Introduction

I grew up in a small farming community on the banks of the Mississippi River. While in

school, I always enjoyed my English classes, especially when learning about linguistics and

literature. My harsh English teacher pulled me aside one day and told me that I needed to escape

the farming community and continue my growth at the collegiate level. I was not sure what I

wanted to do while I was in college, so instead I enlisted in the military at the age of 17. While

serving in Europe and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, I constantly studied literature. While my

peers shot pool and played dominoes in their free time, I poured over texts, such as On the Road,

Cien Anos de Solidad, and Clockwork Orange. When I returned back to the States, I attended a

Midwestern university and began my journey down the path of an educator. It was my love of

literature that brought me into the world of academia, and it is my passion of working with

children that has kept me here.

This year I taught 9th grade Civic Studies and English at a large Midwestern high school.

At the beginning of the year, I came into the classroom with a fresh perspective and high hopes

for my students. What I was not prepared for was having many students with IEPs, a 40%

minority population, and multiple students for whom English was not their native language. This

diversity was not found in the homogenous farming community I grew up in and presented

unique challenges to me, particularly how to get these students to learn who were quite different

from me.

I observed at the beginning of the year that a lot of my students appeared to be learning

quite a bit and were actively engaged throughout the duration of the class period. However, after

the first interim report cards were given out, I began to notice that students who consistently

demonstrated that they were not learning the material and were falling further and further behind.

Philosophically I began to question how I was teaching. Many students were doing well, but

could I leave the stragglers behind? After some reflection, it became clear to me that I needed to

differentiate my instruction in order to teach all of my students effectively. This realization led

me to my research question: What happens when I implement differentiated instructional

strategies into my classroom?

As I began wrestling with how to get more students to learn during each class period, I

was reminded of a claim Albert Einstein once made: “You cannot judge a fish’s intelligence

based on how well it can climb a tree.” Applying this wisdom within my classroom, I knew I

could not just say that my students were too stupid to learn. Instead, I needed to meet them where

they were and attempt to differentiate my instruction to address their needs. After the first IPRs

were given out, I began to experiment with differentiated instruction within my classroom by

separating students according to their academic abilities. After initially experimenting with

ability grouping, I ultimately decided to incorporate tiered assignment in concordance with

ability grouping, and to offer student choice within my classroom as well.

Literature Review

On the first day of school, I began class by introducing myself and handing out copies of

the syllabus. Once the syllabus was handed out, I asked students to take turns reading portions

of the syllabus aloud. I immediately regretted this. I discovered that I had students who excelled

at reading and others who struggled. Some students sat quietly and read along, and others

struggled to pay attention. After the lesson ended, I knew I would need to make changes in order

to reach my students. Driven by the need to plan lessons that would resonate with my students

and address their various needs, I turned to professional literature to seek help. The

Differentiated Classroom inspired me to look further into differentiated instruction. Carol

Tomlinson, a pioneer in her field, advocates that teachers with issues similar to mine can

improve their classrooms by using differentiated instruction. Tomlinson (2014) defines these

teachers as, “teachers who strive to do whatever it takes to ensure that struggling, advanced, and

in-between learners; students with varied cultural heritages; and children with a broad array of

background experiences all grow as much as they possibly can each day, each week, and

throughout the year” (p. 3).

Defining Differentiated Instruction

Oftentimes within classrooms educators discover that while many students do well with

lessons’, other students’ learning needs are not being met, and this can lead to manifestations of

unwanted behavior. These unwanted behaviors can oftentimes be solved through differentiated

instruction. Morgan (2008) monitored an 8th grade student’s behavior in a math classroom and

monitored how the student’s behavior changed once differentiated instruction was used. Morgan

defined differentiated instruction as “recognizing and teaching according to different student

talents and learning styles (Morgan, 2008, p. 34).” Morgan went on to explain that the focus

student had never before had behavior problems prior to entering the classroom. However, the

student began throwing pencils at peers, daydreamed, and turned in poor quality work. Morgan

suggested that the instructor might differentiate his lesson in order to meet this student’s needs.

By differentiating instruction, the unwanted behaviors might become minimal because the

students’ needs would be met. Because classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse, students

who come into classrooms possess a wide variety of academic abilities. Morgan argued that

educators should tailor instruction toward student interests and abilities through the use of

differentiated instruction.

Carol Tomlinson (2014) provides further definition to differentiated instruction by

explaining that differentiated instruction takes students’ differences in learning into consideration

and teaches towards their strengths (p. 3). In the case Morgan described, the focus student

developed undesirable behaviors that likely stemmed from a lack of differentiation in the math

classroom (p. 34). If Tomlinson’s definition is taken into consideration, students’ undesirable

behaviors and failures in reaching learning goals can be altered to make success more

achievable.

The Need for Differentiated Instruction

There is much to be gained by differentiating instruction. Logan (2011) conducted a

qualitative study of the demographic makeup of five public high schools located in southeast

Georgia and measured the teachers’ familiarity with differentiated instruction through survey

results. After Logan examined the data and forecasted a change in demographics, Logan

estimated that “by 2035, students of color will be a majority in schools with increasing

populations of children of immigrant and migrant families” (p. 2). Additionally, Logan

discovered through the survey results that 85.8 percent of teachers found the need to collaborate

with students in addressing their learning needs through differentiation (p. 9). As classrooms

continue to become more complex, differentiating instruction can help meet the unique learning

needs of highly diverse students.

Levy (2008), a fifth grade teacher in Connecticut, advocated for implementing

differentiated instruction in her class of 25 fifth grade students. Levy described coming on the

first day of class to see a wide variety of student abilities, including students with Asperger’s,

low reading abilities, and gifted students all in the same class (p. 161). Levy argues that in order

to meet the needs of diverse learners, teachers need to differentiate their instruction through

tiered assessments, ability groupings and tailoring instruction towards student interests by

offering choice.

Stanford, Crowe, and Flice (2010) studied the use of technology within differentiated

classrooms in order to meet the needs of diverse learners. They found that an achievement gap

exists within schools, especially for students with disabilities, minority students, and students on

the lower end of the socioeconomic gap. They asserted that reaching these student groups

through differentiation is becoming easier due to the prevalence of available technology, such as

having laptops, tablets, and smart phones within the classroom. Differentiation assists educators

in responding to the heterogeneous classrooms that exist today and designing curricula that help

all students succeed. Smart phone applications exist that can read the text to a student who

struggles to read, look up the definition to words instantly, as well as provide essential tools for

students to take notes. The use of technology in the classroom helps to level the normally

uneven academic playing field for students.

Buteau and True (2009) also recognized the need to differentiate instruction due to our

schools’ increasingly diverse student body. They conducted a study in which they observed a

first grade classroom comprised of 50% ELL (English Language Learners) students. Buteau and

True found that by differentiating instruction within the classroom in order to build vocabulary,

the students’ families felt more connected to the instructor, and student participation in school as

a whole increased (p. 25). This finding demonstrates that differentiating instruction to meet

students’ needs creates buy-in from the students’ families which in turn fostered increased

engagement in the students. This buy-in promotes a more engaged classroom in which students

are more likely to participate. Thus, by differentiating instruction, there is an organic process

that occurs which can increase the chances of students’ academic success.

