Teachers’ Perception of the Use of Differentiated Instruction Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student Learning

Copyright © 2019 by Dr. Althea Seivwright-Lue. 783414

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

ISBN:    Softcover        978-1-7960-5244-2

             EBook            978-1-7960-5243-5

Rev. date: 10/26/2019

ABSTRACT

As student achievement is a continued issue facing school districts, professional development programs are often implemented for teachers to improve instruction; thereby, increasing student learning. The purpose of this study explored teachers’ perceptions of the use of differentiated instruction strategies and how they impacted student learning and changes in teachers’ classroom instructional practices upon completion of a targeted professional development in differentiated instruction. Teachers were trained using two professional development interventions, a 90-minute face-to-face instruction module and through the use of a book club for differentiated instruction in a regular education classroom.

A qualitative case study was used to collect data in the form of observations, semi-structured questionnaires, perception surveys, lesson plan checklists, and book club evaluations. Themes and patterns were derived and crystallized using multiple sources of data coded and analyzed. The research questions addressed how targeted professional development, in differentiated instruction, changed teacher instructional practice and how teachers, who used differentiated instructional strategies and techniques, perceived these strategies impacted student learning.

This study was carried out in an urban/rural Title I middle school. The researcher and the participants and I were all employed at this school. Based on this study, it is recommended further research was needed, in more than one school, and should include a larger number of participants to enhance the findings from this research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Anne Rodrigue, my committee members, Dr. Thomas Brattain, Dr. Janet Millar-Grant, and Dr. Maxine Woodside, and my program chair, Dr. Nancy Hyland for their invaluable support and guidance throughout this journey. As individuals, they have all been a part of my personal and professional growth. Dr. Rodrigue: I am speechless. You have been my rock and inspiration. It has been more than a pleasure and a privilege to have met you and worked with you as you guided me throughout this journey.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the teachers of the Title I Middle School for their participation in this research case study and for the building administrator who made it possible for me to carry out this study utilizing the site facilities. Without their contributions or time and resources, this would not have been possible.

DEDICATION

I would like to acknowledge and thank my Heavenly Father, for His guidance, strength, wisdom and spirit throughout this challenging journey. He always reminded me, I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.

This study is dedicated to my husband Mr. Harold Lue, my wonderful children Javon and Jorianne Lue, my faithful mother Mrs. N. Seivwright, and deceased father Mr. Seivwright. My husband continually showed his patience, support, and understanding during this frustrating and unspeakable endeavor. My children provided unconditional love, patience, and pride. They never gave up on me, even when I fell short. My strong mother, who even from afar, provided me with continuous encouragement and everlasting prayers. She always reminded me of the importance of hard work, persevering, and striving for excellence. I will always appreciate, adore, and admire you, Mom.

This work is also dedicated to my deceased uncle, Dr. James Seivwright. My uncle’s guidance, passion, and vision for higher education have been my guiding light as I worked through this dissertation.

Collectively, my extended family, church family, friends, and coworkers who contributed, by encouraging me, praying for me, and exercising patience with me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

DEDICATION

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE OF FIGURES

TABLE OF APPENDICES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Problem Background

How RTI Fits within the Context of Differentiated Instruction

Need/importance for the study

Prior studies

Purpose of study

Research questions

Definitions of terms

Conceptual framework

Conceptual framework measurements

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Literature on Differentiated Instruction

Literature on Student Learning

Literature on Instructional Strategies and Practices

Literature on Professional Development

Literature on Book Clubs

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Research plan

Justification of Qualitative Design

The Researcher and Facilitator

Justification of Research Plan

School District Initiative on Differentiated Instruction

Ethical Issues

Research Timeline

Target Intervention Plans

Participants and Setting

Data Collection Plan

Data Analysis

Study Limitations

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Introduction

Demographics

Interventions

The Process of Data Collection

Classroom Observations

Lesson plan checklist

Perception Surveys

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS ON FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Case Study

Professional Development Initiatives

Implications on Findings and Conclusions

Relevant Findings & Discussions

Recommendations

Recommendations for Future Research

Conclusion

Reflection on my journey

REFERENCES

TABLE OF TABLES

1. Learning Goals

2. Group Interventions

3. Teaching Experience

4. Instructional 6-8 Middle School Teachers

5. Classroom Observation Data

6. Category 1

7. Category 2

8. Category 3

9. Category 4

10. Category 5

11. Category 6

12. Category 7

13. Assessments

14. Interest Surveys

15. Evaluations

16. Flexible Grouping

17. Content

18. Product

19. Process

20. Assessment

21. Interest Surveys

22. Evaluations

23. Flexible Grouping

24. Content

25. Product

26. Process

27. Process

28 Interest Surveys

29 Evaluations

30. Flexible Grouping

31. Content

32. Product

33. Process

TABLE OF FIGURES

1. Response to Intervention Tier Model

2. Conceptual Framework Model

3. Thematic Data Collection & Analysis Matrix

4. Assessment

5. Interest Surveys

6. Evaluations

7. Flexible Grouping

8. Content

9. Product

10. Process

11. Assessment

12. Interest Surveys

13. Evaluations

14. Flexible Grouping

15. Content

16. Product

17. Process

18. Assessment

19. Interest Surveys

20. Evaluations

21. Flexible Grouping

22. Content

23. Product

24. Process

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix B: Demographic Survey

Appendix C: Differentiated Instruction Perception Survey

Appendix D: Semi Structured Questionnaire

Appendix E: Classroom Observation Form

Appendix F: Lesson Plan Checklist

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In teaching and learning there is no one size that fits all approach. Students learn in a variety of ways and are at different levels of learning. There are students with different skill abilities: varying background knowledge, readiness, language, learning styles, and interest levels. When students were not up to standard on grade level instruction, it often impeded learning and grade level outcomes were lowered (Essex, 2005). Regular education teachers had the responsibility of identifying students who may have needed special services to receive the full benefits of an education (Essex, 2005). With the use of effective instructional strategies, teachers can help meet the needs of individual students.

