Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action Research Study

University of South Carolina
Scholar Commons
Theses and Dissertations
2017
Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action

Research Study
Melinda A. Cannon
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons
Recommended Citation
Cannon, M. A.(2017). Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action Research Study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4222
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
DIFFERENTIATED MATHEMATICS INSTUCTION:
AN ACTION RESEARCH STUDY
by
Melinda A Cannon
Bachelor of Arts
Coastal Carolina University, 1999
Master of Arts
Columbia College, 2004
__________________________________________________________
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Education in
Curriculum and Instruction
College of Education
2017
Accepted by:
Ken Vogler, Major Professor
Susan Schamm-Pate, Committee Member
Richard Lassier, Committee Member
Vic Oglan, Committee Member
Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

© Copyright by Melinda A. Cannon, 2017
All Rights Reserved.
ii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this action research study was to evaluate the relationship between two
third grade mathematics classroom; one with differentiated pedagogy and other with
traditional pedagogy. To fulfill these purposes, the study tested the hypothesis utilizing an
independent t-test. The t-test was used to identify statistical differences among variables.
The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics instructional strategy of
small group instruction, collaborative group instruction, and online instruction with one
classroom and traditional lecture style pedagogy with the other classroom over a five
week period in preparation for a Post-Assessment. Quantitative data included
Mathematics Pre- and Post-Test scores which were given to students to gage their
mathematical problem solving abilities before and after the comparison study.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND- COMMUNITY AND DISTRICT ..............................................................6
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM....................................................................................8
RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................................9
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................................9
OVERVIEW OF DESIGN OF STUDY ...............................................................................10
THEORETICAL BASE ..................................................................................................12
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ........................................................................................12
LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................14
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................14
SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER......................................................................................15
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................16
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................16
RELATION OF LITERATURE TO RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................16
RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................18
RESEARCH PURPOSE ..................................................................................................18
RESEARCH PROBLEM.................................................................................................19
iv
EDUCATION REFORM EFFORTS ..................................................................................20
MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION ....................................................................................21
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION.................................................................................23
TRADITIONAL LECTURE STYLE INSTRUCTION (WHOLE CLASS) ................................29
SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION WITH TEACHER ...........................................................30
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING .....................................................................................32
TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS ...............................................................................35
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................39
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................41
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................41
RESEARCH DESIGN AND APPROACH ..........................................................................43
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS .....................................................................................47
DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................50
DATA ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ...........................................................................51
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS ................................................53
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................53
RESEARCH TOPIC ......................................................................................................55
PROBLEM OF PRACTICE .............................................................................................55
PURPOSE OF ACTION RESEARCH ...............................................................................56
RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................56
ACTION RESEARCH DATA COLLECTION PLAN...........................................................56
QUANTITATIVE DATA................................................................................................57
v
OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................58
ETHICAL RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ...........................................................................59
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................................60
INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS OF THE STUDY .........................................................62
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................62
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................64
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................64
FOCUS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................64
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................65
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................66
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS..............................................................................67
ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................67
ACTION PLAN TIMELINE............................................................................................69
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .....................................................................72
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................72
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................74
APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ......................................................................................90
APPENDIX B ASSENT TO BE A RESEARCH SUBJECT .............................................................92
APPENDIX C TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................93
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Math Chapter 1 Assessment Results ................................................................. 62
Table 4.2 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances .......................................................... 62
Table 5.1 Action Plan Implementation Timeline.............................................................. 71
vii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Globalization of the economy, diverse populations, and rapid changes in
technology are posing many challenges for educational systems. Throughout time,
education has been an area that has seen numerous reform efforts trying to meet the needs
of an ever changing society. The massive reform efforts in the United States have
intended to close the achievement gap among the different subgroups in America and
between the United States and other countries (Zhao, 2009). Despite the numerous reform
efforts to improve educational standards, schools systems are struggling to meet the
needs of 21st Century learners and employers. As we try to meet the needs of these
diverse learners, schools are in need of intensive restructuring. The term “21st Century”
has educators and administrators searching for ways to prepare students for the future and
the educational system is evolving faster than ever (Nichols, 2015). The identified
problem of practice for my Dissertation in Practice (DiP) focuses on the deficit that exists
in public school students in demonstrating high levels of mathematics reasoning as
measured by state assessments.
“To have an equal opportunity to pursue success, particularly financial success,
citizens need equal access to the skills necessary to that pursuit, and schools are charged
with providing everyone with these skills” (Weber, 2010, p 152). Educators today not
only have to enable students with basic skills but critical thinking and process skills to
utilize not only in school but in their daily lives. Some 21st Century skills that have been
1
identified as important for all learners are critical thinking, communication, collaboration,
and creativity (NEA, 2016). These skills are not new to education but tend to be the basis
of great teaching. Educators and administrators need to incorporate these skills in
classrooms and learning communities around the country. “Students do not learn alone,
but rather in, diverse communities, interacting with their teachers, in the company of their
peers, and bringing with them the values and teachings of their families” (Katz & Porath,
2011, p. 32). Educators and administrators cannot change the environment that students
are born into, but we can change a student’s life by providing the best education possible.
