Week 2 Assignment- N

Nermin Fialkowski Dr. Thomas Reynolds AIL 626 7 November 2018 Week 2 Assignment Teacher Inquiry Practitioner Research Articles: Three Written Review Assignment Purpose The purpose of this three research study review is to investigate the relationship between the implementation of differentiated instruction-based teaching and the academic achievement of mathematical comprehension with secondary aged learners. Literature Review Increasing Math Success with Differentiated Instruction A. What was studied? What question did the researcher(s) ask? The intent of this study was to address the integration of differentiated instruction in the mathematics classroom, and the design and implementation of research-based instructional strategies to improve student achievement in mathematics. The study analyzed the achievement and comprehension of mathematical fundamentals among 8th grade general education students as differentiated instructional strategies were used during the delivery of instruction. The guiding question for this study was “Does differentiated instruction have a positive effect on 8th grade mathematics achievement?” Additional questions asked by the researcher were: 1. Is there a significant difference between students in the traditional instruction classroom and the differentiated instruction classroom on the 8th grade mathematics post-test when controlling for pre-existing differences on mathematics pre-tests? 2. What are the differences in student achievement levels on the Georgia CRCT between students taught using whole-class instruction and students taught with differentiated instruction? B. Who were the participants? The participants in this study were fifty 8th grade mathematics students from the Barrow County in Georgia. Students received general education mathematics instruction for the 2008-2009 school year. Students were required to have their 6th and 7th grade CriterionReference Competency Tests (CRCT) scores on record, in addition to their 8th grade mathematics pre-test. The CRCT were state-mandated end-of-year assessments that were designed to measure how well students have acquires the skills and knowledge described in Georgia’s state mandated standards in Reading, ELA, Math, Science, and Social Science

(Georgia Department of Education). The total 50 students were made up of two classes, 23 students received differentiated instruction, while the remaining 27 students received traditional instruction. C. What methods were used to carry out the research? The study included a total of 50 students. Twenty-three who received differentiated instruction, and 27 who received traditional instruction. The focus of the study was, “Does differentiated instruction have a positive effect on 8th grade mathematics achievement?” This hypothesis was tested using independent t-tests that examined the impact of differentiated instruction. It was is casual-comparative quantitative study, where analysis of variance and covariance were both used. The quantitative data of this study included a pre and post-test, and CRCT scores, that evaluated the impact of the type of instruction (differentiated and traditional) and student achievement. The independent variable was identified as the type of instruction, while the dependent variable was students’ mathematical achievement, which was measured by mathematics test scores. D. What were the findings? The results from this study demonstrated that differentiated instruction does have an effect on mathematical achievement for 8th grade students (improvement did occur) in Georgia; however, the effect is almost equal to that of traditional instruction. This means that the 8th grade students who receive differentiated instruction in their mathematics class may score higher on assessments, but may also score higher through the use of traditional instruction. There was not a statistically significant difference in mathematical achievement between students taught traditionally in a whole-class environment and those taught through differentiated instruction. However, there was a significant difference in the increase of scores from pre to post-tests with the 8th grade students. This difference was between traditional and differentiated instruction amongst middle school students. Although there was an increase in test scores in the class receiving differentiated instruction, there was a greater increase in test scores in the class receiving traditional instruction. Nonethe-less, differentiated instruction still has a positive impact on 8th grade mathematics achievement. E. What limitations or implications for further research were cited? There were several limitations to this study: 1. Conducted in a single geographical area. 2. Small sample size, 50 3. Attendance, reading levels, home life, and previous knowledge have the ability to hinder the performance of the students. 4. The study was limited to 8th-grade students.

5. Gender. The male to female ratio in the class room could be a potential weakness of the study. 6. The study took into account the student’s performance from homework assignments and grades on teacher-constructed tests. Inclusion of this information could have a mitigating effect on findings. 7. Implementation frequency of differentiated instruction This study did not consist of true randomization because there was no control over the selection progress. Additionally, because of all of these limitations, there is a need for further research this topic. This area of research would benefit if more data were collected. This study is pertinent to social change because it will aid in defining and formulating instructional strategies that support learner-centered classrooms. This will help produce a diverse population of students. The implications are lasting; supporting the local community by producing mathematically proficient students and the national and global community will be effected by being provided with instructional practices that will increase motivation and comprehension of mathematical foundations. Differentiated Instruction: An Exploratory Study in a Secondary Mathematics Classroom A. What was studied? What question did the researcher(s) ask? This study explored the different approaches of teaching in a differentiated instruction classroom. The research was conducted at a college preparatory high school, with an emphasis on using various approaches to differentiate instruction in order to enhance students’ comprehension of Advanced Algebra II. The purpose of the study was to explore whether students’ performance outcomes in mathematics relate to their experience in a differentiated instruction classroom. Specific questions asked by the researcher were: 1. How does students’ performance outcome relate to their experience in a differentiated classroom? 2. What effects does the use of differentiated instruction have on the instructor? B. Who were the participants? Participants were from northwest Ohio, where the school is located in an upper middle class community. About 60% of the student body comes from an upper socioeconomic class, with 20% of the student body being international students (English Language Learners). There was a total of thirty 10th grade students randomly selected from Algebra II classes, divided into three blocks, A, B, and C. Block A consisted of sixteen, 10th grade Caucasian students, nine boys and seven girls. Block B had six boys, one of whom was Chinese, and eight girls, one of whom was also Chinese. Block C consisted of fourteen 10th graders. The students involved with this research came from mixed socioeconomic statuses, races, cultures, and genders. Students ranged in a wide variety of abilities. Blocks A and C were

