degrees of difficulty, the teacher maximized the likelihood that each student [is] appropriately challenged (Tobin & McInnes, p. 6). At the base level or tier 1, students must demonstrate factual, content knowledge of information (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Nunley, 2004; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). Once students have demonstrated competency at the knowledge level, they are able to move to a more complex level of thinking in tier 2, the application level. Tier 3 is the exploration/evaluation level. In this final tier, students are challenged at a greater depth of understanding. Using a tier strategy to differentiate, teachers can monitor students learning and provide scaffolding when necessary for those students requiring further assistance (Tobin & McInnes) while at the same time affording stronger students the chance to express a higher-level of critical thinking in their work (Sondergeld & Schultz). Independent Study Students engaged in independent study are challenged at the highest level of thinking (McAllister & Plourde, 2008; Powers, 2008). They have the opportunity to demonstrate their self-efficacy by taking responsibility and demonstrating greater autonomy for their learning

30

(Powers; Tomlinson, 2004). Powers states that students strengthen their skills in questioning, problem solving, inquiry and reflection in their chosen topics of study. Such reflection can help to improve students self-esteem, while the element of choice can enhance students motivation to learn. Journals Reflective & Learning Tools Journals can be used as tools in both reflection and learning (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Minott, 2009). Students can use a journal as a means of communication with their teacher, by providing honest feedback about their preferences and or dissatisfaction of the classroom activities. Tomlinson (2004) suggests that students have the opportunity to exercise a greater voice of self-efficacy (p. 188) and to take on more ownership in the evaluative process on their own path to differentiation (McTighe & Brown; Minott). When using journals as a learning tool, Tomlinson (2001) suggests the use of prompts to promote greater interaction between educator and student. A teacher can begin an area of study by using the same journal prompt for his/her whole class. The teacher could consider pairing the students of similar skill set to complete their journal responses together (Tomlinson). This preassessment strategy enables the educator to provide additional support or enrichment for students, thereby differentiating their instruction (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Tomlinson). In their study, Sandmel et al. (2009) promote the use of analogies and mnemonics as strategies to assist struggling students with the writing process. The researchers suggest that learners using these strategies become more independent and have heightened motivation to write. A Word of Caution Recognizing that todays educators are juggling many balls, caution is advised when embarking on any change process (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 168). As a starting point,

31

teachers may want to consider making small changes to their repertoire of responsive teaching strategies (Nunley, 2004; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008). In order to minimize what Tomlinson and McTighe refer to as innovation overload (p. 168), researchers recommend that educators begin differentiating content they are most comfortable teaching, and recognize that all lessons need not be differentiated (Nunley, 2004; Sondergeld & Schultz; Tomlinson, 2001). Sondergeld and Schultz recommend that teachers stay persistent on their course to differentiation. Teachers will steadily gain in confidence and experience with the process of differentiated instruction through continued practice of creating responsive lessons and or units. Teachers must place high standards expectations upon all of their students (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Peterson & Taylor 2009; Stanley & MacCann, 2005). By expecting growth from each and every student, and providing the supports necessary for success, McTighe and Brown argue that all students are capable of achievement. By establishing specific structures in the classroom, teachers can expect greater success implementing differentiated strategies (King-Sears, 2005). Teachers must first, communicate clear expectations for student behavior (Tomlinson, 2001). This can be successfully achieved by practicing the intended procedure the teacher wishes to use as well as reinforcing appropriate behaviors often (King-Sears; Tomlinson). Nunley and Tomlinson warn teachers to minimize student movement and their noise level during differentiated activities. Tomlinson recommends recruiting the students themselves, to assist with noise control, by monitoring and gently reminding their peers whenever necessary. By assigning specific roles to students, such as group material collector or question captain, teachers may find a reduction in classroom distractions, thus an improvement in students on-task behavior.

32

In a heterogeneous class, it is natural to assume that diverse learners will complete tasks at different rates of speed. For that reason, teachers in the differentiated classroom ought to prepare anchor activities (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 33) for students to complete once their regular class work is finished. Anchor activities should promote greater practice of the targeted learning objectives, challenging students to further practice their skills. Professional Development & Collaboration Professional development is a key component of making and implementing change (Carolan & Guinn, 2007; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). Classroom teachers need sustained support in their efforts to monitor student progress and determine effectiveness of instruction, in determining how to use daily observational data to identify modifications that may be required and how to address time management (p. 86). Research suggests that by adopting new strategies in their teaching, educators need the opportunity for on-going training and follow up support to ensure the effectiveness of their instructional process (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Latz, et al., 2009; Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko). Peer Coaching Mentoring or peer coaching is one strategy that professionals may consider helpful in their plans to differentiate instruction (Carolan & Guinn, 2007; Latz et al., 2009; WalkerDalhouse & Risko, 2009). Peer-coaching is a non-evaluative, nonthreatening, and confidencebuilding training method for educators (Latz et al., p. 28). Teachers are very much accustomed to working in isolation in their classrooms. Its time to open these [classroom] doors and see the dynamic and complex nature of differentiation in practice (Carolan & Guinn, p. 47). Using this approach, a mentor works alongside the classroom teacher by planning and implementing the intended goals for differentiation (Carolan & Guinn; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko). The

33

mentor makes observations and if necessary, provides further support to the classroom teacher. Latz et al. state that educators can gain new perspectives and creatively develop their practice. Nunley (2004) suggest that this particular professional development strategy is effective when the special education teacher works alongside the regular classroom teacher to modify and create new ideas for content implementation. Peer Collaboration Research recommends that staffs embrace a collaborative effort when preparing to apply differentiated techniques in their school (Rock et al. 2008; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). When teachers buddy-up for peer collaboration a great deal of reflection can occur (Minott, 2009). Through this reflective action, teachers can problem solve and possibly resolve difficulties that they may be encountering with its implementation (Minott). Another positive outcome of peer collaboration is a greater sense of community among colleagues; teachers committed to working for the betterment of their students can further develop camaraderie among staff members (Reed & Westberg, 2003). Finally, the students themselves may have the opportunity to work with a different group of peers as well as other talented staff members when teachers take on a more collaborative approach to differentiating instruction (Carolan & Guinn, 2007; Nunley, 2004; Reed & Westberg; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). When educators work together, students are afforded greater choice and flexibility under a collaborative model (Nunley; Reed & Westberg). Nunley proposes one example of a collaborative model when two teachers are working together on a unit, offering activities at the same time only in different classrooms. All learning outcomes are the same; however students have the option of working in a quieter workspace or to work with different peers.

34

Summary There seems to be a general consensus among scholars today that differentiated instruction is a responsive approach to teaching resulting in one form or another, the alteration of the content presented, the process students acquire the targeted skills, and finally, the product or learning the students will demonstrate. At the heart of differentiated instruction, is the student, as differentiated instruction is a student-centered approach to teaching. The teacher connects students to the learning experiences by considering variables such as: student interests and their strengths as well as preferred learning styles and background knowledge. By purposefully planning meaningful activities that will not only hook the learner, responsive differentiated strategies to instruction strive to challenge students at their appropriate level, allowing for greater choice in activities, consequently heightening student motivation for learning and germinating a sense of wonder and relevancy. Researchers concede that educators have an arduous feat when differentiating instruction in their classrooms. The delicate balance between continuous improvement on standardized tests and philosophical beliefs about the implementation of best practices, can ballast beginner and veteran teachers alike, not to mention the additional challenges of meeting the diverse needs of students filling our classrooms beyond capacity. It is imperative for teachers to be open-minded and flexible when considering the implementation of differentiated strategies, such as: learning centers, guided reading, choice boards, tiered activities, independent studies, and journals. In order for teachers to be successful at differentiating instruction in their classrooms, they must be reflective of their practice and ought to have some additional supports in place in the way of professional development. Workshops, in-services and informal teacher collaboration are just a

35

few examples of professional development activities that can promote teachers growth in responsive teaching strategies like differentiated instruction.