All students enter the classroom with a wide range of academic abilities, and it is up to

educators to recognize these abilities and tailor instruction to meet their needs. Tomlinson

(2014) writes that, “From a very young age, children understand that some of us are good at

kicking a ball, some at telling funny stories, some at manipulating numbers, and some at making

people feel happy” (p. 15). Thus, if educators can recognize the strengths of their students and

design curricula in alignment with their abilities, students will be able to reap the benefits of their

incorporation of differentiated instruction in their classroom.

Ability Groups

When differentiating instruction, especially when working with a larger class, one

strategy that is often used is dividing up students into ability groups. Ability groups fall into one

of two kinds. The first group is like, or similar, ability groups. Worthy (2010) defines like

ability groups as dividing up students according to their academic abilities: placing high

achieving students with other high achievers and low achieving students with peers of similar

academic ability (p. 273). Worthy (2010) conducted a case study in which she observed 25

sixth grade teachers of regular and honors language arts classes who used similar ability groups

within a large urban school district. Worthy defined ability groups as “the practice of evaluating

and sorting students into categories for the purpose of providing differential instruction within or

across classrooms (p. 273).” Worthy found that within similar ability groups, the students’

learning and achievement were positively affected by increasing student engagement, providing

more options within their learning, and increasing the amount of material covered within a

school year. Worthy cautioned however, that if instructors do not maintain high standards for

lower level ability groups, that the correlation will negatively impact student growth and further

increase the divide between high achieving and low achieving students (p. 273).

Similar concerns can be found in mixed ability groups as well. In mixed ability groups,

as defined by Elbaum, Moody, and Schumm (1999), students are divided up into smaller groups

of varying academic ability levels (p. 63).” Elbaum et al. (1999) conducted a mixed-ability

group case study of 55 third grade students, 27 of who had learning disabilities, and found that “a

concern expressed by students of lower reading ability, including many students with LD

(learning disability), was that, in small, mixed-ability groups, their classmates would make fun of

them” (p. 63). They pointed out that the purpose of ability groups is to help students reach their

learning goals, not prevent them from reaching their goals through humiliation and/or

intimidation. Elbuam et al. also described several benefits that came from using mixed ability

groups, including helping students to channel their feelings into constructive responses and

helping students who were normally reluctant to ask for help get the help they needed from their

peers (p. 64).

Santamaria and Thousand (2004) conducted a one-year, qualitative research study on 422

elementary students in California who were placed in mixed ability groups. Twenty-five percent

of the students were of Mexican descent. Santamaria and Thousand placed students into mixed

ability groups, especially ELL students, and asked them to engage in student activities on

multisensory levels. They found that this provided an excellent way to accommodate the

students’ various learning needs. They discovered that when students were placed into mixed

ability groups, both the students and their families described feeling a stronger connection to the

school and community (p. 20) findings similar to both Logan (2011) and Buteau and True

(2009). (p. 20).

In summary, use of both similar and mixed ability groups to help students learn more

effectively has been supported across studies conducted over differentiated instruction. Another

strategy, use of tiered assignments, can help educators assess the effectiveness of the ability

groups within the classroom.

Tiered Assignments

One of the ways a teacher can differentiate his or her specific assignments is by tiering

an assignment. Levy (2008) defined tiered activities as assignment of specific work, based on

students’ readiness, interest, and learning styles. Using tiered assignments helps teachers to

gauge student achievement at appropriate levels of difficulty. Levy described teaching to the

whole group first in order to identify each student’s level of understanding. Once the initial

assessment is made, the teacher should then be able to provide multi-tiered assignments to

students at varying levels of understanding within a lesson (p. 163). Tiering assignments allows

teachers to gauge students’ basic level of understanding in order to help them continue to

improve their mastery of the subject material from the level at which instruction begins.

Tiered assignments comprise another differentiated instruction strategy that teachers can

use in conjunction with ability groups. Geddes (2010) measured knowledge of Advanced

Placement (AP) Physics students through a multi-tiered assignment method. Geddes explained,

“This lesson is adapted for learners of varying ability and learning styles by developing

objectives that meet the curriculum standards but allow students to achieve these standards using

methods that emphasize their mathematical ability and learning styles” (p. 34).” In her work, the

advanced mathematical groups were given more difficult traditional math assessments while on

level students were given a more kinesthetic form of assessment tailored toward their specific

abilities. As a result, both groups received instruction aligning to their academic strengths. After

dividing the groups into thirds and utilizing the tiered assignment method, Geddes’ noted that the

AP students’ scores improved as a whole, compared to only the “brightest” students succeeding

using the previous form of assignments (p. 37).

McFarlane (2010) also implemented multi-tiered assessments into an undergraduate,

college-level curriculum. McFarlane defined tiered assignments as assigning material based on

academic ability level while still allowing flexibility within the assignment (p. 3). McFarlane’s

tiered assignments provided students with options to select from within the tiered assignments.

McFarlane finds that students tend to choose based on their interests, not necessarily the

difficulty of the material. McFarlane also explains that tiered assignments are ideal because they

allow flexibility with students who are unmotivated, miss school, or possess learning disabilities.

McFarlane found that students who tended to be unmotivated performed better when given tiered

questions during a discussion and were more likely to engage in the assignment than in a

standard, fixed assignment (p. 3). A key component of tiered assignments is the ability to

differentiate according to student interests by allowing students to choose what they learn about

within parameters.

Incorporating Choice

Tiered assignments can allow for student choice, especially when using Genius Hour in

the curriculum. Rush (2015) defined Genius Hour as “allowing students to spend time in school

exploring, researching, and studying any topic of their choice (p. 26). Rush implemented Genius

Hour for her third through fifth grade students and found that the students who were gifted and

special needs excelled when offered choice in what to study, while the on-level students were

more willing to engage once these two groups bought into the idea (p. 30).” Genius Hour can be

used in combination with tiered assignment and ability groups when students break into small

groups to work on similar, independent projects uniquely tiered at each student’s academic

ability level. Rush went on to explain that the tiered assignments “were all personal to the

presenters, and their methods of presentation made sense (p 30). This helped with student buy in

by giving them a sense of ownership of the material that they wished to study, thereby increasing

the likelihood that students would complete the tiered assignment. Rush found that her students

were able to work more creatively and begin their research with an end goal in mind (p. 30).

Rush’s finding correlates with Levy’s (2008) conclusion that students who are grouped

based on common interests and choice in the content that they wish to study perform better than

students who are grouped with no interest or choice in what they have to study (p. 163). In this

finding is the assertion that ability groups, tiered assignments, and choice all share a common set

of benefits, and if implemented in the right way, all can elicit a powerful connection to the

material for students within the classroom.

Holdren (2012) conducted a case study in which she analyzed the understanding of 21

high school juniors of the texts Heart of Darkness, Grapes of Wrath, The Jungle, and All the

Kings Men. During the study, the students demonstrated their understanding of the texts by

creating art projects of their choice. Holdren found that when students were provided with the

option of choice, the majority of the students completed work that demonstrated higher levels of

thinking (p. 695). Furthermore, Holdren found that students given choice in what art project to

make in order to demonstrate their textual understanding exhibited higher engagement levels,

increased reading comprehension, collaborative problem solving, and increased thinking stamina

(p. 700). Holdren reported that 14 of 21 students were able to synthesize their ideas into creative

art projects that demonstrated understanding of the literature beyond the illustrative depictions

(p. 695).

