Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Proposal
Underpinning Literature
The methodological choice for this research falls under the category of action research.
This type of research involves self-reflection which is based on improving educational
practice in relation to ones own approach to pedagogical practices (Brady, Milroy, Prosser
& Hattam 2006). The nature of a differentiated approach to teaching requires a complete
shift in ones philosophical approach to teaching and is therefore a good foundation for
action research with a view to keep improving and developing holistic teaching practice
(Brady, Milroy, Prosser & Hattam 2006).
This research is intended to be flexible and adaptable in order to work with any school
year level however, primary school classrooms will be the target sample. Ultimately, this
research demands a mixed-method approach whereby both qualitative and quantitative
methods are combined to produce a reliable and accurate result (Cohen, Manion, Morrison
& Richard 2011). This is an important part of the research process as quantitative results
only allow for a measurable result which can be skewed by outliers or bias. For example,
some students may be engaged with their work but not demonstrate any engaged
behaviours due to introversion, shyness or other factors. In order to combat this outlier,
qualitative journal entires, reflections and responses to guided questions are required to
make sense of all student engagement levels. Further, both confirmatory and exploratory
methods are paramount to this research as they have the potential to both confirm the
already documented success of differentiated instruction and also provide a means by
which empirical evidence can collected and assessed. From the literature, this was a
notable gap and needed to be further explored in order to create reliable links between
differentiation and engagement in the classroom. This research will be conducted over a
five week period in order to fit in with the Professional Experience Placement three.
However, it is important to note that action research is an ongoing process of reflection,
trial and error and a commitment to improving practice (Brady, Milroy, Prosser & Hattam
2006). A specific method for this research is presented below which endeavours to
emulate this cyclic process over the five week period:
Week One:
Observation of the current classroom environment will be carried out in relation to three
considerations:
1. Differentiation implementation test (using Tomlinsons Categories of Differentiation
2005 - see Appendix One)
2. Engagement levels checklist - affective, behavioural and cognitive (see Appendix Two)
3. Qualitative written student feedback on lessons
These three considerations will allow for a thorough examination of current teaching
practices and whether or not they follow traditional teaching practices or differentiated
practices. It will also allow for student feedback on how they find current learning
experiences, whether or not they can take responsibility for their learning and their overall
approach to learning at school. Further, these first observations will form a good
foundation for the progression of research and will serve to start the process of getting to
know students at a personal level.
Week Two:
In order to combat improper implementation of differentiation, this stage of the research
will require a more concerted effort to get to know the specific academic, social and
personal needs of students. This will be ascertained by two means:
1. Interview with Mentor Teacher regarding students (eg. learning styles, confidence
levels, preferred subjects etc.)
2. Student work samples over a broad range of subjects
A differentiated approach to teaching will not deliberately implemented in this week so that
a better comparison can be made between teaching practice over the course of the
research. It will be important to record and reflect on personal teaching practice at this
stage through the use of a journal. This will ensure that constant observation of students is
taking place and that any notes collected reflect the knowledge of the mentor teacher as
he/she will know the students the best at this stage. In particular, careful notes will be
made in relation to student interaction, involvement, motivation and attitudes in response
to personal teaching practices.
Week Three:
Having constructed a broad picture of the individual needs of students, this stage of the
research will involve putting differentiated instruction into place. This may be easier said
than done as it requires a whole shift in ones approach to teaching practice. Indeed,
Valianda and Koutselini (2009) are adamant that focussing on specific strategies to enable
differentiation is not enough. There must be a shift in ones mind in order to establish good
differentiated teaching practices based on a commitment to diversity and individual
interaction with students. In order to begin this shift, Tomlinsons Categories of
Differentiation (2005) will be used to inform teaching practices, strategies and
individualised instruction (see Appendix One). This tool provides a framework for
differentiation by splitting teaching practice into four areas - content, process, product and
learning environments. It is important to note that a whole curriculum approach is needed
for this research and so this tool will be used within all subject areas and lesson planning
processes. In order to record the results of implementing differentiation across the
curriculum, four types of observation will be considered:
1. Engagement levels checklist - affective, behavioural and cognitive (see Appendix Two)
2. Qualitative student feedback on lessons
3. Mentor teacher feedback on personal teaching practice and student engagement
levels (eg. any changes, what was useful, what could have been left out, engaged all
students etc.)
4. Student work samples
Notably, these processes mirror the first week of preliminary observations and correlate
with the second week of observations. This is intended to provide a means by which
previous teaching practices can be compared to the proper implementation of
differentiated instruction. A personal journal will also continue to be valuable at this stage
in order to reflect on the quality of ones own differentiated teaching practice, interaction
with students and mentor feedback.