36

Chapter III Methodology Most educators today are versed in techniques to differentiate their instruction, however many are not putting these skills and strategies into their regular teaching practice (Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Peirce, 2009; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). [T]eachers need to investigate their applications of differentiated thinking toward instructional planning and implementation of lessons (Anderson, 2007, p. 52). The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies to promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. This chapter will present the methods I used to conduct and implement the research. I will present the procedure I used for choosing participants, followed by a brief description of the location where the study took place and the process of how the data was collected. Confidentiality considerations and agreements will be addressed next, and finally the specific procedures I used for data analysis. Selection of Participants This project included a total of six participants, all elementary school teachers, three male and three female. Three of the six participants were primary school teachers whose assignments span kindergarten through to grade 3. The remaining three participants were intermediate teachers whose assignments ranged from grades 4 to 6. Participants teaching experience ranged from two years to 25 years. Setting Alberta residents have choice in the schools to which they send their children. Some examples of the different school options for parents include public, separate, francophone, private, home schooling, and in some communities, charter schools. The teacher participants

37

that were interviewed in this study came from five different public and separate schools located within a 250 kilometer radius from Calgary, Alberta. Three of the five schools are located in an urban setting, while the two remaining schools are located in nearby rural regions. This urban community is one of the largest populated cities in Alberta. Rich in history, this culturally diverse community primarily employs residents in the business and health care industries (Statistics Canada, 2007). Because of this citys close physical proximity to three separate First Nations reservations, city residents are exposed to many diverse and unique cultural experiences. The three urban schools featured in this study vary in programming options for the families attending. Two of the three schools offer language immersion programs in both French and English. The schools serve students from kindergarten to grade 5, kindergarten to grade 6 and kindergarten to 9 respectively. Enrollment in all three schools varies from between 400 to 450 culturally diverse student populations, with First Nation students making up the most predominant of the visible minorities. Families socio-economic backgrounds range considerably among these urban schools. Two of the three schools are located in middle class neighborhoods, while the third, resides in a lower income neighborhood in the citys core. Because of its unique programming options for its students and their families, bussing from all corners of the city has been made available, and for that same reason, students from all social classes attend this particular school. The remaining two rural schools have some unique similarities and distinct differences. The primary industries in these rural communities are business, heath care, and social services as well as agriculture. Both schools are situated in the same school division. The two are made up mostly of mixed grade classrooms, making the description of specific teaching assignments to be

38

more vague than the participants teaching assignments in the urban schools. One rural school serves students from kindergarten to 9, with one-third of their student populace being of aboriginal heritage. Enrollment in this rural school is approximately 90 students. The other school serves approximately 450 rural students from kindergarten to grade 12. According to Statistics Canada, this rural community has very few, if any visible minorities residing, with only approximately 900 residents totaling its populace. This community school serves as a magnet, drawing students from neighboring boundaries. Data Collection This qualitative study examined six different teachers perspectives on differentiated instruction. In order to learn about these teachers perspectives, I gathered data through individual interviews conducted in a semi-structured format. Participants were asked a series of eight questions, and just as Mertler (2009) suggests, had the opportunity to elaborate on their responses. The interview questions were broad and empirical, seeking information that was highlighted in Chapter II such as: definitions, strategies teachers are currently using as well as challenges they encounter for differentiating instruction in their classrooms. All interviews were video recorded, then transcribed to ensure that the authenticity of the information collected. Ethical Considerations Participants name and school will remain anonymous. Any future publication or presentation of the project will respect participants anonymity through the use of pseudonyms for the participants and their schools. All data transcripts collected during the interviews were destroyed once the final project was complete. Participation in this action research study was voluntary. Mertler (2009) suggests that when data is collected and shared with a larger audience, the principle of accurate disclosure be

39

strictly followed. Fundamentally, the principle of accurate disclosure, as Mertler describes it, communicates the purpose of the study, the volunteers level of involvement, and the guarantee of participant confidentiality. Mertler also refers to the importance of following the principle of honesty. Like its name suggests, the principle of honesty explicitly describes the researchers responsibility to collect and present data truthfully, free from manipulation or tampering of any kind on the part of the researcher. An informed consent letter was drafted, describing the purpose of the research study, the participants role in providing the data that was later analyzed, as well as my assurance to participants that I would comply with research ethics. A copy of this informed consent letter is included in Appendix A. Teacher participants were selected based on meeting the specific projected criteria. I sought to achieve a gender balance of male and female perspectives as well as the primary and intermediate teaching assignments. A letter of intent was distributed to teacher participants and interviews occurred in the 2011 spring term. I participated in an on-line ethics course prior to collecting the data. The web-course included issues surrounding confidentiality and anonymity, as well as issues around the respect and protection of all human beings. I successfully completed the on-line ethics test on all of the material that was presented in the web-course. Specific Procedures The first step in my research design was to formulate questions based on the key information emerging from the research in the literature review. Based on these themes, I began to formulate some tentative hypotheses, which led me to further develop this qualitative research plan.

40

The purpose of this action research project was to examine the impact of implementing strategies to promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. Action research is a process involving educators working together to improve their own practices (Mertler, p. 18). It was my aim to explore these different teachers experiences implementing strategies in their own classrooms in hopes that I might propose suggestions that could lead to improvement in teacher practice. By interviewing six different perspectives on differentiated instruction, I hoped to gain a better understanding of the different participants perceptions, experiences, and understandings on the topic. This research design, as Mertler (2009) describes in my qualitative study, is a constant comparative method. This particular method of collecting and analyzing data is not a linear process, rather it is more cyclical in nature. As Mertler recommends, when using this qualitative method for gathering data, the researcher must initiate the process by interviewing participants. I choose two participants that met the specific criteria that I established in my research plan. Prior to conducting their individual interviews, I obtained their voluntary consent to participate in this action research project. Upon completion the initial interviews, I transcribed the data that I collected from the videotaped interview. I then reviewed the interview transcription notes in an attempt to establish some preliminary patterns among the two participants accounts. The third and forth teacher participants were be interviewed next. Further trends among participant responses were explored and noted for further data analysis. The two final teacher participants were then interviewed. I completed the process of data collection by examining fundamental similarities and distinct differences among participants interviewed responses. A coding system and the summarization of the data were executed with my final observations composed in an