Use of differentiated instruction can promote more effective teaching and learning in

diverse classrooms. Incorporating ability groups, tiered assignments, and student choice can

cultivate increased academic effort and engagement throughout a lesson. Students can experience

a heightened sense of ownership in the classroom when they feel more motivated to succeed due

to increased interest. Teachers can do this by providing academically appropriate assignments,

and dividing students into both like and mixed ability groups. Teachers can monitor the progress

of their students by using t differentiated instructional strategies in various combinations and

forms.

Methodology

When the 2015-2016 school year began, I thought that I was prepared to teach lessons

that would reach all the learning needs of my students. My lesson plans were designed to reach

the average student. I thought that when I taught my lessons, most students would be able to

grasp the material while a few would require further explanation. However, what I discovered

was that while the average student succeeded within my classroom, my below level students

struggled to complete most of the assignments and my gifted students appeared bored with the

material. Philosophically I began to doubt whether I should continue to teach the same way.

Could I leave the stragglers behind? Was it okay if my gifted students were completing the

assignments but remained bored? It became clear to me that I needed to differentiate my

instruction in order to help all of my students. This led me to my research question: What

happens when differentiated instruction is implemented in high school language arts?

Strategies Used

The differentiated instructional strategies that I used in order to help my students learn

included ability groups, tiered assignments, and incorporating student choice within the

classroom. It was through the implementation of these strategies that I was able to collect data to

determine whether or not each approach was effective in facilitating student learning and

engagement within my classroom. I collected data when using these strategies, both class wide

and individually for nine focus students I carefully selected.

Focus Students

After careful consideration of all classes, I chose a focus group in my fourth block class

that reflected the diversity present in all of my classes. I selected nine students: three struggling

learners, three on-level learners, and three advanced learners. I selected three girls and six boys

to accurately reflect the gender makeup of my class. I also selected four Caucasians and five

African Americans to represent the racial makeup of my class. Students have been given

pseudonyms to protect their identity. Once I selected the focus students, I had them take a

permission form home to their parents in order to gain parental consent for their child to

participate in the research. See Appendix A for the form.

Table 1

Focus student descriptions

Name General

Information

Learning

Level

Prior

Grade

Range

Behavior notes

Athalia

Age: 15

Gender: Female Caucasian

Advanced A -Strong academic student who excels both in the

social and academic fields -Reserved -Comprehends complex concepts quickly

Solomon

Age: 15

Gender: Male Caucasian

Advanced A -Bright student who easily grasps difficult concepts

-Quiet student -Does not like to work with his peers to the point that

he occasionally refuses

Naomi

Age: 14 Gender: Female Caucasian

Advanced A -Intelligent student -Self confident and enjoys acting in front of the class during appropriate times

-Enjoys reading and studying Mandarin

Peter

Age: 14 Gender: Male

African-American

On-Level C -Social student with agreeable personality -Student becomes emotionally upset easily

-Easily distracted

Ahab

Age: 15

Gender: Male Caucasian

On-Level B -Reserved student who likes to quietly talk to his

peers -Not very confident academically

-Willing to seek help with assignments

Ezekiel

Age: 15 Gender: Male African-American

On-Level B -An energetic, athletic student -Occasionally falls behind on assignments -Shows initiative in making up work

Lazarus

Age: 14

Gender: Male African-American

Struggling F -Struggles with writing

-Refuses to complete work he does not want to do -Sleeps in class

-Claims to be uninterested in topics covered

Dinah

Age: 14 Gender: Female

African-American

Struggling D - Extremely social and has many friends within the class

-Constantly asks how to improve her grade but fails to complete assignments -Always asks to leave class for various reasons

Elijah

Age: 14

Gender: Male African-American

Struggling F -Bright and inquisitive student

-Rarely completes assignments. -Missed 10 days of school due to trouble with law

Data Collection Methods

Student interviews. Before I began formal data collection, I conducted a series of

baseline interviews in October 2015 regarding what students thought about the makeup of the

class and aspects that they wanted to keep and/or alter. I also asked my focus students in a taped

interview in October what their thoughts were on using the differentiated instructional strategies

within my classroom.

I also collected student interviews that were recorded on an iPad every Friday for four

weeks. These interviews began March 11th 2016 and ended April 8th. I interviewed my focus

students for four weeks about a specific topic each week. The subjects of the interviews were

choice, like ability groups, mixed ability groups, and tiered assignments.

Surveys. During the course of implementing differentiated instruction strategies, I

utilized multiple class surveys in which I asked students a variety of questions, such as whether

they preferred working in mixed ability groups or similar ability groups. From March 1st to

March 25th, my 44 students, broken up into three smaller groups, took two surveys per week

relating to their like and mixed ability groups. The surveys were used to determine student

preference with regard to ability groups, tiered assignments, and choice within the classroom.

See Appendix B.

Student engagement charts. Student engagement charts were tracked using a tally mark

system. This data was collected by myself, my mentors, as well as my co-teachers during

differentiated instructional strategies. Students were tracked every five minutes and monitored

whether or not they were actively engaged during the activity. Engagement charts were

collected from March 7th to April 17th twice per week on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a total of

12 charts. For my data collection I defined engagement as students were actively reading along,

writing notes and asking/answering questions. Student were marked as being off task if they

misused their technology, were talking off task to peers, or being disruptive.

Choice Reading Questions. Every day from February 22nd to March 16th, students

chose a reading question about the book they were reading for their Genius Hour Project. The

questions were displayed on the Smart Board and students selected one of three questions to

respond to. The levels started at level 1 which was the most concrete to level 3 which was the

most abstract. See Appendix C.

Photographs. I used my iPad to visually record students’ work they constructed for their

Genius Hour projects. Photos of students actively working in their ability groups, completing

their tiered assignments, as well as presenting their Genius Hour project were also taken. I

analyzed these photos after I graded students’ presentations to make sure that the appropriate

quality score was given to students’ on their projects.

Teaching journal and reflection. Throughout the duration of my action research I kept

a running teaching journal in which I wrote about my overall thoughts about each day’s lesson. I

made sure to make an entry in my journal at least three times per week. My entries were usually

on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I paid close attention to particular successes and failures

that occurred when using differentiated instructional strategies, as well as writing about my own

thoughts when using differentiated methods of instruction.

Tiered Quiz. On March 11th I gave a tiered reading quiz to my students. The quiz was

divided up into three sections with three questions in each section. Students were to answer one

question in each section according to the group number they were in. The first questions in each

section were concrete questions for my below level students. The second questions were for my

on level students. The last questions were for my above level students. See appendix D.

Turn in Rates. When students completed a summative assessment, turn-in rates were

monitored in order to determine whether or not students were utilizing their ability group time

effectively, as well as their mastery of the material that was covered. Between October 9th and

February 11th, students completed 3 summative papers. The names of students who failed to turn

in their paper were marked down in my notebook and tracked over this time period. I also

monitored the number of students who completed and submitted their tiered reading questions

and quizzes. These questions were given from March 1st to February 21st.