Week Four:
This stage of the research will involve continuing the process of week three in order to
provide longevity to the results. By extending the previous process, it is also more likely
that a personal philosophy of differentiated teaching practices will be established. It will
also be important to continue to make use of self-reflective journal entries and open
conversation with the mentor teacher in order to improve practice. This may result in
targeted action for individual students in order to satisfy the equitable teaching aim of
differentiated instruction.
Week Five:
As indicated by the literature, student achievement results, pride and motivation are all
successful indicators which demonstrate the success of differentiated instruction.
Importantly however, this research is focused on observable behaviours, affects and
cognitive involvement in relation to engagement levels within the classroom. In order to
obtain a more empirically informed result, this stage of the research will involve setting an
assessment which includes all aspects of differentiation. The nature of the assessment will
give students the ability to choose in regards to topic, process and presentation. In
keeping with a holistic approach to the curriculum, the assessment will endeavour to
include a number of subject areas and skills. For example, students might choose to focus
on space and include scientific measurements of distance from the earth. They then might
choose to present this information on a poster or create a 3-D model to demonstrate their
learning. Also students might choose to work in pairs or individually. This assessment will
need to be constructed alongside the research process in order to be relevant to the
curriculum that is taught at this stage in the school year. The four previous types of
observation will still be used (eg. engagement levels checklist, qualitative student
feedback, mentor teacher feedback and student work samples) to assess the success of a
differentiated approach to teaching. Further, the grading of this assignment will be
informed by five guiding questions suggested by Tomlinson (2000) which will help to
guarantee that grading is appropriate for all students at all levels (see Appendix Three). An
overall journal reflection of the five week research process will also be needed at this
stage.
Assessment of data
The use of checklists will enable trends to be observed within the classroom. These trends
will be unearthed by collating results into percentages. In relation to the engagement
checklist, percentages will be split up by the three categories of engagement observation affective, behavioural and cognitive. Separate collation of preliminary results (week one)
and current results (week three, four and five) will allow for a simple before and after
comparison of engagement levels. A high percentage will establish the success of
differentiation in meeting the individual needs of students and keeping students engaged
in the classroom. These results will also be supported by thematic content analysis of
personal journal entires and notes, student feedback and mentor teacher feedback.
References
Alavinia, P & Farhady, S 2012, Teaching Vocabulary through Differentiated
Instruction: Insights from Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles, Modern Journal
Blozowich, D & Trohoski, C 2001, Differentiated instruction in heterogeneouslygrouped sixth-grade classrooms, PhD thesis, Immaculata College, United States.
Cohen L, Manion, L & Morrison, K 2011, Research methods in education, 7th ed,
Routledge Falmer, London.
10
11
Appendices
APPENDIX 1
Differentiation Implementation Test
Adapted from Tomlinsons Categories of Differentiation (2005)
12
Content
Examples:
Reading Partners, Think-Pair-Share,
Highlighted Texts
Process
Examples:
Games, Learning circles, Learning
contracts
Product
Learning Environment
Examples:
Examples:
Choice in assessment presentation, student Different table groupings, stand up desks,
created rubric
outside lesson
APPENDIX TWO
Engagement Levels Checklist
Heavily adapted from Lam, Jimerson, Wong, Kikas, Shin, Veiga et al (2014) and informed
by studies conducted by Belliveau-Brown (1993) and Smith (2006).
13
This checklist is intended to be used for an individual student or for a group of students.
Affective Engagement
Tick
Enthusiasm
Eg. Wants to be in the classroom, generally happy
Genuine-ness
Eg. Attentive, concentrating, keen to complete work that is
set
Behavioural Engagement
Tick
Participation
Eg. raises hand, ask questions, discusses task with peers
On Task
Eg. Academic/task talk, persists when it is difficult,
concentrating on work, eyes on work
Cognitive Engagement
Tick
Relevance
Eg. relates task to real life situations, thinks of examples in
own life that could relate to the task, relates task to
previous knowledge in subject
APPENDIX THREE
Assignment Grading - Guiding Questions
Adapted from Tomlinson (2000)
14
1. How do learners benefit from a grading system that reminds everyone that students
with disabilities or who speak English as a second language do not perform as well as
students without disabilities or for whom English is their native tongue?
2. What do I gain by telling my most able learners that they are "excellent" on the basis of
a standard that requires modest effort, calls for no intellectual risk, necessitates no
persistence, and demands that they develop few academic coping skills?
3. In what ways do my current grading practices motivate struggling or advanced learners
to persist in the face of difficulty?
4. Is there an opportunity for struggling learners to encounter excellence in my current
grading practices?
5. Is there an opportunity for advanced learners to encounter struggle in my current
grading practices?
6. How can I ensure that I provide an equitable grading system which recognises
difference and diversity while still maintaining expected standards?