41

attempt to capture a holistic portrait of [the participants] human behavior (Mertler, p. 83). Based on the data, I made final recommendations in the closing chapter of this inquiry. Data Analysis As mentioned, all interviews were video recorded and later transcribed for further investigation. Mertler (2009) proposed that the process of inductive analysis be used to analyze quantitative data such as interviews, as this form of narrative data typically is quite diverse. Therefore, I looked for emergent patterns, trends, reoccurring ideas, and variations among participants experiences about differentiating instruction in their respective classrooms. I compared the primary and intermediate teacher responses as well as looked for trends among all six participants. Mertler cautions that the primary goal of data analysis is to reduce vast amounts of data into smaller, more manageable sets of information (p. 139). He goes on to discuss the crucial importance of using analytical techniques throughout this process of data analysis. By using the techniques that Mertler suggests, I responded to my research questions, and made concluding annotations regarding the data that I analyzed. Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies to promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. In this chapter, I provided an overview of the process that I used to collect data for this study based on a sound research plan. I described the evidence of the criteria that I used to select teacher participants to be interviewed for the data collection including factors such as male to female perspectives, the participants grade level assignments, as well as the possibility of contrasting positions between urban and rural teacher participants. A brief description of the participants communities and school settings were addressed, followed by an analysis of the process that I used to collect data. Data

42

was collected by way of individual interviews in a semi-structured format. My intent was to create an open forum where participants felt comfortable sharing and elaborating their responses about their personal experiences. I considered research ethics by describing confidentiality agreements through the principles of disclosure and of honesty, and described informed consent letter that I drafted, which served a dual purpose of being a contractual agreement, guaranteeing participants anonymity, as well as my pledge that all findings will be a true representation of the data. Subsequently, a review of the research design provided a step-by-step account of the process that I followed for the duration of this study. I then provided an explanation of how I analyzed data that I collected using the strategy that Mertler (2009) refers to as inductive analysis. The synthesis of the findings is presented in Chapter IV of this action research project. Mertler (2009) indicates that a goal of action research is to promote improvement and change (p. 22). I strive to contribute to educators in the field by gaining greater clarity on teachers knowledge and experiences on the topic of differentiated instruction.

43

Chapter IV Findings Classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Levy, 2008; Peterson & Taylor, 2009; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001). Students simply do not think about the same things in the same ways (Sternberg & Zhang, 2005; Tomlinson). In order to meet a vast range of student needs and contend with enormous class sizes, fewer dollars, and a significant reduction to human resources, teachers are in search of sound educational strategies that will benefit all of their students. The strategies must respond to students needs, while at the same time promote the development of skills, engage the learners and be multifaceted in order to target everyone in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies to promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. By and large, the main theme emerging from the data was the many challenges teachers currently face while implementing responsive teaching strategies. Notably, the research findings largely support the literature review on the topic. Teacher participants commented time and again about their general sense of ambiguity about the topic, specifically what differentiated instruction is and how to successfully implement it. Other common areas participants discussed included their current instructional practices and experiences implementing differentiated strategies, as well as the time limitations. A Need to Act More Responsively The first theme emerging from the individual interviews was the uncertainty participants felt about the topic of differentiated instruction. For quite some time now, teachers have heard the buzz word differentiated instruction or DI humming in the halls of their schools and staff rooms, however, many lack certainty about what the differentiated philosophy of instruction truly entails. One participant state, DI, we talk about it, but it would be nice to learn what it is.

44

We hear so much about it, but what is it? Another participant echoed this sentiment in frustration saying that a lack of clear and proper direction from upper administration exists. Sometimes its nice to have examples, because if you see something in action, then, its easier to apply it, like a demonstration maybe. [I would like to have] clearer, use of what it is that they [emphasis added] want us to do with it, when they [emphasis added] say differentiated learning. In recent years, the government of Alberta slashed the provinces education budget in excess of millions. School districts across the province are wedged between balancing the needs of the students enrolled in their schools and submitting fiscally balanced budgets with a significant reduction to their operating funds. This reduction of funds to education has had a direct impact on many stakeholders, resulting in the heavy burden to respond with more interventions with far less resources. What can you do as the teacher, with no assistant, and so many subjects to teach? One day there is a fire alarm, kids are crying, the phone is ringing, someone comes in, kids are throwing up, and you are not feeling well. Things happen in the classroom. Its hard to do things [like differentiated instruction]. The tumultuous cutbacks in education have resulted in thousands of job losses, the amalgamation of classes, an increase in classroom enrollment, depleted resources, increased teacher supervision time, and a decrease to teacher preparation periods. At one time, educational assistants were assigned to specific students with exceptional needs. Today that time has been cut. Presently, special needs children or students assigned a special education code in the province of Alberta receive a fraction of educational assistant time they once had. Denote these factors negatively impacting education, teachers must maintain their professionalism by fostering

45

an environment conducive to improving student achievement and managing student behaviors. Furthermore, teachers must withstand the mountainous, expansive stacks of paperwork piling up exponentially, which might include: tracking student behaviors through anecdotal records, making referrals for speech and language or occupational therapists, and responding to copious emails that flood in-boxes. Most importantly still, teachers must maintain their current records on student assessments in order to avoid a big backload of evaluation at the end of a unit. One teacher commented on the difficulties she experienced this school year, implementing responsive educational strategies in her multi-level classroom. Her school, because of budgetary shortfalls, reduced staffing by a few teachers and a number of support staff, resulting in the amalgamation of some grades around the school. I am finding it more challenging [this year] because I am juggling two curriculums and I found when I did the one [grade level], I was able to come up with different things and let the kids go a bit. I find it a bit more challenging this year [if I was to teach] in the same way that I would have done in the past [years]. Pressures to Play the Game School leaders encourage teachers to grow professionally and push their message by conveying their expectation of the development and integration of innovative educational strategies. Nonetheless, teachers are feeling overwhelmed. My principal asks me, So how are you doing your lessons to meet the different needs of your students? When I have a class of 32 students and no assistant, its really hard. I know that I should be coming up with different lessons for them to do, but its impossible, and I dont think that anyone gets that yet, because its so new. So everyone thinks that its so awesome, and it is, but its impossible.

46

One teacher, exasperated with the internal pressure to conform to the school districts goals, expressed his disapproval about being forced to sit-in on divisional workshops with the following analogy about forced professional development. No one will succeed at professional development if they dont choose the workshop. If I chose to do quilting, I might succeed at doing a nice quilt, but if you send me to a meat cutting class and I have no intention to cut meat, I might go and might do a good job. We are all going to learn about meat cutting because its very important to learn to cut meat! I would probably find it gross, the blood, the veins, the cow; its not something that I would really enjoy doing. We all have different tastes. Differentiated instruction! The district wants us to do DI, so we all jump on that wagon together. My Goals or Their Goals Many school districts in Alberta are currently setting divisional goals supporting the implementation of more responsive instructional strategies such as differentiated instruction. It is the expectation of some school divisions that the individual schools in the divisions boundaries, align their goals with the divisions focus. Consequently in some instances, the domino effect trickles its way down to teachers, compelling them to align their annual professional growth plan to that of their school. At times, teachers are jumping on the wagon out of their own free will as a result of internal pressures to conform to district policies. There was a big push from our district to use DI and technology, specifically the Smartboard. The principal wants me to use it. Its so easy, its so wonderful and its so fun and its great and we have to have the skills of the 21st century. Wow, we have to do it! One plus one is still two, and using the ABCs is still how we write, plus with the implementation [of differentiated strategies] now, its still a lot to do. Its so funny