Graded rubrics. Rubrics taken from students Genius Hour projects were collected on

April 4th and analyzed in order to determine how many students completed the project as well as

what the overall quality of the project was using a four-point grading scale. See Appendix E.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

After recognizing the struggles that my students encountered early in the school year, I

realized that I needed to differentiate my instruction in order to meet their learning needs. I

implemented three differentiated strategies; tiered assignments, ability groups, and choice.

Use of Tiered Assignments

At the beginning of second semester, I struggled to understand how to get many of my

learners to complete their assignments. I decided to implement tiered assignments in an attempt

to design tasks that would be appropriate for varying academic levels. On the first summat ive

paper they completed October 9th, 2015 students wrote a creative story. I did not use tiering for

this assignment. I collected turn-in rates for this paper and found that 23 of 42 students failed to

turn in their papers. 13 below level students did not submit their paper. Six on level and four

above level students did not submit their papers. The second summative paper was due

December 11th, 2016 and for this paper 18 of 42 students did not turn in their paper 11 of which

were below level students, 4 were on level, and 3 were above level. I was very surprised and

disappointed by this, and this key moment motivated me to experiment with tiered assignments

to see if student turn-in rate might improve later in the semester.

During second semester I used tiered assignments in conjunction with ability groups so

that different prompts were provided to high, middle, and low students. I hoped that more

students would complete the assignment because it was matched to their ability level. When the

students submitted their summative papers on February 11th, 2016 only 11 students failed to turn

in the assignment. Of the 11 students eight were below level and three were on level. See table

1 for turn-in levels for the class. Of my nine focus students, Lazarus, DeVeon, and Dinah did not

submit the assignment. In this instance, tiered assignments helped my gifted and on level

students, but of those 11 students who did not turn in the assignment, four students were not

classified as below level. Although it was encouraging to receive six more papers in second

semester, the lack of turn-in was still high, especially with my struggling students.

Table 1

Students that did not turn in summative paper

The next tiered assignment did not go well. I then designed a three section quiz that I

gave the students on March 11th. The quiz was comprised of three questions in each section, one

for each ability level, and instructed students to complete the section of the quiz that matched the

number of their group. When I collected the quizzes, not a single student had completed the quiz

correctly. Most students completed all the questions in one section, some students completed all

the questions, and some did not complete the quiz at all. I believe that this tiered assignment was

a failure due to the confusing directions and layout of the quiz. I did not score the quiz for that

reason.

After this quiz, I decided to not allow students to see other options I prepared. Thus, for

their daily reading in March I assigned each student a daily reading question that was tiered to

0

5

10

15

20

25

Creative Writing Informative Paper (Non-tiered) Informative Paper (Tiered)

Students that did not turn in summative paper

Students That Failed to Turn in Assessment

his or her ability level. Below level students were given concrete questions, while the advanced

student group was given abstract, deeper level questions (See Table 2). The daily turn-in rate for

these tiered was above 90% during the four-week unit. However, across the three ability groups

there remained a constant average of three per ability group who did not give the correct answer

or even attempt to respond. I was somewhat surprised to find this number of non-responses,

especially in the advanced group.

Table 2

Examples of Tiered Questions Used

Concrete Question

Why were the schools cancelled in Maycomb County?

What happened to Maudie’s house?

Normal Question

Explain why the relationship between Finch children and their father

could be viewed as strange.

Why might Boo Radley be considered an outsider?

Abstract Question

How does Maycomb county reflect the society we currently live in?

What does the creation of the snowman suggest about our

perceptions of race?

What I discovered after implementing tiered assignments was that apart from an increase

in turn-in rates for a summative assessment, tiered assignments neither helped, nor hurt, my

students. When I interviewed my focus students to ask what they thought of tiered assignments,

eight of the nine students replied that they thought that the daily reading quizzes were okay, but

they did not elaborate. On April 8th 2016, Ezekiel, an on-level student, commented during an

interview about tiered assignments: “It is not fair that we were assigned harder questions than the

other students.” Advanced level student Solomon also commented, “I don’t really care either

way [about tiered assignments].” Below-level student Dinah commented, “It’s okay I guess

[tiered assignments]” but failed to elaborate. I believe the reason that students did not provide

further elaboration is due to survey/interview fatigue, as well as a general apathy toward the

tiered assignments that were given.

Implementation of Ability Groups

Due to the size of the class (44 students) and high number of student needs, I decided to

implement smaller ability groups along with the choice strategy (see next heading for

elaboration) in order to create a positive learning environment. My class was fortunate in that

we had three instructors in the room. This made ability grouping an ideal strategy for providing

students with more one-on-one support with a teacher. I implemented both like and mixed

ability groups for four weeks (two weeks each) when students read To Kill a Mockingbird. I also

included an additional week of instruction using like ability groups to help students write an

informative paper.

When students were broken up into ability groups, at the end of each group I gave students

an exit survey and then tabulated the student survey responses. From March 1st to March 25th,

my 44 students, broken up into 3 smaller groups, took two surveys per week relating to their like

and mixed ability groups. They answered the following three questions:

1. How did your group go today?

2. What is one thing that went well?

3. What is one thing that did not go well?

The most common response to question 1 over the six-week period was positive, with 65% of

the students how their group went for the day as good fine, great, or ok (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Average survey results question 1

For question 2, the largest response was that students felt productive in the group (47%) (See

Figure 2).

Figure 2. Average Survey Results Question 2

65%8%

12%

15%

Average Survey Results Question 1: How did your group go today?

Good/Fine/Great/Ok IDK (I don't know) Bad/Not Good/Terrible Other

47%

8%8%

16%

21%

Average Survey Results Question 2: What is one thing that went well?

Productive Book Discussion Everything Enjoyed Being with Peers Other

In response to question 3, students blamed “Distractions/Lack of Productivity” as the primary

reason they offered when the group did not go well (44%) over the four-week period. I

interpreted students’ responses to mean that students preferred being in a productive

environment. This was also evident in (See Figure 3) findings about student engagement being

highest when they were productive and on-task.

Figure 3. Average survey results question 3

Students wanting to be productive is related to my sub question for this research which is

“What happens to student engagement when differentiated instructional strategies are used?”

My finding with ability groups reflects the increased engagement that both myself, co teachers,

and mentors observed during ability group implementation. From March 1st to April 27th, I

collected data on ability groups and whole class engagement levels. My mentor’s and co

teachers made engagement charts based on students off-task behavior. Tally marks were used to

mark down every five minutes how many students were off-task in their groups. However, the

data revealed that on average, students remained engaged in like ability groups at higher rates.

44%

9%8%8%

6%

28%

Average Survey Results Question 3: What is one thing that did not go well?

Distractions/Off Task Behavior Not Enough Time

IDK (I don't know) Didn't like Teacher

Nothing Other

Data taken from like ability groups on the first and third week of March revealed that on

average students remained engaged 74.5% of the time in the high achieving ability group (15

students), 62% in the on-level group (17 Students), and 41% (12 Students) in the below level

group. See figure 4.

Figure 4. Like ability average engagement levels

In mixed ability groups, data collected from March 7th through March 18th revealed that

on average, 67.16% of students were engaged throughout the mixed ability group lesson. See

figure 5. These mixed ability levels were similar to like ability levels and both were consistently

higher than whole class instruction.