It is important that as educators and administrators, we emphasize instructional strategies
that will produce learners who are productive citizens. “It is clear that when teachers and
administrators focus on things they can control, such as instructional strategies, opposed
to things outside of their control, such as socioeconomic status and demographic factors,
students perform better” (Clayton, 2011, p. 682). Katz and Porath (2011) argue that for
all students to learn, students must be recognized as having diverse needs, and a
classroom that allows all students to learn and develop a sense of belonging. The heart of
instruction has to focus on meeting the diverse needs of the students not teaching the
standards and teaching to the test.
Research reveals how even well-intentioned reforms fail to address the most
urgent issues precisely because such reforms are undertaken as a pre-made
package without the knowledge of local issues, and their relation to the broader
political, cultural, and economic context of society. (Valdiviezo, 2014, p 75)
Instruction today is challenging because it does not begin on the first page of the
curriculum guide, but rather where students are in regards to their ability (Tomlinson,
2
2001). Educators must understand the diverse ability levels of the students in their class
to make quality instructional decisions. This understanding allows educators to
implement instructional strategies conducive to their students’ strengths and weaknesses.
Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack (2001) stated that the individual instructional strategies
that a teacher uses have a powerful effect on student learning.
To meet the needs of all students and utilize instructional strategies responsive to
each student’s strengths and interests, we must explore alternatives to traditional
instruction. Mathematics is the key to opportunity, for students it opens doors, enables
informed decisions, and provides knowledge to compete in a technological economy
(National Research Council, 1989). For people to function in this global society,
mathematics play an integral role in basic knowledge. People need to have a complex
understanding of numbers and procedures that are used in daily activities. “All students
must have a solid grounding in mathematics to function effectively in today’s world”
(Ball et al., 2005, p. 1056).
The students at Sunshine Elementary showed greater achievement in reading and
writing, however a gradual decline in mathematics achievement was shown on the
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) and Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP). When differences in students’ abilities are significant, educators must make
accommodations and differentiate instruction to make teaching and learning more
successful (Tomlinson, 2000). When children do not learn the way we teach then we
must teach the way they learn (Kellough, 1999). Differentiated instruction was used in
this research study as an instructional strategy to improve mathematics achievement in
third grade students compared to traditional lecture style instruction.
3
The teacher in a differentiated classroom understands that she does not show
respect for students by ignoring their learning differences. She continually tries to
understand what individual students need to learn most effectively, and she
attempts to provide learning options that are a good fit for each learner whenever
she can. She shows respect for learners by honoring both their commonalities and
differences, not by treating them alike. (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 12)
This instructional strategy will allow the researcher a significant opportunity to address
the diverse needs of the learners. Traditional lecture style instruction negates to engage
my students in content and knowledge of mathematics. Standing in front of the classroom
spraying students with information does not meet the individual needs of all of students.
Slavin, Madden, & Stevens work (as cited in Kuntz & McLaughlin, 2001) noted that the
best possible mathematics program for mainstreamed classrooms would be one that
combined cooperative learning with individualized instruction. Good mathematics
instruction engages all students as active learners (NAEYC & NCTM, 2002). Using a
more diverse technique for delivering mathematics instruction allows students the
opportunity to build their knowledge by engaging in multiple mathematic activities.
“Basic skills with numbers continue to be vitally important for everyday uses. They also
provide a crucial foundation for the higher-level mathematics essential for success in the
workplace which must now also be part of a basic education” (Ball et.al, 2005, p. 1056).
Often students have a negative attitude toward mathematics because they are used to
sitting in their desk and having to do work on their own. Making mathematics instruction
more student centered allows students to really take ownership of their own learning.
Effective math instruction allows children to develop positive attitudes toward math
4
instead of negative ones (Clements, Sarama, & Dibiase, 2004). The major focus on
mathematics instruction in elementary schools is the development of proficiency in
computation and of skills in applying computational ability to solving problems
(Fleischner, 1985).
Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999) provides the following example of differentiated
classrooms:
In differentiated classrooms, teachers begin where students are, not the front of a
curriculum guide. They accept and build upon the premise that learners differ in
important ways. Thus, they also accept and act on the premise that teachers must
be ready to engage students in instruction through different learning modalities,
by appealing to differing interests, and by using varied rates of instruction along
with varied degrees of complexity. (p. 2)
Students who are taught through differentiated methods not only learn
mathematics effectively, but they also become motivated students who view themselves
as successful mathematicians (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Making the most of the little
time that can be used on a daily basis for mathematics is crucial for students. Having
students engaged in learning which meet their individual needs is of upmost importance.