47

because I look at my old desk. I have such an old desk. I have no assistant. I have no help, but they put that big Smartboard in my room and I have to use it. They give me no time to learn to play with it. No one is there to teach me how to use it. In todays diverse classrooms, teachers are simply expected to do far more with their students with fewer resources at their disposal. Teachers who embrace responsive teaching strategies such as differentiated instruction, do so, but not without challenges. One teacher participant shared how she differentiates instruction by using a method entitled layered curriculum. The nice thing about a layered curriculum approach is it differentiates for everyone. It basically gives them [students] choice for whatever their strength is. Conversely she, like two other participants in this study found they tend to invest more one-to-one time with their weaker students, leaving academically stronger students to fend for themselves. I would like to learn how to be more efficient, how to give more individual time, just [figure out] how to organize my classroom, so that everybody gets a piece of me every day. Sometimes in DI, the kids who do well dont necessarily need you academically. Its still nice to have that connection with those kids. I find that in a differentiated classroom, your focus does tend to be on the ones [students] who are needier, thats just the nature of the beast. You focus on the ones who need you more, the ones who dont need you as much are more independent, but there are times where I think, ah, I didnt even connect with all of my students today! Thats part of going to public school. Its part of being in a classroom. Id like to figure out how to do that more. In the end, teachers are in search of clarity and guidance on the topic. One of the more novice teacher participants commented, They talked about it [differentiated instruction] in

48

university a lot, but they really didnt teach us how to do it. We kind of had to go and figure it out for ourselves. Current Classroom Practices Teacher participants unanimously agreed that differentiated instruction is a teaching strategy that indeed works for kids. Participants acknowledged student motivation, outcome mastery, and test scores as the main evidence supporting differentiated instruction. Student Motivation Differentiated instruction is a strategy that works for students, this according to the teachers interviewed. With greater choice and flexibility in their work environment, students demonstrate greater engagement than they would have in a traditional classroom. Half the participants responded that in general, students are more interested in classroom activities that are differentiated. In such an environment, students find activities more engaging and have greater success in school. You see them meet those outcomes. One participant suggested differentiation for those students who might otherwise demonstrate poor classroom work habits. Differentiated activities seem to spark a fire within students, compelling them to want to work harder and achieve greater success. Kids who are not strong readers dont like social studies because there is a lot of reading. However, when I break it up into little digestible parts, and I say ok, answer this question and the answer is on page 73. They know that all they have to do is read page 73, and reflect and respond in order to answer that question. I find they are motivated to finish. I would say that differentiation does work just because of the success that the kids are demonstrating.

49

Students are not only motivated to complete their assigned work in the differentiated classroom, but demonstrate a greater motivation to take risks with their learning. By differentiating tasks, students become more self-motivated, and demonstrate greater confidence and autonomy in their overall skills. They [students] get the knowledge that they are getting better, or they feel like they have done well at something, so it gives them the drive to work harder. Whereas if they are struggling right from the beginning and didnt understand anything, and were getting bad marks, who would want to work harder? I know that I wouldnt. I think that it gives them more motivation to try. Content Mastery Once students demonstrate the capacity to fully transfer knowledge, teachers can be assured that their responsive teaching strategies are in fact working. Students can demonstrate this transfer by draw[ing] on the knowledge that they have received doing different things and apply[ing] it to further learning. In formative assessment, teachers are observing their students progress in the acquisition and refinement of their skills on an ongoing basis. Once students are able to confidently articulate their knowledge, teachers have the choice to either increase the level of complexity within the context of the lessons objectives, using tiered activities or may proceed to new objectives within the unit of study itself. Test Results The final factor gauging the effectiveness of differentiated instruction was student test score results. In Alberta, it is compulsory for elementary students to write Provincial Achievement Tests in grades 3 and 6. The tests are designed to monitor student learning, report student achievement in relation to the curricular standards to the residents of Alberta, and finally

50

to act as a tool for student improvement in schools and school districts around the province (Alberta Provincial Achievement Testing, 2011). Depending on their level of instruction, students are expected to complete a series of examinations administered at the end of the school year. In grade 3, for example, students complete a series of exams in both English language arts and mathematics. Tests consist of sections in reading comprehension, written response, and in problem solving. French immersion students have two additional examinations to write, a French reading comprehension test, as well as a French written response exam. Grade 6 students must complete the same series of exams, only they have two additional multiple choice tests in both science and social studies. One participant discussed the success students in her school have experienced by the school-wide effort to differentiate literacy through guided reading. She announced that since the school dove its efforts into this particular differentiated strategy, student achievement has substantially improved. We do guided reading as our literacy program across the school. Since the onset of this initiative, our test scores have gone up, our provincial achievement test scores have been going up, so I would say that differentiation does work just because of the success that the kids are demonstrating. Strategies Teachers are Currently Using The teacher participants interviewed in this study are currently using a wide range of differentiated strategies across a number of core subject areas. Language arts (in both English and French) was the most commonly differentiated subject area among participants. The responsive strategies that teachers used range in complexity from simple classroom modifications such as peer grouping, to multifarious classroom activities such as tiered assignments and an approach to instruction entitled layered curriculum.

51

Learner Profile Differentiation One teacher described his positive experiences using differentiated instruction. He collaborated with his grade partner to create a bank of differentiated learning activities in language arts, math, science and social studies. This ambitious task began by the compilation of learner profiles for each student. Once this teacher learned of his students individual learning styles, he began formulating activities to suit their specific strengths. For example, the auditory learners in the classroom participated in peer reading activities or used digitally recorded medium, while the kinesthetic learners took advantage of a more hands-on approach to learning as opposed to traditional paper pencil desk work. The beauty of using this particular method of differentiation was that all students reinforced their skills by working on activities that interested them most. Additionally, students were grouped in flexible clusters. They had the choice to either work independently or in a small group. The teacher concluded these differentiated learning activities by assembling the community of learners to review the lessons curricular objectives. Differentiating Assessment One participants approach to differentiation was quite different than the previous example. This participant explained how she assessed student performance differently in English language arts and math for the weaker students in her classroom. The expectation that students acquire the learner outcomes remain the same among all students, however, the process of evaluating student products varies considerably. Greater time is invested at the pre-teaching stages with struggling students by using strategies to scaffold student learning and improve student self-esteem.

52

Ill explain things more thoroughly to the weaker students and make it easier for them to understand, but [I] expect the same outcome. For science and social studies, it is pretty much an even playing field [knowing their curricular objectives] but for math and language arts, its different. For example, some kids should be stronger at their multiplication, while other kids are still working on their adding and subtracting. Some kids should be able to put the contraction in there and know exactly where to put capitals and periods, while others, Im happy if they put a capital after a period. Flexibility and Modifications Another participant described how she differentiated her language arts program for a few struggling students in the class, using an assistive technology program entitled Read and Write Gold. This teacher modified the learning of her weaker students to such an extent that they no longer wrote weekly spelling tests and completed most exams orally. In some instances, lab assignments and long answer questions on tests were scribed for these lower achieving students. This participant recognized her students strengths and weaknesses and aimed to create a modified learning program that would showcase their strengths. In her view, it was a futile waste of time and energy to continue pushing her struggling students to do more of the work they agonized over. It made more sense to this participant to foster those skills her struggling students were capable of demonstrating, as opposed to setting them up for failure by asking them to perform beyond their reasonable capabilities. I actually have two students who just do not have the capability to memorize and put [words] on paper. For both of these students, their reading is so poor, and their writing is just basically illegible, or so extremely phonetic that [it] is very, very difficult to read. I

53

like them to still try [on tests] but they know that they have me as their backup to do it orally with them. Time Challenges Teacher participants repeatedly voiced their struggles associated with time during their individual interview. Participants lamented about the amount of time engrossed preparing differentiated lessons, unequal disbursement of time with students during differentiated activities, and finally time absorbed attending workshops and conferences. Lesson Planning Lack of time for spent planning differentiated lessons can be a significant challenge for teachers. Participants confessed spending countless hours developing authentic activities for learning centers or creating resources to support their students learning. Balancing personal and professional time commitments can be difficult for some teachers. Supervising clubs and activities, helping students during recess or lunch breaks, and meeting with other professionals to collaborate during break time, in addition to the regular demands of a classroom teachers day, can quickly lead to mental or physical exhaustion. I believe that differentiated instruction is wonderful for kids if you have the time to do it, if you have the materials to do it, if you have the human resources to help you do it. But by yourself, well, you can make some little changes. I can repeat myself or make a little poster for the wall, but to do all of these things you need to have time. Yes, we have Friday afternoon off, but now they have added more time during the week. The kids need me all day long, at the end of the day I need a break. Its easy, maybe. But making posters or little booklets, pulling out materials, all takes time. Some teachers never take lunch. They go from meetings to meeting, committee to committee. Burnouts happen.