74.7571.75

53.2560.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Like ability engagement levels (Weeks 1 and 3 of March)

1-Mar-16 3-Mar-16 15-Mar-16 17-Mar-16

Figure 5. Mixed-ability engagement levels

Figure 6. Engagement levels whole class (16 February-24 February)

When instruction was given to the whole class, on average only half the students were

engaged. Engagement data on whole class instruction was collected from February 16th to

February 24th and revealed that more students were consistently off-task than when students were

in ability groups. An example of this off-task behavior can be found on an engagement chart

63.2

74.5

53.25

67.08

0

20

40

60

80

Category 1

Mixed-ability engagement levels (Weeks 2 and 4 of March)

8-Mar-16 10-Mar-16 15-Mar-16 17-Mar-16

22.5

53.446.8

54.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Category 1

Engagement levels whole class (16 February -24 February)

16-Feb-16 18-Feb-16 22-Feb-16 24-Feb-16

created on February 24th. Out of 35 students in the class, five students were off task when

instruction began. Within 10 minutes, 10 students (28%) were marked down as being off task.

After an additional 10 minutes, the number of off-task students grew to 17 of 35, or 48%. By the

end of the lesson 10 minutes later, the number of off task students climaxed to 20 of 35, or 60%.

This pattern of increasingly off task behavior during each class period remained constant during

the two weeks that we taught the text 12 Angry Men (see figure 6).

I initially expected to see differences in the engagement charts of students working in

mixed or like ability groups. However, the data revealed that on average, students remained

engaged in like ability groups at higher rates than during whole class instruction. Data taken

during week one and week three of March revealed that on average students remained engaged

74.5% of the time in the high achieving ability group of 15 students, 62% in the on-level group

of 17 Students, and 41% in the lower ability of 12 students. In mixed ability groups, data

collected from week two and week four of March revealed that on average, 67.16% of students

were engaged throughout the mixed ability group lesson. During the mixed ability group, the

times when engagement were low was almost always at the beginning and end of the lesson.

Factors that contributed to this drop-off included students moving rooms, setting up the wall

divider between classes, and settling down after transitions.

Students’ preference for being productive was also evident in my anecdotal journal. I

made an entry on February 16th when students began analyzing the text of 12 Angry Men as a

class read:

Today was a difficult day. The students were enthusiastic to jump into the

reading but once we got started, students were forgetting what part they played,

losing where we were at, and playing games on their phones while we read.

Those that were engaged became frustrated with their peers and either attempted

to shush their peers or became disengaged.

This entry correlates with students’ survey responses in identifying their dislike of off-

task behavior during ability groups. When this entry is compared to the engagement charts of

ability groups, (see figures 4 and 5) off task behavior is even more evident. Conversely, an entry

that I made on March 8th provided insight into the class milieu when students were feeling

productive:

Today went a lot better. Overall, every group reported back that they felt that

most of the students were engaged with the material and that behaviors were a lot

better overall. Our groups got through a lot more of the material than we did

yesterday and as a whole it went a lot better.

What I found was that my students prefer being productive (accomplishing tasks). A

variety of factors contributed to my conclusion that finding that students preferred working in

smaller groups as opposed to whole class instruction. One such factor is that students six of the

nine focus students said that they felt that the groups were more relaxed compared to the whole

class instruction. It was gratifying to discover that most of the class wanted to be productive and

felt that the ability groups helped them to get more accomplished.

Provision of Student Choice

In a baseline interest survey I gave the students on December 17th, 2015, I discovered that

my students had a wide variety of interests ranging from basketball and video games, to Papa

John’s fan fiction. My recognition of their variety of interests as well as my reading of

professional literature, prompted me to implement the differentiated instructional strategy of

choice within my classroom.

I decided to see what would happen when I gave students choice for their second

semester Genius Hour book project. Genius Hour allows students to choose the subject that they

will learn about by selecting a book of their choosing and then writing a paper about the book, as

well as creating a project to reflect their learning of the selected topic. I wondered what would

happen when I allowed students to choose both the material they were studying and the kind of

project they would create in order to talk about their book to the class. For the project, students

read every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for four weeks. They took quizzes over their

reading, which offered them the option to answer one of three questions Then students were

given two weeks to decide how they would create and present their project to the class. The

quizzes were designed so I could make sure students were actually reading their books, and so I

could also determine whether students were willing to challenge their own thinking by answering

more complex questions. My hopes were that student interests would yield a high quality

creative project that students would read completely and also enjoy. I also hoped that students

would be more willing to choose the more difficult questions I created for their reading quizzes.

From February 22nd to March 16th, students read the book they chose for their Genius

Hour project for 20 minutes three times per week. After twenty minutes, students were given a

three-question quiz. They chose one of the three questions, which were organized from concrete

to increasingly abstract. An example of each type of question appears in Table 2. Based on the

data collection on 12 occasions during this period, I discovered that in my class of 44, on average

31.25 students responded to the most basic question, or did not respond to the question at all,

while 8.25 students on average chose the more difficult level 2 and 3 abstract questions. Of the

nine focus students, Katherine and Athalia always selected questions 2 and 3, while everybody

else always selected question one. Exceptions included Solomon who selected question 3 twice,

and Lazarus and Dinah, who never responded to a question.

Table 4

Student responses to tiered reading questions

I believe there are several reasons why students may have preferred and chosen to

respond to the most concrete question. A common phenomenon that I observed was that when

we transitioned from 20 minutes of reading to five minutes of writing time, most students

seemed to work quickly in an attempt to get to their phones and technology more rapidly.

Whatever the reason, it is clear that most 71% of my 44 students chose not push themselves to

answer questions of higher difficulty.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Student responses to questions about novels (February 22-March 16, 2016)

Level 1 Question Level 2 Question Level 3 Question

I also noted students’ choice of the easiest option in my academic journal entries. On

February 17th, 2016, I took the class to the library to check out any book that they wanted as long

as it fit within the requirements (at least 150 pages and not a book we had already covered in

class). I wrote the following in my anecdotal journal:

I am very excited for this project and have been building it up to both the students

and the other teachers and then once we got to the library most of the students

wanted to read children's books and picture books. I even heard several students

say that they “just wanted to read the shortest book I can find.” Very

frustrating. Good thing I created a book requirement guide. (17 February, 2016)

An entry on March 7th echoed the idea of students’ reluctance to push themselves:

When students began working on their book questions I overheard a student

remark, “Yeah I just always do the first question, it's easy.” I was hoping that

even the most reluctant students would begin pushing themselves by now. C’est

la vie. (7 March, 2016)

After students had four weeks to read their books, they were given one week to prepare

their project, plus Spring Break for whatever they did not complete during the work week. April

4th and 5th were presentation days on which students summarized their book’s and presented to

the class their creative project’s. The student projects were graded on a 4-point scale, with 1 and

2 representing the lowest quality of work, while 3 and 4 represented a high quality project. Out

of 44 students, 27 students scored in the lower half of the scale. This did not include the four

students who did not complete the project. Thirteen students scored in the higher quality column

of the rubric (see Table 5).