Differentiated math instruction based on student readiness meets the needs of students
who are below grade level, as well as those who exceed benchmarks. When applied
correctly, differentiation in mathematics ensures student success (Grimes & Stevens,
2009). Students who are instructed using differentiated instruction can work
independently or collaboratively on activities that allow practice and review of
mathematic concepts. Teachers are able to work closely with children individually or in
5
small groups providing a more differentiated style of instruction consistently each day.
This individualized instruction allows our students to receive tailored instruction to best
meet their needs (Boushey & Moser, 2014). Utilizing small group instruction,
collaborative learning, and online activities allows the educator to cater the learning goals
to the individual students’ strengths and weaknesses. Grouping has to be flexible and
continually changing based on the content and the individual students’ needs.
Differentiated mathematics groups are no longer rigid groups that follow the whole year
but should be ever constantly changing based on informal and formal assessments of
student progress.
Background- Community and District
Daisy School District, located in Clover, serves a diverse range of students. There
are approximately 9,620 students in the district. The District has 20 schools: nine
elementary schools, one intermediate school, one charter school, four middle schools,
four high schools and one adult education center. Based on Clover’s Department of
Education Website, Daisy School District received an Absolute Rating of Excellent on
the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Card and a C based on the Federal
Accountability Rating System. Based on the South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Test
of State Standards (SCPASS), 71% of our students received Met or Exemplary on the
ELA portion of the test. Sunshine Elementary received an overall AYP Report Card
Absolute Rating of Average and a C based on the Federal Accountability Rating System.
Based on the SCPASS, 55% of our students received Met or Exemplary on the
Mathematics portion of this test. These statistics are below Elementary Schools with
Student’s Like Ours (61%), meaning Poverty indexes are not 5% below or above. This
6
also places us below Elementary Schools in the State (76.9%) in Mathematics (Clover
Annual Report Card Summary, 2014).
Based on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) for Mathematics, students in
Sunshine Elementary also show a deficit. In fall of 2014, 45.3% of third grade students,
62.8 % of Fourth grade students, and 39.7% of fifth grade students were Proficient in
Mathematics (South Carolina Department of Education, 2014). Based on test scores from
these assessments, educators need to evaluate instructional strategies which are most
effective in meeting individual students’ needs. Diverse student populations make finding
effective instructional strategies a challenge faced by many administrators and educators.
Sunshine Elementary is a rural school in Clover. Sunshine Elementary is a Title I
school. Title I provides federal funding to schools that have low poverty levels. The
funding is meant to help students who are at risk of falling behind academically (Meador,
2015). Poverty rates for rural families are higher across all categories and more enduring
than their urban counterparts. Rural African American families and their children are not
empowered by the educational system or provided educational services in a culturally
sensitive context (Kea, 2009). Sunshine Elementary has an 89% Free/Reduced Lunch
Status. Farrigan and Parker (2012) stated in the United States, people living in poverty
tend to be clustered in certain regions, counties and neighborhoods rather than being
spread equally around the Nation. “Rural children are less likely than non-rural children
to be in center-based care other than Head Start during the pre-kindergarten year” (Kea,
2009, p. 12). Students at Sunshine come to school exhibiting deficits because of the
poverty level and lack of pre-kindergarten experience.
7
Statement of the Problem
The overarching goal of action research is to improve practice immediately within
one or a few classrooms or school. The mathematics needs of our general population in
being left behind in the goal of making all learners literate. The purpose of my action
research study is to examine the effects of differentiated mathematics instruction and
traditional lecture style instruction on the achievement of third grade mathematics
students. The specific purpose of this study was to examine the utilization of small group
instruction, collaborative groups, and the use of online games/activities as a framework to
differentiate learning of mathematics in third grade students.
The challenge for classrooms and schools is finding the best instructional
strategies that meet the needs of the diverse student population. The Daisy School
District implemented High Progress Literacy Classrooms in response to Read to Succeed.
Teachers rework their daily English Language Arts (ELA) schedule and have arranged
use of time so that all students can be highly engaged with text reading and writing at
least 75% of classroom instructional time (HPLC Implementation, 2015). Educators’
daily schedules reflect the large chunk of instructional time dedicated to reading, writing
and research, leaving a small section of time for mathematics instruction.
McMillan (2004) describes action research as being focused on solving a specific
classroom or school problem, improving practice, or helping make a decision at a single
local site. Kea (2009) states the systematic lower achievement of particular groups of
students is an alarming sign for politicians about the crisis of the educational systems,
and it is an important justification behind investments in reforms and research in
mathematics education. Clover and the Daisy School District are creating independent
8
readers and writers but failing to inspire the mathematicians. Teachers must apply
instructional methods that make math accessible and understandable to all students
(Grimes & Stevens, 2009). We as educators must step back and make hard choices based
on the needs of the students that make their educational journey in our rooms daily.