54

The best service that you can do for a carpet is to step on it. As for teacher, you have to be careful not to do too much. You cant become a carpet. The integration of technology seemed to be a significant annoyance to some of the teachers. Be it the pressure to use technology more regularly in the classroom or the strain of finding just the right lesson to support the target curricular objective, technology was definitely a source of frustration. You get home from school and you eat supper, and then you spend like 4 hours because you are working on a Smartboard lesson. There are a few good sites where you can download the template and then make changes, but everything is so different and so much of it is American based. So you find a lesson on a topic but you have to change everything to Canadian content, well at least you have a template and you get a better idea and try things out on your own. One participant mocked that it could take up to three summers to effectively assemble learning centers for his classroom. He acknowledged relief of being able to work collaboratively with his exceptionally talented grade partner, who he reveres as an ace at differentiating instruction. The two meet in different capacities during the school week in professional learning communities and after school hours through informal planning sessions. Balancing Me-Time during Differentiated Activities
Giving equally of oneself to individual children in a classroom of diverse learners is a

significant time challenge for some classroom teachers. It is a sad reality that teacher time is disproportionately divided between students. Most teachers confess to spending considerably more time throughout the school day with the weaker students in their rooms. In many cases, weaker students are in the process of maturing their work habits and skills. They simply have

55

not fully developed the ability to compete at the same level as the mainstream students in the classroom. One teacher shared an example of trying to balance time spent with all students in the classroom by executing a differentiated lesson. The teacher used a tiered strategy to differentiate a spelling lesson in her language arts class. While she attempted to work in guided practice with a small group of students, she also contended with off task and disruptive behaviors from other students in the larger group. I remember once for spelling, I tried doing groups, so strong group, medium group, and low group. I would take the strong group, and while I was working with the strong students, the medium and low groups were floundering, and while I was working with the low group, the medium and strong students were wasting time. So, I need someone to show me how to manage grouping better. Managing several different stations or centers concurrently can be difficult to manage for even the most experienced of teachers. Trying to be available to all students and utilize class time equitably can seem unattainable. Centers are a wonderful way to do it [differentiate learning], but how do I supervise all the centers at the same time [at the primary grades]? Its easy to do centers with older grades. Workshops and Conferences One option for teachers with the desire to learn cutting edge teaching strategies or to refine current instructional approaches is attending professional development workshops or conferences. These professional development activities can be a blessing or a curse depending on which side of the fence the teacher is on. The new innovative strategies that teachers can gain

56

by attending professional development sessions can benefit both students and teachers greatly; however, the pre-planning teachers must complete prior to participating can be time consuming. I could have gone to a ton of workshops this year. There was money for me to go, but I would say that I spend at least an hour and a half planning for my sub. I have to do a lot of work to get to the workshop to begin with, and then usually re-do some of the work once I get back. Its not fun doing that much work. Time is very restricted! With strict operating budgets, some principals are creatively solving a professional development problem with a constructive plan. By sending a handful of lead teachers to a professional development activity, school funds are conserved and the school winds up with some resident experts on site. Ideally upon their return, these professional development representatives would coach other staff members with the valuable knowledge and skills they have acquired from their seminars. This strategy can be a great professional development branching technique to promote leadership, collaboration among colleagues, and target on-site professional development goals. Conversely, the few teachers who actually attend the professional seminars, can become quickly inundated by a colossal to-do list upon their return. Planning for subs, attending the workshops, and preparing snapshot professional development sessions with the larger staff can be onerous and time consuming. One teachers experiences mirrored this very scenario. He was pleased to have been chosen to attend the out-of-country professional development activity, however, lamented about not having the time to apply his newfound knowledge in his own teaching. Ah, these big conferences. They are a lot of work because first, you have to plan for your sub, then you go there and then you come back and you have to meet with everybody. You have to present it [content of the conference] to the staff and then [trails off], its a

57

lot of work! You learn a lot along the way, but for yourself, until you are done all that other stuff, you really dont get anything done for yourself, in your class because you are too busy teaching the staff all the stuff you went and did. Summary In summary, teachers are in search of practical solutions to help them employ more differentiated strategies. They are tired of hearing theoretical jargon about how differentiated instruction is a positive alternative for education. They acknowledge the numerous benefits of using more responsive teaching strategies; however also recognize significant challenges in their pursuit to differentiation. What they crave is specific and functional strategies that will help them manage and organize their large heterogeneous classrooms better. They long for efficient means to help them resolve the inherent problem of predominantly attending to the weaker students of the class. Sound educational solutions to evaluation and time management are essential points of interest to teachers differentiating instruction.

58

Chapter V Conclusions Students in classrooms today are highly diverse (Anderson, 2007; Brighton, 2002; Corolan & Guinn, 2007; George, 2005; Levy, 2008; Making a Difference, 2010; Nunley, 2004; Peterson & Taylor, 2009; Reed & Westberg, 2003; Rock, Gregg, Ellis & Gable, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). Uniform, standard, one-size-fits all approaches to instruction are counterproductive to the skills we ought to be striving to teach 21st century learners (McTighe & Brown, 2005). Teacher-centered, traditional, lecture style classrooms are neither engaging nor motivating (Tomlinson, 2001). In order to challenge students to their capacities of achievement and foster in them high levels of inquiry, paradigm shifts in education must come to a head. One proactive strategy teachers may consider is differentiated instruction. Simply put, differentiated instruction focuses on whom we teach, where we teach and how we teach. Its primary goal is ensuring that teachers focus on processes and procedures that ensure effective learning for varied individuals (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 3). Given the variance of students in our classrooms, differentiated instruction may be one strategic method teachers have been searching for in their quest to meet the vast range in students needs. Proponents of responsive instructional strategies suggest that students capacities for learning are maximized through engaging, flexible, choice activities (Anderson, 2007; Peterson & Taylor, 2009; Tomlinson, 2001). Learning experiences may be differentiated by altering the content being taught, the process students acquire the targeted skills, and the products students chose to represent their learned outcomes (Anderson; Brighton, 2002; King-Sears, 2005; Making a Difference, 2010; McTighe & Brown, 2005; Nunley, 2004; Rock et al., 2008; Tomlinson).