Table 5 Genius Hour Project Grades (April 4)

Of the nine focus students, the projects of Athalia, Ezekiel, and Naomi were scored as

high quality. Lazarus and Dinah did not complete their projects. The remaining four focus

student projects were scored as low quality. An additional week may or may not have helped

students create a higher quality product. I primarily had markers, crayons, and colored pencils in

my room which would account for most of the projects being drawings on notebook paper. I

brought in poster board and butcher paper, but none of the students used either. The fact remains

that when I implemented the differentiated instructional strategy of choice within the classroom,

approximately three-fourths of my students chose the easiest option. The lack of effort was

clearly shown by the data collected, and I believe further research is needed in order to determine

how to get students to push themselves further. What I discovered was that when it comes to

choice, most of my students preferred to choose the easiest available option.

Research Reflection

After teaching at a large, Midwestern high school for my first year, I came away with a

wealth of knowledge that I will use as I continue in the field of education. Based on the research

I conducted this year, I discovered three key findings. First, students often choose the easiest

Did not turn in (NHI)

4

Lowest Quality

(1) 6

Low Quality (2)

21

Good Quality (3)

7

Exceptional Quality

(4) 6

option when presented with choices. Second, students prefer working in productive groups.

And third, I need to rework how tiered assignments are implemented within my future

classrooms.

What I Learned

With regard to what I learned about choice, I was surprised that students did not choose

to challenge themselves when working with material that they had themselves chosen. When I

first began the year, I recognized that my students displayed a wide range of interests and ability

levels. When I presented information to them that I had selected and prepared, especially

literature, a lot of students struggled to complete assignments and remain engaged. I thought that

by allowing students to choose what book they read as well as the option to present a project of

their design to the class, they would become motivated and want to create a high quality product.

However, what I found was that during the time allotted for their independent work time, many

students still struggled to complete the reading and create a project. On the day of presentations,

I was disappointed to find that many students had only drawn a simple picture on lined paper to

present to the class. Out of my class of 44 students, 27 scored a two or below on a four-point

scale. Several students remarked that they had selected the easiest book, while others bragged

about consistently having chosen the easiest reading question during the unit book quizzes.

A key finding about group work that I discovered was actually also my greatest success

that occurred when I divided students into ability groups. When providing whole class

instruction in my class of 44, engagement charts consistently showed that half of the class was

usually engaged. This was frustrating for my co-teachers and me, as well as our students.

However, once we broke up into either mixed or like ability groups, students were more focused,

and we were able to get through more material as a result. The most common response from

students about why they typically felt that the ability group/whole class went well was because

they felt productive. Conversely, the most common response that students gave for what they

would change about the group/whole class instruction was that they did not like when a teacher

or fellow student made the group less productive. This emphasis on time on task pointed out to

me what a win-win situation this creates from both a teaching and learning perspective.

Tiered assignments were in general the least successful differentiated instructional

strategy. While I did see an increase of turn-in rates from 23 students failing to turn in the

assignment to 11 students between October 9, 2015 and February 11, 2016, this was the only

finding that stood out. I gave a tiered quiz at the beginning of March that resulted in none of my

students completing the tiered assignment correctly. This high level of incorrect completion can

be attributed to the confusing directions and unfamiliar layout of the quiz. I also noticed a lack

of buy-in among students due to students from the below-level ability group telling students from

the above-level ability group about the kinds of questions they were receiving (concrete) as

opposed to the higher order questions the above-level students were given to answer. This

resulted in the high achieving students complaining about receiving harder questions and then

not wanting to try as hard. This differentiated instructional strategy was also limiting in that

there was little diversity in the tiering of the assignment. Informative paper and quiz aside, the

tiered assignment that was given to students was typically a one-to-three question reading check

for students in which they responded to the appropriate level question. Student responses

typically revealed that regardless of the ability group, when students were given their tiered

assignment, three to four students in the class consistently either did not complete the assignment

or failed to turn the assignment in. This told me that the strategy was ineffective in pushing

students to do better on their assignments.

Successful Causes of the Study

I was mostly successful in completing my research. The biggest cause for success was

that I had a hardworking team that helped me with this study. My mentors, co-teachers, and

fellow colleagues were able to come into the classroom and collect data, discuss solutions to

problems, and help tabulate the results. The team was also able to help me make sense of the

data as well as help me to determine what types of data I should be collecting in order to guide

my research.

I enjoyed implementing the three strategies within my classroom. I feel that the research

I conducted in the literature review provided me with clear insight into how to successfully

implement the strategies in my classroom. I believe that I experienced success once I

implemented choice and ability groups in the classroom, but tiered assignments were not as

effective.

I believe that the focus students I selected were also a huge reason for the success of this

research. Of the nine focus students I selected, only one had difficulty attending class. When all

my focus students were in attendance, they were very willing to conduct interviews, provide

feedback, and remained curious as to how the differentiation strategies were helping them. The

focus students were very representative of the class and helped to create a sharper focus within

the research study.

Limitations

In this study, I encountered several limitations throughout my data collection. The

biggest limiting factor that I experienced was time. I began collecting data in January and

concluded the collection period at the end of March. While I certainly discovered quite a bit

during this time period, I also feel that having an entire year to collect data would have yielded

interesting results. I was only able to implement one Genius Hour project presentation during

this time period. I feel that over the course of the year if I had had two or three Genius Hour

projects, the overall quality of the student work might have been higher.

The disruptive behavior of my focus class also limited the type of data I was able to

collect. My 4th block class was my biggest class, consisting of 44 students. This is also a class

within a class with many high needs students. Several times when I tried to interview students,

they refused to be interviewed, were not in attendance, or provided nonsensical answers in an

attempt to be humorous. Also, when I implemented ability groups, the class was occasionally

unable to break into groups because it took a long time to get through the directions due to

having to repeat them numerous times and stop class due to disruptive behavior.

My tiered quizzes were also a limiting factor. I put a lot of effort into making a quiz that

was divided into specific sections that were tiered toward student ability levels, but students had

a hard time understanding what they were supposed to do. One time I was unable to collect data

from the quizzes I gave when no a single student completed the quiz correctly. This confusion

also led to students complaining about the system and even refusing to take the quizzes. I need

to rework these quizzes for future research and make them more clear by individually assigning

tiered quizzes to students, rather than having all the tiered sections on a quiz.

Implications for Other Practitioners

One of the biggest implications that other practitioners should take away form this

research is paying attention to group dynamics. My team teachers and I found great success by

dividing our class of 44 students into three smaller groups, yet group dynamics played a huge

part. The most common response that students gave on their ability group questionnaires was

that they enjoyed being productive and that they did not enjoy distractions/disruptions within the

group. These disruptions stemmed primarily from the group not liking a particular student, or

having groups that consisted mostly of friends, or experiencing distracting relationships between

some groups and one of the team teachers. Being flexible about who is in what group is key.

Knowing how to divide groups can determine to what degree the ability groups are successful.

When using tiered assignments, it is important to not allow the students to know what

materials/questions the other ability groups are answering. Many of my gifted and on-level

students became resentful when they discovered what kinds of questions the below-level students

were answering. This led to a decrease in buy-in and to general frustration within like ability

groups. Tiered assignments must be individually assigned, rather than grouped on a single

assignment so that any animosity between ability groups is minimized.