Mathematics no longer is memorizing facts but actually having a deep understanding of
what the numbers, signs, and answers mean. Educators must improve mathematics
knowledge by focusing on alternative instructional strategies which hold effective
mathematics instruction at its core.
Research Question
What is the difference in mathematics achievement in third grade students who
have received differentiated mathematics instruction when compared to third grade
students who received traditional mathematics instruction?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of my action research study was to examine the effects of
differentiated mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on
mathematics achievement of third grade students. The specific purpose of this study was
to examine the utilization of small group instruction, collaborative groups, and the use of
online games/activities as a framework to differentiate the learning of third grade
students. Effective instructional strategies enable diverse learners to construct their own
knowledge and cultivate talents in an effective manner (Darling-Hammond, 1993).
Schools are faced with the challenge of implementing state standards with a single
requirement for all learners. The problem facing educators is all learners need to have the
same outcome but instructional strategies need to meet the diverse needs of their learners.
9
This study will examine two of the most predominant instructional strategies for teaching
mathematics: Traditional lecture style and differentiated instruction.
To date, there is very little research conducted on differentiated instruction in the
elementary levels. Hayes and Deyle (2001) claim that it is difficult to determine the
possible effects of differentiated instruction on the achievement of students because the
effects of differentiation may differ in each school. Smit and Humpert (2012) argue that
students who receive differentiated instruction do not experience poorer achievement,
however, clear positive results from differentiated instruction still have to be found.
Overview of Design of Study
Action research is defined as any systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, or
others with a vested interest in the teaching and learning process or environment for the
purpose of gathering information about how their particular schools operate, how they
teach, and how their student’s learn (Mills, 2011). Action research is the appropriate
format for my study to allow a deeper understanding of the diverse learning needs of
students and strategies that would make instruction more effective. This research will
provide insight to my school and district to facilitate mathematics teaching and learning
that will meet the diverse needs of the student population. Action research allows
teachers to study their own classrooms, in order to better understand them and to be able
to improve their instructional quality or effectiveness. It focuses on the unique
characteristics of the population with whom the action must be taken. This in turn
increases the effectiveness for the practitioner (Parsons & Brown, 2002). Educators must
be willing to step up and find the best practices that work for their classrooms. Making
sure that each classroom is different and that the differences reflect the individual needs
10
of the students within. “True school improvement must begin within the four walls of the
classroom. Teachers must be able and willing to critically examine their own practice as
well as how their students learn best” (Mertler, 2014, p. 12).
The purpose of this quantitative study is to compare instructional strategies and
their effectiveness in mathematics achievement of third grade students. The study is
designed to determine the impact that varied pedagogical methods have on mathematic
abilities of third grade students in a rural school setting. The researcher will investigate
and compare how a math class of third grade students performs when receiving
differentiated instruction. The comparison group is from another class in Sunshine
Elementary that will receive traditional lecture style instruction.
The researcher will utilize small group instruction, collaborative groups, and the
use of online games/activities as instructional tools to facilitate differentiated instruction.
Sunshine Elementary School shows a deficit in the students’ mathematics test scores
when compared to other students in the State of Clover. The action research study
attempted to determine if a differentiated instructional model compared to the traditional
lecture-style instructional model strengthens student achievement in third grade students
during the fall semester by utilizing a pre- and post-test for mathematics.
Many of the students at Sunshine Elementary come with an early learning deficit
versus other children who may live in other areas of the county. The classes will be
comprised of students who are similar in makeup and dynamics. The students will receive
a mathematics pre-test so that the teacher/researcher can compare the scores prior to the
instructional unit and students will also receive a mathematics post-test so that scores can
be analyzed after the instructional unit.
11
Theoretical Base
The theoretical base for this study is rooted in the works of Gardner (2004),
Vygotsky (1993), and Tomlinson (2001). Gardner (2004) is known for his theory of
multiple intelligences. Gardner believed that when teachers know how students learn and
at what intellectual level, teachers can better instruct students’ individual needs. Utilizing
small group instruction, online activities, and collaborative activities to facilitate
differentiated instruction allows the researcher to accommodate each child’s intelligence.
The social aspects of collaborative learning are tied to Vygotsky’s (1993)
sociocultural theory. According to Vygotsky, children learn by working together as well
as developing concepts by using concrete objects to construct meaning. One of
Vygotsky’s theories that is highly recognized by teachers is the zone of proximal
development (1993). The zone of proximal development is the gap between what a
learner has already mastered and what he or she can achieve when provided with
educational support (Vygotsky, 1993). Utilizing collaborative groups in differentiated
instruction allows students to work together to share ideas and explain their ideas.
Tomlinson (2001) discussed the importance of differentiated instruction and
accommodating the instructional needs of all children. In classrooms without
differentiated instruction, students do not have opportunities to share and express ideas
beyond the traditional realm of study. Tomlinson’s (2001) theories create the foundation
for differentiated instruction, allowing online activities, collaborative learning, and small
group instruction to deliver instruction to meet the diverse needs of learners.