59

When done effectively, differentiated instruction is a seamless part of everyday instructional planning and practice. It is woven throughout the school day for all students and is integrated into how the physical space is organized, what learning resources are used, how instruction is planned and delivered, and how student learning is assessed. (Making a Difference, p. 4) Adversaries of this instructional philosophy argue that by differentiating instruction, teachers are essentially dumbing down the curriculum (Stanley & MacCann, 2005), creating unfair workloads (Rock et al., 2008) for students with a smorgasbord of options (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). This view suggests by differentiating instruction, teachers deliver watered down programs (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) that hinder student development. Perceived struggling students (Rock et al.) will not improve academically if they have less work to complete in an unmanaged, chaotic environment (Tomlinson, 2001). The qualitative research, conducted through individual interviews, portrayed six elementary teachers perceptions, experiences, and challenges implementing differentiated instructional strategies. Data analyzed revealed that teachers encounter a great many challenges associated with differentiation. Teachers acknowledge that differentiated instruction is a sound educational model of instruction; however they were unsure about how to effectively integrate responsive strategies into their current teaching practice. Teachers felt overwhelmed with current school and district initiatives. They felt that they were expected to implement classroom interventions through differentiated methods, properly address the overabundance of curricular objectives, and support the diverse needs of all students in their classrooms. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of implementing strategies that promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. My goal for this study was to

60

investigate current teacher perspectives on the topic by exploring their experiences using this instructional method. In doing so, I aspired to gain greater clarity of teacher perceptions and integrating responsive teaching strategies. My hope was to provide a series of recommendations to support teachers who wished to extend their current instructional practices to one easily integrate differentiated strategies that promote greater student engagement. This chapter will address the conclusions I have formulated based on the research findings and information synthesized from the data. Based on my findings, I will make a number of recommendations to further teachers practice. Discussion of the Findings The research findings in chapter II stated that teachers avoid differentiation because of their hesitancy to employ methods that may not lend themselves to high levels of achievement on standardized examinations. This view was echoed by Latz et al. (2009); McAllister and Ploude (2008), Rock et al. (2008), Yeun et al. (2004). With little support from administration, the time consuming process of building lessons that include differentiated strategies, and developing oneself professionally, hardly seems worth the effort. Again this finding was confirmed by Corolan and Guinn (2007), King-Sears (2005), McAllister and Plourde, Sondergeld and Schultz (2008), and Yeun et al. The data revealed that administrators do support the adoption of more responsive teaching methods, but may not provide the pedagogical support that teachers require to successfully transfer their knowledge about differentiation into full-on implementation. Principals and senior administrators recognize the value of adopting responsive techniques of instruction and press teachers to integrate these strategies into their regular teaching practice. Contending with heavy curricular demands, along with large class sizes, diversified student

61

needs, and a lack of adequate resources, teachers view differentiation as one more initiative on the list of things to-do. For some teachers, factoring in time constraints such as planning differentiated activities and attending professional development activities, differentiated instruction becomes a frustrating inconvenience rather than a tool that will aid them with instruction. Maintaining balance with a number of demands, teachers are feeling the dizzying proportion of responsibilities adding up exponentially. The conglomerate of intervention strategies mandated by the government, school divisions, and school administrators can seem like a boundless teeter-tottering of educational fads. The data indicates the need for greater administrative support, flexibility in professional development opportunities, as well as more release time so that teachers can acquire practical tools for implementation of differentiation. Teachers want to know with greater clarity, exactly what it is their school districts mean when they demand that teachers use strategic differentiated techniques in their classrooms. This general uncertainty about the nature of strategic differentiated techniques can lead teachers to doubt their effectiveness as instructional providers. Does posting a poster to the wall, having students work in partnership on the completion of a task constitute differentiation? Is differentiated instruction avoiding paper-pencil work altogether? Clear communication in the onset of a new adoption, such as differentiated instruction, will likely improve the teachers ability to implement the mandate. Clear communication will result in educational professionals from the board office to those on front lines of the classroom to reach a mutual understanding of the goals conceptual worth. Limitations This study had limitations, one being its lack of generalizability. The qualitative study relied on primary and intermediate teachers personal experiences implementing differentiated

62

strategies of instruction. Interpretation of the findings was based on participants recalling their personal experiences during a 20 minute individual interview. Some participants may have excluded information because of their feelings of time constraints. The presence of the video recorder may also have inhibited their responses. The research findings excluded middle and senior high school teachers perspectives on differentiation. Additional investigation on the topic is necessary in order to shed some light on middle and senior high school teachers experiences and perspectives on differentiation. Recommendations Toddlers learn to walk by talking practice steps. The child may experience moments of triumph followed by failed attempts, but with practice and perseverance, the hesitant toddler is transformed into a confident walker. A sense of imbalance and fear of failure can be discouraging to one attempting a new skill. With the right structures in place, such as a supportive coach, a nurturing environment, and supports to foster development, the individual will steadily grow in confidence, risking falling down in order to improve agility. This developmental milestone has been achieved. Teachers initiating new instructional strategies can feel similar to a child developing a new skill. Educators open themselves up to vulnerability by learning to implement new teaching strategies. Learning centers are one way to differentiate. Planning several activities in succession, while managing students working at different paces on different tasks at varying levels of complexity, can make any teacher hesitate about their professional adequacy and effectiveness as the instructional leader. If the method for differentiation fails, the teacher may feel the failure reflects poorly upon her competence, planning, or classroom management. Large group instruction is, and always has been, the easy way out of such a quandary. Having

63

everyone doing the same activity at the same pace is easier to manage, but may not be best for the success of all students. For teachers, whole-class methods of instruction are easier to cover the content, easier to plan, and easier to manage. However, the single, but most powerful key to this equation has been discounted, the student. Using a single avenue to teach the learner, overlooks student motivation, engagement, and appropriately challenging learners to acquire the targeted skill. By using large group instruction as a primary teaching strategy, teachers are simply settling on mediocrity. Like the toddler learning to take his first steps, teachers must demonstrate courage in their attempts to explore new instructional strategies (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008) and improvement in their practice. By moving away from whole-class methods of instruction to more engaging, thought-provocative, student-centered approaches to instruction, teachers demonstrate commitment to student success (Beecher & Sweeny). The data revealed that teachers are faced with a number of challenges implementing differentiated instructional techniques, and the cuts to educational funding have augmented their negative perpetual feelings over the adoption of new initiatives. I found that teachers generally felt uncertain about their administrators mandates for differentiation. They felt ill-prepared to plan differentiated lessons with their limited knowledge of strategies to support differentiation. Teachers also felt overwrought over the time commitments necessary to include greater responsive teaching strategies in their already-busy schedules. The research in chapter II appears to support these views. Accordingly, I have made a number of recommendations that will facilitate the integration of greater classroom differentiation. Key organizational structures are necessary to support professional growth, goal setting, planning, and assessment. Teachers collaborative efforts can build professional capacities while improving student engagement and performance.

64

Key Structures No two toddlers will learn to coordinate their movements and develop skill acquisition at the same rate. In the same light, students will acquire new skills and demonstrate mastery of the learned outcomes at different rates. Teachers also vary in their knowledge and ability to integrate responsive instructional strategies. Some embrace instructional change with vigor while others will resist change, contented teaching in the same way that they were once taught. Districts effectuating instructional changes such as differentiated instruction must initiate this process by creating key structures to support their mission of change. Bolman and Deal (2008) suggest that organizations restructure when they are compelled to improve performance or resolve an ongoing problem. School divisions facilitating teacher-directed models of instruction to become more differentiated need to provide stable structures by clearly communicating simple planning goals with teachers and provide an uncomplicated setting where teachers can focus on the task of creating more differentiated lessons. Participants clearly stated that they support the need for instructional change efforts such as differentiated instruction, however, groaned over the lack of time provided to adequately plan and collaborate with their colleagues. School leaders fostering an environment conducive to instructional changes should establish a structured plan for change and provide professional growth opportunities for collaboration in order to see goals come to fruition Professional Growth Opportunities In order to execute new teaching strategies, teachers must gain background knowledge and practical tools. Opportunities to participate in professional development activities can be the key ingredients to systemic change (Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009).