Over two centuries ago, federal law mandated support services for students with learning disabilities (Schaeffer, 2010). Schaeffer cited from the Code of Federal Regulations 300.7©(10), the law later renamed, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and identified students with one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifested itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. These would include conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia (Schaeffer, 2010). Over time, the number of students identified with learning disabilities has increased to nearly half of the students in the public education system. Students were identified when a severe discrepancy was shown between ability and academic achievement using a student’s IQ test result versus their scores on an achievement test (Whitten, Esteves, & Woodrow, 2009). In 2003, the reauthorization of IDEA questioned the number of students identified with learning disabilities, and deemed it was time to revise the eligibility criteria (Schaeffer, 2010). According to The Evolution of Special Education, (as cited in Whitten et al.,) Policy makers sought to design a more responsive way to address students’ needs and prevent them from failure in the classroom (p.12). In 2004, this proactive model, named Response to Intervention (RTI), was approved in the reauthorization of IDEA (Whitten et al, 2010). Response to Intervention was the language used as an alternative to the discrepancy model for identifying students with learning disabilities (Whitten et al, 2010). Whitten et al. continued to describe RTI as a multi-tiered instruction model designed to promote school success for all learners (p.13).

However, for differentiated instruction to be effective and successful, teachers need the tools and techniques to guide effective instruction. One such tool is the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, which allows teachers to be responsive to the needs of their students to prevent them from failure in the classroom. RTI provides interventions for students not achieving at the same pace and rate as their peers. RTI focuses on high-quality instruction, screening, and progress monitoring for early intervention, school-wide collaboration, and differentiated instruction within a multi-tiered service delivery model (Whitten et al, 2010).

In spite of this large body of research suggesting the need for, and benefits of, differentiated instruction, according to Corley 2005, there were certain challenges to implementing differentiated instruction: time, classroom management, and lack of knowledge and skill (Corley, 2005). The main purpose of this study was to conduct a descriptive case study investigating and qualitatively assessing teacher perceptions about the use of differentiated instructional strategies and/or techniques, and their impact on teacher practice and student learning.

Theoretical Background

Differentiation

Differentiation is a modification of curriculum enabling all students to learn (Drapeau, 2004). Drapeau mentions for differentiated instruction to be effective and successful, it must provide a structure of fluid and flexible tiers to challenge students at the appropriate levels of instruction (Drapeau, 2004). According to Tomlinson, differentiating instruction was the key to creating learning environments, which effectively accommodated the diversity typical of modern classrooms, especially where the needs of able learners must be accommodated (Tomlinson, 2001). Students are often challenged by the amount of information presented to them, which often leads to sensory overload. Sizer (as cited in George, 2005) long argued education ought to be an experience where the student the worker (George, 2005). In other words, classrooms should be more student-centered to facilitate peer tutoring. Classrooms should not be teacher centered, like most traditional classroom settings, where teachers are lecturing at the head of the classroom. Teachers can, and should, assume important new roles as classroom manager and facilitator of learning (George, 2005). Therefore, differentiation of instruction becomes an important strategy for achieving new roles and relationships in a diverse classroom as educators respond to interventions addressing student learning needs before academic problems arise. Response to intervention is a framework that emphasizes the importance of quality teaching, early intervention, and progress monitoring through effective instruction (Whitten, E. et al. 2010).

Differentiating Instruction

Differentiating instruction (DI) means changing the pace, level, or kind of instruction teachers provide in response to individual learners’ needs, styles, or interests (Heacox, 2002). Differentiating instruction responds to students’ progress according to what they know, need to know and already know. According to Heacox, differentiated instruction was rigorous, relevant, flexible and complex (Heacox, 2002). Heacox further explained that DI was rigorous because it provided challenging instruction and motivated students to push themselves; relevant because it focused on what students needed to learn; flexible and varied because students had the opportunity to make choices about how they learned and how they showed what they had learned, and finally, complex because teachers challenged students’ thinking and actively engaged them in content which conveyed depth and breadth (Heacox, 2002). DI was an instructional process through which teachers developed teaching, learning, and assessment strategies for all students regardless of background or skill level (2002).

Strategies, which can be used to plan differentiated instruction, were categorized by using the content, process, product, or learning styles (Gregory, and Chapman, 2007). The content was the knowledge or skills teachers needed for students to learn; the process was the different learning activities or methods students used to explore a concept; the product was different performance expectation for the varying student academic levels; and learning styles were utilized to interact and develop instructional methods to meet the needs of individual students (Theooux, 2002).

Instructional Techniques

Instructional techniques were geared toward helping the learner learn in the most effective way (Marashio, 1982). The differentiated instructional techniques used in class will accommodate the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile learners. Once teachers understood the learning styles of their students, a variety of instructional techniques were embedded in their lesson plans showing the process of their instruction. Differentiating instruction was sometimes very difficult to manage without flexible grouping (Corley, 2005). Students may be placed in flexible grouping based on their readiness and interest skills or their learning styles. Tomlinson’s work (as cited by Corley, 2005), indicated to manage a differentiating classroom effectively, there were several techniques for differentiating the process of instruction. Some of these are, but were not limited to; setting up stations in the classroom where different learners can work simultaneously on various tasks; structuring problem-based learning to have students