Definition of Key Terms
The key terms and definitions, essential for this study, are provided:
12
Action Research is any systematic inquiry conducted by educators for the purpose
of gathering information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and
how their students learn (Mertler, 2014).
Small Group Instruction typically refers to a teacher working with a small group
of students on a specific learning objective. These groups consists of 2-4 students and
provide these students with a reduced student-teacher ratio. It allows teachers to work
more closely with each student, reinforce skills learned in the whole group instruction,
and check for student understanding. (Meador, n.d.).
Collaborative/Cooperative Learning is the instructional use of small groups so
that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. Class
members are organized into small groups after receiving instruction from the teacher.
Then they work through the assignment until all group members successfully understand
and complete it (DeJesus, 2012).
Differentiated Instruction is a clear and solid method to modify instruction. A
teaching philosophy that allows students to have multiple options for taking in
information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn (Mann & Willis,
2000).
Math achievement is using research-based teaching methods to ensure all students
can show mastery of grade level skills being taught (Byrnes, 2001).
Whole Class Instruction is typically teacher led. The teacher teaches the entire
class the same lesson regardless of the specific needs of the students in the class (Meador,
n.d.).
13
Limitations
This study was limited to third grade mathematics classes in an elementary
school, which could possible yield different results in a middle school or high school
setting. The study was conducted in a single geographical area. The sample consisted of a
high percentage of minority students from low-income families. These factors limited the
generalizations of the study to third grade students, to school districts in other regions
with other populations. The assessment is multiple choice, open ended questions would
allow students a change to elaborate or explain their answers.
Significance of the Study
The curriculum in schools have become standards based, which means all
students are expected to achieve equally and meet high standards despite their varied
abilities. Educators are therefore challenged to meet the diverse needs of the student
populations. The only way to meet the objective of the standards based curriculum is to
personalize or differentiate the instruction (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Educators must face
the challenges of changing from traditional lecture style instruction to instructional
methods that meet the diverse needs of their students.
Differentiated instruction is believed to be an effective instructional strategy
because it advocates beginning where individuals are rather than with a prescribed plan
of action, that disregards student readiness, interest, and learning profile (Tomlinson,
2005). This study is significant and contributes to the existing research because it
provides educational leaders with a comparative study of differentiated instruction and
traditional instruction. Society has become more diverse and complex, which is also
14
represented in our classrooms. Schools need to adopt learning strategies that enable all
students to meet high standards.
Summary of the Chapter
The purpose of this action research study is to examine the effects of
differentiated mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on two
third grade mathematics classes. The participant-researcher will utilize a differentiated
mathematics instructional strategy of small group instruction, collaborative group
instruction, and online instruction with one classroom and traditional lecture style
pedagogy with the other classroom over a five-week period in preparation for a Post-
Assessment. Quantitative data will include Mathematics Pre- and Post-Tests which will
be given to students to gage their mathematical problem solving abilities before and after
the comparison study. The pre- and post-test data will help the participant-researcher to
gain a more in depth understanding of the student's mathematical problem solving
abilities. Chapter 2 contains a literature review that compares and contrasts different
points of view, research outcomes, and establishes the relationship of the study. Chapter 3
provides a description of the participants, methodology, and instrumentation. Chapter 4
includes a detailed statistical analysis of the data and an interpretation of the findings.
Chapter 5 contains of summary of and interpretations of the findings, implications for
social change, and recommendations for action and future plans.
15
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Introduction
This review of literature presents reforms that have led to the massive changes in
the public school system. The literature presents a view of differentiated instruction,
traditional lecture style instruction (whole class) and mathematics instruction. The
discussion will analyze the elements of small group instruction, collaborative/cooperative
groups, and online games. Significant works of theorists will be evaluated in detail on the
topics of differentiated instruction and lecture style instruction (whole class).
Relation of Literature to Research Problem
Research has provided evidence that the education system is failing at meeting the
growing needs of diverse school populations. Research is provided on education reform
efforts to meet the diverse needs of students. In this literature review, I explore an
instructional approach, differentiated instruction, to effectively meet the needs of third
grade students in mathematics instruction. Research regarding online games,
collaborative groups, and small group instruction, as it pertains to higher achievement in
math, is presented.
Darling-Hammond (1993) believed that the job of instruction is to enable diverse
learners to construct their own knowledge and to cultivate talents in an effective manner.
16
Kluth & Straut (2001) argued that standards should be flexible, present a wide range of
concepts and skills, and educators need to adapt the curriculum to meet the individual
needs of learners. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001) resulted in massive changes in
our public school systems. “Without teachers who have sophisticated skills for teaching
challenging content to diverse learners, there is no way that children from all racial and
ethnic language and socioeconomic backgrounds will reach the high academic standards
envisioned by the law” (Darling-Hammond, 2007, p.48). This reform increases
accountability for schools, educators, and school districts. Therefore, the instructional
strategies that educators incorporate into their classrooms can have a significant impact
on student achievement.