Understanding that when students are offered choice they may often attempt the easiest

option is also important. Student buy-in will increase by offering choice, but the instructor must

understand that students still need to be pushed when completing readings and projects. When

my students first chose their Genius Hour books, many wanted to select children’s books to read.

However, I was able to create a specific guideline that prevented this form of selection. On the

other hand, I did not establish a guideline for the project portion but simply made suggestions.

By providing examples of good and bad projects, clear project guidelines, and other materials

that would help to encourage and motivate students, future students will hopefully welcome and

enjoy having choice while also pushing themselves academically.

Future Research

As far as future implications are concerned, I believe that I will want to implement tiered

assignments again in the future. I will attempt to provide a clearer tiered quiz format by either

making the directions clearer or assigning individual quizzes to students according to their ability

level. I will also try to avoid allowing students to compare levels of questions with other

students as this created animosity among students, especially my gifted students, once they saw

the less demanding levels of questions that other students were answering.

I will also limit the scope of choice that students have for their Genius Hour project. I

believe that for this research I provided too much open-ended choice to my students. I believe

that next year, I will provide a more limited choice for students in regard to the kind of project

they will have to complete. The project this year provided suggestions, but it was still too open-

ended for my students. It is my hope that by limiting the amount of choice in the future, the

quality of student projects will increase while still allowing students the options of choosing how

they want to demonstrate their knowledge.

Due to seeing many students not wanting to push themselves and not having the desire to

persevere through tough assignments, I believe that researching how to motivate at-risk students

would yield important information for my future use. I think that for this research the key to

motivation lies in incorporating choice within the classroom. However, the low quality of

student’s work on their Genius Hour projects and most students choosing the easiest of the three

reading questions revealed to me that I need to find other ways to motivate students to push

themselves, rather than simply relying on choice. I want to research alternative ways to

implement Genius Hour, as well as ways to instill grit within my students.

I believe that my research does not end this year. I believe that my research will be going

on and that as a teacher, I now realize the importance of collecting data in order to help create an

environment more conducive to student learning. By learning from the failures I encountered

this year, such as creating tiered assignments with confusing directions and not providing enough

structure when offering choice, I will be able to build a more sound research-based curriculum

from which my future students will ultimately benefit.

Fellowship Experience

For this year’s Fellowship experience, I had the privilege of working with a dynamic

group of mentors, teachers, and peers. Throughout this time, I underwent the transformation

from being a new teacher just trying to put lessons together that were somewhat coherent to a

more thoughtful teacher who tries to create and implement lessons with purpose. This

transformation would not have been possible without the help of my team behind me to help

throughout the year’s Fellowship journey. I had the privilege of being able to work with two

other Fellows from my cohort within the same building. Together, we were able to share our

successes, as well as analyze our failures so that we were less likely to repeat them. One of the

biggest benefits that I also appreciated about being able to work alongside two of my peers from

this program is that we were able to discuss how our research was coming along and share ideas

about how we could best implement our research. It was very helpful. I believe that because we

were in this program together, our relationship grew strong, and I fully expect to continue to

explore teaching ideas with these friends long after our completion of the program.

While my Fellows colleagues helped me grow as an educator, I believe that my mentors

also played an important role in helping me grow as both a researcher and educator. At the

beginning of the year, our mentors were in our classrooms almost every day in order to check

and see how our skills were developing. By maintaining a constant presence within our

classrooms, the mentors were able to see all the positives, as well as negatives, that occurred in

our classes. As a result, this exposure led to some tough conversations between my two mentors

and me. However, what I respected most about my mentors is their willingness to have the

difficult conversations In that while the conversations were not pleasant, these conversations

were essential in order to ensure that I grew as an educator. Because of these conversations, I

believe my professionalism, communication, and purpose-driven lesson planning have all

improved this year.

After the school day ended, I left school and attended my evening University classes,

where I gained beneficial information. In all honesty, there were many nights when my peers

and I were physically and mentally exhausted by the time we went to class. It was during these

times that it was most difficult to remain focused during the four-hour evening session.

However, I still absorbed a lot of information that has helped me develop into a better teacher.

The class that had the biggest impact on my teaching was my classroom management class. It

was during this class that I learned the importance of routine and having clear expectations. I

also learned that feedback must be specific, relevant, and given in a timely manner. This ensures

that the feedback I give my students will have an impact on the student, rather than simply being

general feedback that fails to help the student. These strategies have helped foster a positive

relationship with my students, which in turn has resulted in many students who were initially

reluctant to engage themselves in the academic setting becoming more willing to engage.

The class that I found to be the least helpful was my classroom context course. This

class helped me to discover fascinating information about my school by writing a research paper

about the inner dynamics of the school. However, the course began towards the end of first

semester. I believe the information would have been more useful prior to the beginning of

school, rather than a semester into it. The primary idea that I took away from this course was

that when I work in a new school or district, the types of information that I gathered for this

course will be information I will need in my new working environment. It is the same data that

we were asked to collect for this course that will guide my future instructional practice and

ensure that I cultivate a culturally relevant academic environment for my future students.

With regard to the educational philosophy that I held prior to my Fellowship experience,

I was a firm believer in Constructivism in that I believe when teachers educate students,

educators must allow students to fill in the gaps and construct their perceptions of the world.

However, I believe my thinking has changed in that once I recognized that my students needed a

curriculum that was tailored toward their individual learning needs, I became a believer in the

social learning perspectives philosophy, such as the Vygotsky school of thought. By

incorporating Vygotsky’s ideas of scaffolding, the Zone of Proximal Development, and use of

language as a mediator, I was able to pair these ideas alongside Carol Tomlinson’s differentiated

instructional strategies in order to make learning in my classroom both a social and

individualistic learning experience. In my classroom students did not simply remain seated

throughout the duration of instruction. Often my co-teachers and I divided students into ability

groups, incorporated tiered assignments that were aimed towards their ability levels, and offered

students choice within the classroom. Overall this differentiation of instruction resulted in a

student body that saw increased turn-in rates and higher levels of engagement.

The relationship that I developed with my cohort and professional learning team was also

of great importance. My team consisted of a second Fellow, a seasoned colleague, and me. My

colleague was able to guide us through the necessary routines that are required to become great

teachers. In our PLT we conducted data team cycles in which we selected a learning target and

tracked whether or not our students were successfully meeting the learning objectives. In order

to determine our students’ progress, our PLT leader taught us how to collect baseline data, teach

toward the desired objective, and collect additional data in order to determine whether or not our

students were showing growth. Our leader was also great in helping us to solve some of the

many difficulties that new teachers face. We learned strategies that worked for our group of

students last year, what books students bought into, which books to avoid, and how to become

involved in our school with extracurricular activities. The bond that I was able to develop with

my PLT members and other Fellows was absolutely essential to my success this year. By

recognizing that we all were experiencing the same challenges, I was encouraged and believed

that I could overcome the difficulties of being a new teacher in a Master’s program. My cohort

was a great resource both academically and emotionally, and the strong bond that we formed will

continue throughout our future years as educators.