divided by their readiness levels. Students’ readiness levels were established based on their performance on teacher and book-designed pre-assessments. The pre-assessment for each unit was designed to meet the Enduring Understandings and the Transfer Goals of each of the units taught throughout the semester. Meeting the Enduring Understandings and the Transfer Goals were required by the school. Participants also included a diverse set of students, some students had Individual Education Plans, while others were International students or English Language Learners. C. What methods were used to carry out the research? This study consisted of a mixed methods design. The researcher selected this design purposefully because they believed in the depth and richness of knowledge acquired by capturing all of the details and trends of this study. The researcher collected six different types of data for this study: 1. Documentation in the form of students’ journals and the teacher’s lesson plans 2. Direct observation of classroom instruction 3. Participant observations in the form of researcher’s notes 4. Physical artifacts in the form of students’ projects and products 5. Survey interviews in the form of quantitative data 6. Formative assessments in the form of quantitative data Both quantitative and qualitative data were both collected simultaneously but analyzed separately, to form a cohesive conclusion. The quantitate data of this study was the numerical result of assessments and projects. Frequency tables were used for the numerical data along with standard deviation and description of variance. Some of the qualitative data was categorical, such as the survey/interview. Qualitative data was composed of: documents, direct-observations, participant-observations, and physical artifacts. The analyzation of qualitative data included: 1. Transcribing data into word documents. 2. Saving data as PDF files. 3. Creating hermeneutic units (HUs) for each document. 4. Designing codes for data (in-vivo, descriptive, and process codes). 5. Organizing codes into families and merging codes to categorize data in smaller chunks. 6. Defining codes and relating them to differentiated instructional strategies. The analyzation of quantitative data included: 1. The overall semester average for all of the participants (which includes assessment scores) 2. The quantified result of survey interviews. D. What were the findings? The majority of participants provided positive feedback to many aspects of a differentiated instruction classroom. Some of these aspects included: classroom structure, challenging material, group problem solving, individual attention, lectures, motivation, lack of peer

pressure, teaching style, tiered groups, and working at their own pace. Students were able to acclimate and embrace changes enthusiastically and swiftly. In the findings of Ariss, et al. (2017). The qualitative data in this study supported the quantitative data findings and illustrated various possibilities for teachers to implement differentiated instructional strategies in their classrooms. The qualitative data analysis revealed different components of differentiated instruction classrooms and their effects on both: the students and the teacher…Data was skewed to the left, which indicates that the majority of students performed above average. Students from the bottom two quartiles, where the D and C averages were dominating, described their involvement in the differentiated instruction classroom as a positive experience (p.142). The quantitative data analysis demonstrated a significant boost of student achievement, provided differentiated instruction. The analysis revealed that 70% of participants scored in the A range, 13% in the B range, another 13% in the C range, and 3%, scored in the D range. As part of the differentiated instruction, students were provided with: choice, which allowed for interactive learning, challenging tasks at various levels, productive small group work, individual work time. All which proved to be successful approaches to teaching and learning. E. What limitations or implications for further research were cited? One of the main limitations of this study was that the researcher was also the classroom teacher of the participants. Because the researcher is a faculty member at said school, results may be skewed, and vary if the same study had been conducted in a public school within a larger area, with multiple teachers and different classrooms. Most of the literature on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction used to enhance comprehension, is mostly focused on middle to lower school students. Therefore, there is little research on this topic amongst high school students, and even more so in the field of mathematics. This research contributes to the growing research literature on differentiated instructional strategies and how students’ experiences in a differentiated instruction classroom relate to their performance outcome in class. Implications for this study, as stated by Ariss, et al. (2017): The available research, on the effectiveness of using differentiation to enhance comprehension, is mainly geared towards middle to lower school students. There are fewer studies on the effectiveness of differentiation among high school students and, more specifically, in the field of mathematics (p.4)…Since many educational institutions are embracing differentiated instruction in their mission as a tool to personalize education and maximize students’ intellectual growth and development, researchers call for further investigations of the effects of differentiation on teachers in the classroom (Subban, 2006;James, 2009; Tulbure, 2011) (p.144).