Mathematics is everywhere: it is experienced and practiced by every culture and
must be incorporated into school mathematics curriculum. Instead of instilling
fear and loathing, math education should foster a great understanding of how
mathematics is applied in our increasingly technologically-driven world.
Mathematics instruction should reflect/embrace the cultural diversity of our
classrooms, and of our increasingly interconnected world. (Brandt & Chernoff,
2015, p. 33)
Derman-Sparks (1990) explained that ultimately, teachers, school leaders, parents, and
students must acknowledge that students from all cultures and backgrounds have the
potential to be high ability learners. Curriculum which does nothing to counteract biases
which dominant-culture children encounter in their daily lives does little to help these
children live effectively and fairly with diversity.
17
My identified problem of practice for my DiP focuses on the deficit that exists in
many United States public school students in demonstrating high levels of mathematics
reasoning as measured by state assessments. In particular, Sunshine Elementary shows a
deficit in students' mathematics test scores when compared to other students in the State
of Clover. Daisy School District implemented High Progress Literacy Classrooms which
schedules English Language Arts for 75% of the school day. Students are being given
daily instruction across the curriculum in English Language Arts but leaving mathematics
behind.
One goal of this review of literature is to enable teachers to find different
instructional strategies that can be utilized in classrooms for differentiated instruction.
These instructional strategies can help to promote mathematical reasoning and
achievement through collaborative learning, small group instruction, and online
game/activity program. In order to reach this goal, an action research study designed to
analyze alternative instructional techniques in mathematics education is proposed.
My action research study will focus on differentiating mathematics instruction to
promote higher achievement in third grade students.
Research Question
Research Purpose
The purpose of my action research study is to examine the effects of differentiated
mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on the achievement of
18
third grade mathematics students. The specific purpose of this study is to examine the
utilization of small group instruction, collaborative groups, and the use of online
games/activities as a framework to differentiate the learning of third grade students. The
post-test data will be analyzed to determine if there is a statistically significant difference
in the achievement of third grade students taught by differentiated instruction or
traditional lecture style instruction. Sunshine Elementary School shows a deficit in our
students’ mathematics test scores when compared to other students in the State of Clover.
The action research will attempt to determine if a differentiated instructional model
compared to the traditional lecture-style instructional model strengthened student
achievement in two third grade groups during the fall semester by utilizing a pre- and
post-test for mathematics.
Research Problem
No longer can we allow our students to sit idle in their desks with a worksheet.
We must provide an engaging environment, where students are immersed in their own
learning. Finkelstein argued (as cited in Springs, 2014) that in the nineteenth century
teachers were of two types: the intellectual overseer, who stressed memorization and
punished failure in assignments, and the drillmaster, who had the students repeat material
in unison. As educators, we can no longer afford to be the intellectual overseer or the
drillmaster. We must provide education that is diverse based on our student’s strengths
and weaknesses. We must provide varied opportunities for students to be active in the
learning practice promoting their strengths in each task.
The major impact of the Pestalozzian theory was its emphasis on relating
instruction in the early years to objects in the real world, on learning by doing,
19
and on the importance of activity, as opposed to sitting at a desk. (Springs, 2014,
p. 147)
Students need to practice learning in multiple ways throughout the day to apply their
knowledge to learning.
Education Reform Efforts
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 created a sense of urgency in the
education system to aggressively analyze the classroom instruction and student
achievement. NCLB caused massive changes to begin in public school systems around
the nation. Public schools have been placed under a great deal of pressure to demonstrate
that they are providing students with a thorough and efficient education through
improved test scores (Noddings, 2005). NCLB (2001) brought about testing requirements
for reading and math which caused educational systems to design standards based
curriculum that would emphasize reading and math instruction. With the accountability
and testing requirements put into place by NCLB, school systems had a shift regarding
instructional approaches that were being utilized in classrooms around the country.
President Barack Obama placed more accountability on the states by allowing
them to compete against one another, looking for better curriculum, assessments, better
technology, and a commitment to providing the most efficient education for all students.
Race to the Top held students accountable for more rigorous standards to better prepare
them for college and careers, and teachers are using newer and better classroom
assessments to tailor their instruction to students’ needs (US Department of Education,
2015). Race to the Top also saw college and career ready standards (21st Century Skills)
adopted across states to align expectations for college and workplace.
20
Mathematics Instruction
Lubienski (2002) explained there is much we do not know about how schools fail
in their support of children of color and those in poverty, particularly in elementary
mathematics classrooms. Given this, scholars are calling for in-depth examinations of the
instructional practices, particular to mathematics, that contribute to less opportunities to
engage quality mathematics for students of color.