65

I recommend school divisions provide a minimum of five half-day grade level meetings per school year which target a specific goal to re-design lessons that include responsive teaching strategies. Divisions could specifically target an area of change within a subject area, such as numeracy in mathematics, or they could poll teachers to determine their specific curricular and planning needs. The district could appoint a lead teacher, such as a learning coach or curriculum coordinator, to direct meetings by organizing a schedule with dates and times of meetings, and communicate the divisions commitment to provide teachers with this collaborative opportunity. The lead teacher would pass teachers a handful of curricular objectives and teachers would suggest different strategies of differentiation in order to jazz up the lessons. All lessons would be compiled and distributed to all grade-level teachers in the school district. Teaching is not an individual pursuit. The saying, it takes a village to raise a child, could also be adopted in the education process of children. We must stop looking on our efforts with students from year-to-year and start viewing the education of students on a continuum or a progression. Teaching is a collaborative profession. Perhaps there is a need to change our lens and view our planning and instructional approaches differently. Prior to all subsequent meetings, the lead teacher would maintain an open dialogue with the grade-level teachers, by reviewing current project goals, as well as receive feedback about the effectiveness of the executed differentiated strategies. Research suggests that educators must have opportunities for discussion and follow-up on the effectiveness of the instructional process, as well as receive on-going training in order to support the successful implementation of the new instructional strategy (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Latz et al., 2009; Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). I would recommend lead teachers commence each subsequent meeting using this method.

66

This structural change effort is a win-win instructional change effort for the school division, teachers and students alike. By providing the funding for teacher release time and the space for collaboration, divisions are able to clearly communicate their objectives, demonstrate a commitment and investment in teacher improvement, as well as make proactive steps toward improving grade level achievement in a specific domain. Teachers gain greater clarity of the divisions goals and expectation for goal implementation resulting in feelings of affirmation or revelation about the current change initiative. Teachers may be comforted knowing the strategies they are currently using are in line with the divisions differentiated instructional goals, or they may learn something altogether new attending the professional development activity. Teachers participating in cooperative and collaborative activities, develop authentic lessons to support student learning and gain professional development within the confines of their respective school districts. The bank of prepared differentiated lesson plans is an added bonus for their creative lesson planning labors. School-wide Planning Collaborative goal setting to achieve greater differentiation is one strategy to bring about school wide change initiatives. Minott (2009) states that differentiated instruction thrives in a collegial community and that a collegial community must be a venue for reflecting or thinking critically about the DIP [differentiated instructional process] (p. 6). At a school level, teachers collectively identify a platform or an area of growth for school-wide improvement, as well as a realistic time-line for implementing differentiated teaching strategies. The time-line need not be limited to only one year. School-wide teaching goals and staff development may take multiple years to be accomplished (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). Administrators and lead teachers would be responsible for setting up training sessions.

67

These teacher growth opportunities would be organized and carefully planned on a monthly basis throughout the school year on professional development days, or during collaborative times. For students, a classroom teacher can tier a series of tasks with the same intended learner outcome only on separate levels of complexity (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; Nunley, 2004; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). Administrators and lead teachers would model the tiering instructional strategy by creating a series of workshops that would serve to better meet individual staff member needs. Staff members could be placed in flexible groups where they would receive information on the differentiated goal, the context of differentiation, as well as examples of its practical application. The groups could be designed to meet the learning methods in differentiation based on a beginning, intermediate or advanced level need. The training sessions could include some background knowledge about the instructional philosophy and model, but would mostly provide hands-on strategies for its implementation. Sessions might include information on classroom management, assessment, strategic application, lesson planning using a model, learning profiles, and in-depth review of curriculum standards. On-Site Coach Learning coaches are valuable professional resources that provide teachers rich opportunities for personal growth. Every school in Alberta should appoint a lead teacher in the role of learning coach. The mentor would work in the classroom with different teachers, demonstrating differentiated instructional techniques (Walker-Dalhouse & Risco, 2009). In doing so, the learning coach builds teacher capacity for acquiring and integrating new teaching techniques thereby improving the classroom teachers performance and confidence.

68

Mentorship Individual teachers in the province of Alberta receive an annual allotment of funds to attend workshops and seminars or conferences of their choice. Teachers wishing to further develop their own responsive teaching strategies have always had the opportunity of using their personal professional development fund. One effective but often overlooked professional development activity is to observe another classroom teachers instructional techniques in action. Observations and joint lesson-planning sessions will give the novice [differentiator] opportunities to learn the nuanced ways in which expert teachers differentiate curriculum and instruction (Carolan & Guinn, 2007, p. 47). Learner Profiles Research shows that students have greater success in school if activities challenge them appropriately, are engaging, and if they are a match for the students preferred learning style (Making a Difference, 2010; Sternberg & Zhang, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001). Teachers should learn as much as possible about their students learning profiles and preferred learning styles. These findings should be shared with students regularly (Making a Difference). With this knowledge, students become more actively involved in the learning process rather than passive recipients of information. The more learners are situated at the center of their own learning process the greater the extent of their understanding and mastery of desired outcomes (McTighe & Brown, 2005, p. 236). By offering choice activities to cater to the learners auditory, visual, kinesthetic, or other learning preferences, teachers will likely find greater student engagement and improved academic performance.

69

Student Self-Assessment Teachers must provide opportunities for 21st century learners to self-assess regularly be it in student journals, portfolios, or using rubrics for assessment. There are a number of benefits in developing greater capacities for self-assessment. Some of these student benefits include: fostering metacognition or self-directed learning (Making a Difference, 2010), ability to set personal goals learning, improved work habits (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) and knowledge of specific strengths (Ellis & Lawrence, 2009). Diagnostic Assessments Pre-assessment strategies should always be used to commence a unit of study. With the information gathered from pre-assessment strategies, teachers gain a detailed road map of the direction or approach they must take with their students. In some cases, selected students may already possess a solid foundation of the curricular objectives while others in the class may need greater support through scaffolding techniques. In cases such as these, the teacher, armed with the results from diagnostic testing, can connect students prior knowledge and plan a range of activities for learners, adequately challenging them at their just right level of learning (Making a Difference, 2010). Communication with Parents By keeping lines of communication open with parents through classroom web pages, newsletter, blogs, twitter feeds, and parent information sessions, teachers effectively involve parents in the learning activities of their children (Beecher & Sweeny, 2009; Sondergeld & Schultz, 2008; Reed & Westburg, 2003). When parents are involved they have a better understanding of how children learn at different rates and in different ways (Reed & Westburg, p. 27). Parents may be invited into the classroom to assist teachers during differentiated