The research literature reveals little insight as to how students and teachers describe their experience in a differentiated classroom. In order to increase students’ comprehension of mathematics, it is important to highlight the experiences in a differentiated classroom that strengthens students’ abilities to demonstrate their comprehension of knowledge. The Effect of the Differentiated Teaching Approach in the Algebraic Learning Field on Students’ Academic Achievements A. What was studied? What question did the researcher(s) ask? The intent of this study was to determine the effects of differentiated teaching approaches presented during mathematics lessons of algebra on students’ academic success. Questions asked by the researcher were: 1. Is there a significant difference between the last test points on the algebra success test of an experiment group that was taught with differentiated teaching approaches and a control group that was taught with present teaching approaches when the analysis controls for pretest points? 2. Is there a significant difference between the test points on the persistency algebra success test of an experiment group that was taught with differentiated teaching approaches and a control group that was taught with present teaching approaches when the analysis controls for pretest points? 3. What are the opinions of the students in the experiment group that was taught with differentiated teaching approaches about this teaching approach? B. Who were the participants? The participants in this study consisted of 6th grade students during the 2013-2014 academic school year. Participants are from a low socioeconomic class, located in the Saricam County of Adana, Turkey. The study divided the participants into two classes, 6B and 6C. Class 6B was the experimental group, where students received differentiated instruction. Class 6B had a total of 33 students, where 64% were girls and 36% were boys. Class 6C was the controlled group, where instruction was not modified. Class 6C had a total of 24 students, with 54% of girls and 47% of boys. Students were selected at random, had similar final grades and gender distribution was also random. The study concluded that in terms of academic success, the students in both groups were mathematically similar to each other. C. What methods were used to carry out the research? Fifty-seven students were chosen at random, who had similar final grades and gender distribution was also random. Data was collected by an “Algebraic Success Test” and “Semi-Structured Interview Form Regarding the Differentiated Teaching Approach,” which was developed by the researcher. The study incorporated mixed methods for the research, where qualitative and quantitative methods were used together in order to determine the effects of differentiated teaching approaches. The quantitative data included semi-

experimental pretest-last test, control grouped model. The qualitative data was collected by taking the opinions of students in the experimental group through semi-structured interviews. Both the quantitative and qualitative data were tested by covariance analysis. D. What were the findings? The purpose of this study was to understand and determine the effects of differentiated teaching approaches on students’ academic success during a 6th grade mathematics lesson in algebra. The findings demonstrated that a differentiated teaching approach did increased students’ success. Additionally, during this time, students showed positive cognitive and affective developments. The research determined that students in the experiment group who had been taught with a differentiated teaching approach, had higher scores on their most recent test than students in the control group. E. What limitations or implications for further research were cited? Current literature on differentiated teaching approaches on students’ academic success, is mostly focused on numbers and geometry; as opposed to studies focused on algebra. Implications for this study, as stated by Bal (2016): This study is limited in terms of student dimensions, more studies should be conducted on different subjects and at class levels in which teachers’ opinions about application stages can also be investigated. Additionally, this study examined multiple teaching methods of differentiated teaching. In future research, experimental studies regarding the application or comparison of different techniques can be pursued (p.199). Conclusion Differentiated instruction meets the needs of all students, with various readiness levels, which include: knowledge, experiences, interests, and learning styles. The purpose of differentiated instruction is to provide all students with access to the content. Tomlinson (2001) describes a differentiated classroom as providing students various avenues to connect with the content, make sense of ides, develop products, and learn effectively. “The intent is to maximize each student's growth and individual success by meeting each student where he or she is . . . rather than expecting students to modify themselves for the curriculum” (Ariss, et al., 2017, p. 79). These three research studies investigated the relationship between the implementation of differentiated instruction-based teaching and the academic achievement of mathematical comprehension with secondary aged learners. All three studies verified that there is a positive correlation between differentiated instruction and students’ academic success in the field of mathematics. Students who received differentiated instruction demonstrated improvement in various forms of assessments, understanding, and comprehension. All three studies also concluded that the literature for differentiated instruction focused on mathematics with secondary age learners is limited.

Resources Ariss, L., Chiarelott, Leigh, Johanning, Debra, Stewart, Victoria, & Teclehaimanot, Berhane. (2017). Differentiated Instruction: An Exploratory Study in a Secondary Mathematics Classroom. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Bal, A.P. (2016). The Effect of the Differentiated Teaching Approach in the Algebraic Learning Field on Students' Academic Achievements. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (63), 185-204. Burr, M., McClure, Robert, Broide, Donna, & Brown, Michelle. (2010). Increasing math success with differentiated instruction. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/CRCT.aspx Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How To Differentiate Instruction In Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Aassociation for Supervision & Curriculum Development.