Mathematics education researchers seek answers to important questions that will
ultimately result in the enhancement of mathematics teaching, learning,
curriculum, and assessment, working toward ensuring that all students attain
mathematics proficiency and increasing numbers of students from all racial,
ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic groups who attain the highest level of
mathematics achievement. (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014,
p. 6)
The focus has been on improving mathematics instruction so that all students
meet the high standards as measured by state-administered achievement tests, it is crucial
that students at risk for mathematics difficulties, who vary considerably in ability,
achievement, and motivation, develop the necessary mathematical knowledge to meet
grade-level benchmarks (Jitendra et.el., 2013). Creating mathematically literate citizens is
rarely questioned by educators; however, there are different interpretations of the
meaning of the term. Mathematical literacy can be seen as the ability to solve problems,
reason about and analyze numerical information, and know the meaning of important
mathematical vocabulary (Oxford Learning, 2010). Traditional math instruction results in
the class doing the same assignment and practicing the same problems, usually receiving
21
no feedback until the next school day (Poncy, Fontenelle, & Skinner, 2013). Many
children who would not be identified as having special educational needs are low-
attaining in mathematics (Butterworth, Varma, & Laurillard, 2011). Difficulties in
mathematics often have a marked impact on their educational prospects (Gross, 2007).
Bynner and Parsons (1997) found that most adults with serious numeracy difficulties had
already shown difficulty with mathematics by the age of seven. The development of
suitable interventions is made more challenging by the fact that there are many reasons
why children may experience mathematical difficulties: environmental factors, broader
cognitive difficulties such as problems with language, spatial awareness or working
memory, and more specific weaknesses in some or all aspects of mathematics (Gifford &
Rockliffe, 2012). The traditional structure in elementary and middle school mathematics
classrooms has consisted of textbook driven lesson, rote memorization, and focus on skill
practice (Project Grad, 2008). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000)
has greatly influenced mathematics instruction, by promoting more meaningful
instruction or standards based instruction. These standards describe skills that students
will need to perform effectively in the 21st Century. Knapp, Zucker, Aldelman, and
Needles (1995) argued that theorists suggest that instructional strategies that emphasize
conceptual understanding of mathematics ideas and procedures across a wide area of
content present the most promise for mathematics instruction in schools with students
that come from homes in the lower economic ranges.
It is important for teacher of mathematics to expose student’s strengths and
scaffold them into higher mathematical thinkers and learners. Instead of traditional
question and answer “ping pong,” the teachers allow time for thinking and not to expect
22
the pupils to answer correctly immediately. Teachers turned the pupils into real partners
in the discourse, communicating, responding to their peers and exposing their difficulties
(Margolin & Regev, 2011). Instructional strategies, such as differentiated instruction,
allow instructional time to be utilized to better meet the individual needs of students.
Math teachers are able to work closely with children individually and in small groups
consistently each day. This individualized coaching allows students to receive tailored
instruction to best meet their needs (Boushey & Moser, 2014). According to Margolin
and Regev (2011)
A meaningful mathematical discourse in which the teacher can observe each
pupil’s engagement in the task, identify his zone of proximal development as well
as misconceptions and relate to them in order to afford construction of concepts
and ideas, can occur in small groups. In a whole class discussion only few pupils
have the opportunity to articulate their thoughts or to expose their misconceptions
publicly and the teacher can’t really know about the others’ understanding and
relate to their difficulties. (p. 18)
In more differentiated mathematical groups, students can be taught strategies that
can be applied when working independently. Van Luit and Nnaglieri (1999) noted that
explicit strategy instruction occurs when “students are taught to flexibly apply a small
repertoire of strategies that reflect the processes most frequently utilized by skilled math
students” (p.99).
Differentiated Instruction
Students in today’s schools are becoming more academically diverse. There are
more students identified for more exceptionalities in special education, more
23
students whom English is not their first language, and more students struggling to
read. There is a need to ensure challenge for advanced learners when
accountability pressures focus on basic competencies, and a growing economic
gap exists between segments of the student population. (Tomlinson, Kay, & Lane,
2008, p. 1)
“The lack of early literacy and numeracy skills can have a profound impact on school
readiness and overall academic performance. Children need high quality learning
experiences to succeed in school” (Kea, 2009, p. 11). Which brings about the question
does traditional classrooms meet the growing needs of diverse school populations? “The
differences in students are significant enough to make a major impact on what students
need to learn, the pace at which they need to learn it, and the support they need from the
teachers and others to learn it well” (Tomlinson, 2000, p 6). We no longer can afford the
leisure activity of teaching down the middle, we as educators, have to find our student’s
strengths and build on those strengths.
When teachers believe unequivocally in the capacity of their students to succeed
through hard work and perseverance, it’s natural to provide work that
complements the capacity of each student to think, problem solve and make
meaning of important ideas. ‘Teaching up’ communicates clearly that everyone in
the class is worthy of the best curriculum the teacher knows how to create.