70

activities or in school-wide differentiated efforts. By increasing parental involvement in the school, parents gain firsthand [knowledge of] the kinds of learning opportunities that occur in schools today (Reed & Westburg, p. 27). Classroom Conditions It is absolutely crucial to increase funding to education if the government, school districts, trustees and school administrators are serious about change initiating change using more responsive teaching strategies. The government must stop budget cuts to local school districts. Consideration must be given to the complex and exceptional circumstances teachers face in todays overcrowded, heterogeneous classrooms. Class sizes must be reduced. In order for teachers to address the diverse needs of their students, and attend to every childs need, class sizes must be capped at 15 students in the primary classroom and 18 students in the intermediate classroom. Inclusive education efforts integrate children with exceptional needs into mainstream classrooms. Greater funding must be in place for children identified with a special need and must address the hiring of educational assistants to support these exceptional students. Teachers instructional hours need to be reduced given the number of initiatives currently on the table. Planning differentiated learning activities requires a great deal of time. Teachers need regularly scheduled time during their school day to prepare materials and resources, or to collaborate with peers in order to differentiate instruction. Daily scheduled preparation periods must be assigned to full-time equivalent teachers. Summary Differentiated Instruction is a complex process. It demands continual attention to the strengths and needs of learners who not only change with the passage of each year but

71

evolve during the school year as well. It requires the capacity to create flexible teachinglearning routines that enable academically diverse student populations to succeed with rich, challenging academic content and processes, and to create learning environments that are both supportive and challenging for students for whom those conditions will differ. (Tomlinson & McTighe, p. 165) The evolution of teaching is now. No longer should we accept or tolerate the teaching of students in ways that were once practiced in schools: nicely spaced, even rows of desks, with noiseless children listening intently as the teacher lectures. This paradigm of instruction has expired and is no longer considered an acceptable teaching practice for learners in the 21st century. Students today are different. Our world today is different. Students in our classrooms have vastly diverse cultural make-up, educational needs, learning preferences, and family support systems at home are different. Teachers need to re-think the way in which they address diversity, but diversity does not have to be a factor that negatively impacts education. Diverse student needs challenge us as educators and provide opportune moments where we can reflect authentically about respect and the tolerance of differences. Diversity dares us to re-think solutions to on-going problems in our world today (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). In essence, we must strive to teach these competencies to our 21st century learners. To continue teaching children in the same ways as in the past is neither adequate nor feasible. Keeping up with present societal trends in an ever-changing world can seem impossible, however our mission as professionals guiding students, ought to be re-envisioning our methods of instruction in order to better serve our students. Teachers must evolve just as our students have, in an effort to change our teaching practices to reflect greater responsive methods of instruction.

72

References

Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students. Tips For Teaching, Vol. 51, No 3: 49-54. Brighton, C. (2002). Straddling the Fence: Implementing Best Practices in an Age of Accountability, Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 30-33. Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the Achievement Gap with Curriculum Enrichment and Differentiation: One School's Story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502530. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Sand Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., Van Bockern, S., (2002). Reclaiming Youth at Risk. Bloomington, In: Solution Tree Press Carolan. J., & Guinn, A. (2007). Differentiation: Lessons from Master Teachers. Educational Leadership, 64(5). Retrieved from EBSCOhost Chapman, C. & King, R. (2003). Differentiated Instructional Strategies for Reading in the Content Areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. George, P. (2005). A Rationale for Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 185-193. Gould, H. C. (2000). Can We Meet Standards [and] Encourage Teachers To Differentiate for the Highly Able?. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 74-78. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Government of Alberta, Department of Education. (2010). Making a Difference: Meeting Diverse Learning Needs with Differentiated Instruction. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/resources/cross/making-a-difference.aspx Government of Alberta, Department of Education. (2011). Alberta Provincial Achievement Testing document. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/6413015/04%20grade%203%20parent%20guide%2020 10-11.pdf King-Sears, M. (2005). Scheduling For Reading and Writing Small-Group Instruction Using Learning Center Designs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(4), 401-404. Kobelin, M. (2009). Multi-Age Made Me Do It: A Teacher Tackles Differentiation in Math Instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(1), 10-22.

73

Latz, A., Speirs Neumeister, K., Adams, C., & Pierce, R. (2009). Peer Coaching to Improve Classroom Differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 2739. Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction: Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. The Clearing House, March/April 161-164. Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action Research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications McAllister, B., & Plourde, L. (2008). Enrichment Curriculum: Essential for Mathematically Gifted Students. Education, 129(1), 40-49. McTighe, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Detente Possible?. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 234-244. Minnott, M. (2009). The Role of Reflection in the Differentiated Instructional Process. College Quarterly, 12(1), 1-10. Nunley, K. F. (2004). Layered Curriculum 2nd Ed. Amherst, NH: Brains.org Peterson, M., & Taylor, P. (2009). Whole Schooling and Reclaiming Youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 18(3), 29-33. Powers, E. (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. Reed, S., & Westberg, K. (2003) Implementing Enrichment Clusters in a Multiage School: Perspectives from a Principal and Consultant. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 26-29. Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. (2008). REACH: A Framework for Differentiating Classroom Instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., Harris, K., Lane, K., Graham, S., Nackel, J., Mathias, R., Little, A. (2009). Making It Work: Differentiating Tier Two Self-Regulated Strategies Development in Writing in Tandem with Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Support. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2-), 22-33. Sondergeld, T., & Schultz, R. (2008). Science, Standards, and Differentiation: It Really Can Be Fun!. Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 34-40. Stanley, G., & MacCann, R. (2005). Removing Incentives for "Dumbing Down" through Curriculum Re-Structure and Additional Study Time. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(2)

74

Statistics Canada. 2007. Stirling, Alberta (Code4802009) (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Sternberg, R., & Zhang, L. (2005). Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 245-253. Statistics Canada (2000). Diversity in the classroom: Characteristics of elementary students receiving special education. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-003-XPB, Vol. 6, no. 2. Ottawa. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-003-x/81-003-x1999002-eng.pdf (December 1st, 2010). Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating Differences: Variations in Differentiated Literacy Instruction in Grade 2/3 Classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3-9. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms 2nd Ed. Alexandria, VA: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tomlinson, C. (2004). Sharing Responsibility for Differentiating Instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188. Tomlinson, C. & McTighe J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction + Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. (2009). Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations about RTI: Understanding and Applying Differentiated Classroom Instruction. Reading Teacher, 63(1), 84-87. Yeun, M., Westwood, P., & Wong, G. (2004). Meeting the Needs of Students with Specific Learning Difficulties in the Mainstream Education System: Data from Primary School Teachers in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 67-76.
2004, Vol 20, No.1.

75

Appendix A Heidee Walshe 619 Canyonview Landing Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 5R9 (403) 320-2258 Informed Consent Form Project Title: Differentiated Instruction

To whom it may concern, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study. The purpose of the study is to examine the impact of implementing strategies to promote differentiated instruction in an elementary classroom. If you choose to participate in this study, I will invite you to answer a series of eight questions in an interview format. The duration of the interview will be approximately thirty minutes. The interview will be video recorded in order to capture the data accurately. All data will be analyzed and kept confidential at all times. The final project will at no time make any reference to the participants or the school which they work. Any participants interested in obtaining a copy of the summarized data collected from the interviews can make a note at the bottom portion of this document and a copy will be made for you. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may choose to withdraw your participation at any time. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at the number above. Thank you,

Heidee Walshe

I agree to voluntarily participate in this interview. Participants Name (please print): ___________________________ Date: ________________ Participants Signature: ______________________________________ Remarks/Questions:

76

Appendix B

Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that Heidee Walshe successfully completed the NIH Web-based training course Protecting Human Research Participants. Date of completion: 11/17/2010 Certification Number: 572149