References

Buteau, G., & True, M. (2009). Differentiating instructional strategies to support English

Language Learners. New England Reading Association Journal, 44 (2). Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3190

ba1c-cb29-47d3-be0c-d5c3f113726b%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4211

Elbaum, B., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1999). Mixed-abiliy grouping for reading: What

students think. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14 (1). Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&s

id=9b3cca1d-d420-427a-88ac-8b72f9c1fe52%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4211

Geddes, K. A. (2010). Using tiered assignments to engage learners in advanced placement

Physics. Gifted Child Today, 33 (1), p. 32-40. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ874022.pdf

Holdren, T. S. (2012). Using art to assess reading comprehension and critical thinking in

adolescents. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(8), p. 692-703. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6f152

c80-42d5-4332-bae9-e30f2c7a03c7%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4211

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping

every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing House, 81 (4), p. 161-164. Retrieved

from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c948

badf-5262-4336-b366-48d87a1cd764%40sessionmgr4005&vid=1&hid=4211

Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher

Education Journal, 13 (6), p.1-14. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068803.pdf

MacFarlane, D. (2010). Teaching unmotivated and under-motivated college students: Problems,

challenges, and considerations. College Quarterly, 13, (3), p. 1-5. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930388.pdf

Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. The Clearing

House, 87, (1), p. 34-38. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&si

d=9b3cca1d-d420-427a-88ac-8b72f9c1fe52%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4211

Rush, E. (2015). Genius Hour in the library. Teacher Librarian, 43, (2), p. 26-30. Retrieved

from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9b3cc

a1d-d420-427a-88ac-8b72f9c1fe52%40sessionmgr4001&vid=4&hid=4211

Santamaria, L., Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated instruction:

A process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International Journal of Whole

Schooling, 1, (1), p. 13-27. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854544.pdf

Stanford, P., Crowe M. W., & Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with technology. TEACHING

Exceptional Children Plus, 6, (4), p. 2-9. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ907030.pdf

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom. R. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: Ability Grouping Revisited. Urban

Review, 42 (4), p. 271-295. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.mul.missouri.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=9b3

cca1d-d420-427a-88ac-8b72f9c1fe52%40sessionmgr4001&hid=4211

Appendices

Appendix A

Dear Parents/Guardians:

I am working on my Masters in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Missouri -

Columbia and am taking classes throughout this year. One of the requirements of my program is to

conduct research in the classroom. The purpose of my research is to improve classroom instruction,

which should also increase student learning.

In my research, I will collect information through student work samples, interviews,

photographs, video recordings, and anecdotal notes. In addition, we are required to post our findings

on a webpage for our final presentation. In order to protect your child’s privacy, I will not use student

names in any reports of the research based on the results of the study, but an image of your child may

be used in these reports. Your child’s participation in the research is voluntary; if you choose not to have

your child participate, he/she will not be penalized in any way.

Please fill out and return the form below indicating whether or not you give permission for your

child to participate in the study. If you would like more information regarding the study, please feel free

to contact me at Jpruitt@cpsk12.org or by phone at 214-3300. Thank you for your time and

consideration.

Sincerely,

Jim Pruitt

English 9/Civic Studies

Battle High School

573-214-3300

Jpruitt@cpsk12.org

PERMISSION SLIP

Student Name: ____________________________________________________

Parent/Guardian Name: ________________________________________________________

I am the parent/legal guardian of the child named above. I have received and read

your letter regarding the research study being conducted in the classroom and

agree to the following:

I DO give permission to allow my child to participate in this action research study, to include my child’s image on videotape as he she participates in the study, and to reproduce materials that my child may produce as a part of classroom activities.

I DO NOT give permission to allow my child to participate in this action research study.

Signature of Parent/Guardian: ___________________________ Date: ______________

Appendix B

Reading Group Reflection

1. Overall, how did you feel your group went today?

2. What is one thing that went well within the group?

3. What was 1 thing that did not go well in today’s group?

Appendix C

SRT Questions

1. Summarize what you read about for today?

2. If your character had a social media account, what might it look like?

3. How is the main character in your novel a reflection of today’s society?

Appendix E

To Kill a Mockingbird Quiz

For each section, select 1 question from each section that corresponds to your assigned

number (1,2,3) to respond to for a total of 3 responses. Make sure to respond to the prompt, cite

evidence, and explain your reasoning (RACE). Each response is worth 1 point for a total of 3

points.

Section 1

1. Why is are the residents of Maycomb county so poor? 2. Explain why the church is important in Maycomb county.

3. Why do Maycomb county residents hold a grudge against Miss Caroline’s hometown, Winston County? How is the Civil War still effecting Maycomb County?

Section 2

1. Describe the relationship between Scout and her teacher, Miss Caroline.

2. Why is Boo Radley considered to be an outsider? 3. Why doesn’t Jem want to hang out with Scout at School?

Section 3

1. What makes Boo Radley a Monster? 2. Why doesn’t Scout care for Miss Caroline? 3. In what way is Atticus considered to be a Hero?

Appendix F

Category 4 3 2 1

Evidence/Description

I smoothly and

thoroughly utilize

specific, relevant, and

accurate evidence

creating a strong

foundation for the

argument.

I utilize specific,

relevant, and accurate

evidence creating a

foundation for the

argument.

I utilize limited

and/or general

evidence; I may lack

relevance and/or

accuracy creating a

weak foundation for

the argument.

I attempt to utilize

evidence, but I am

insufficient in creating a

foundation for the

argument.

Analysis

I clearly and

efficiently break down

and elaborates

thoughtfully on

meaning in each of

my paragraphs

I clearly and

efficiently break down

and elaborate on

meaning in each of

my paragraphs

I break down and

elaborate on

meaning in each of

my paragraphs

I complete the

paragraphs, but provide

limited or no meaning.

Communication

My command of

language skills

(grammar,

precise/vivid

language, sentence

structure, transitions)

is superior. I am

professional, fluent,

and engaging to the

audience.

My command of

language skills

(grammar,

precise/vivid

language, sentence

structure, transitions)

is average. I

demonstrate average

professionalism and

fluency, and I am

somewhat engaging

to the audience.

My command of

language skills

(grammar,

precise/vivid

language, sentence

structure, transitions)

is inconsistent. I

attempt to be

professional and

fluent, but I may not

be engaging to the

audience.

My command of

language skills

(grammar, precise/vivid

language, sentence

structure, transitions) is

lacking. I am not

professional and/or

fluent, and I am not

engaging to the

audience.

Presentation

I articulate my

presentation in a

loud, clear voice. I

use little to no filler

words and maintain

constant eye contact

with the audience.

I articulate my

presentation in a

voice that the

audience can hear. I

use a few filler words

and maintain a fair

amount of eye

contact with the

audience.

I articulate my

presentation in a

voice that half the

audience can hear. I

use several filler

words and maintain

little eye contact with

the audience.

I am barely heard,

constantly use filler

words, and fail to make

eye contact.

Creativity

The project is clearly

visible to the class,

the connection to the

book is strong and

clear. The artistic

sample is well

My project is visible

to the class. There is

a connection to the

book and the artistic

sample is sufficient.

My project is slightly

visible to the class.

There is a vague

connection to the

book and the artistic

sample appears is

My project is not visible

to the class or

incomplete. There is

little to no connection to

the book and the artistic

sample appears to be

polished. complete but lacks

polish.

incomplete or rushed.