(Tomlinson, 2013, p. 8)
Educators need to effectively meet the needs of their students in the most feasible way
possible. “Students will learn best when supportive adults push them slightly beyond
where they can work without assistance (Tomlinson, 2013, p. 7). The key is to providing
24
opportunities for students to grow in their learning and practices. As Tomlinson (2013)
stated, “achieving the goal of maximum academic growth is dependent upon effective
instructional practices working in concert with an effective curriculum, as well as
effective assessment, and classroom leadership and management” (p. 9). Educators must
promote the individual strengths and goals of each student to build a stronger learning
community. “When students learn and grow in their own ways, differences are
pronounced. When we decide we want to value differences, we make decisions that
expand diversity rather than seek conformity and inappropriate uniformity” (Guild &
Garger, 1998, p. 7).
Differentiated learning is a predominant instructional strategy that educators
employ to facilitate the diverse needs of students. “Differentiation provides one method
by which teachers can provide appropriate challenge at appropriate levels for all learners
in a heterogeneously grouped mathematics classroom where the range of abilities and
interests can be wide” (Reed, 2004, p.120). In terms of differentiation, creating
understanding focused curriculum asks teachers to realize their students will approach
understanding at varied levels, will need different support systems to increase their
current level, and will need a range of application to connect the understanding with their
own life experiences (Tomlinson, Kay, & Lane, 2008). Student’s diverse needs are being
met inside of one classroom because the teacher is attending to the challenges and
strengths of the students. Students in a differentiated classroom utilize their strengths and
are motivated to persevere even when tasks become more difficult. Lawrence-Brown
(2004) describes differentiated instruction as a strategy that recognizes and supports a
25
classroom as a learning community populated with peers that must be nourished as
individual learners.
Differentiated learning leads to students being engaged in tasks that are based on
their individual level. Engagement in the classroom results when a student’s attention is
attracted to an idea or a task and is held there because the idea or task seems worthwhile.
Students become engrossed because the task is enjoyable, or because it seems to provide
them with the power of competence of autonomy, or because it links with an experience,
interest or talent that is significant to them, or because it is at the right level to challenge
and stimulate rather than to frustrate or bore them (Tomlinson, 2013). The teacher sets
the foundational goals by guiding students to meet their own independent challenges.
Students begin to build stamina and self-reliance when faced with mathematical
adversity. Teaching to the lower level of a class perpetuates the problem of low
mathematics achievement, along with boredom and disengagement on the part of the
middle and high-end learners. Teaching to the middle level causes the less-prepared
students to struggle and fall farther behind, while the better prepared students, who
remain unchallenged, lose their motivation to learn (Rimm & Lovance, 1992). The key
components of modifications to the mathematics curriculum should attend to four broad
principles: The teacher should:
Provide content with greater depth and higher complexity
Nurture a discovery approach that encourages students to explore concepts
Focus on providing complex open-ended curriculum
Create opportunities for interdisciplinary connections (Stepanek, 1999).
26
Providing a diverse educational experience that meets the needs of all students is
important to mathematics classrooms. Educators must move forward, rapidly and visibly,
in the successful implementation of classroom-level strategies that provide differentiated
curriculum, instruction, and assessment; strategies that when implemented effectively,
result in challenging and supporting all students within the regular, mixed-ability,
heterogeneous classroom (Tomlinson, 2001). In an effective heterogeneous classroom
(one where curriculum and instruction are properly differentiated), students and teachers,
are more likely to view their differences as assets that strengthen the whole school
(George, 2010). The consensus in recent research in learning seems to support the
position of constructivists who argue that the best learning comes when students build
their own mathematics, language skills, or science knowledge by arguing, challenging,
explaining, solving problems, and having keys to creating learning environments that
effectively accommodate the diversity typical of today’s classroom, especially where the
needs of able learners must be accommodated (Tomlinson, 2000). Teachers in
differentiated classrooms accept, embrace, and plan for the fact that learners bring many
commonalities to school, but that learners also bring the essential differences that make
them individuals. Opportunities for challenge and extended learning must be open to all
students whenever possible (Stepaneck, 1999). Gamoran & Weinstein (1998) found that
heterogeneous classes were most effective when teachers used differentiated instruction.
High quality instruction relied on individualization, varied expectations (but at a high
level for all students), and complex authentic assignments. In order to prepare students
for success in and out of the classroom, teachers must differentiate the mathematics
instruction to meet the needs of all learners and provide students with varied
27
opportunities to learn and grow (Smith, 2010). Gardner (1997) suggested using “several
entry points,” which means approaching a topic in several different ways to allow
students more exposure to the topic” (p. 202). Hockings (2009) argues that “student-
centered learning has the potential to engage a more academically diverse student body
than the more conventional teacher-centered approaches” (p.83). Todd and Curliss
(2003) argued:
Educators should provide all learners with opportunities to obtain optimal levels
of learning. Many, if not most, classrooms include learners with mixed abilities.
These learner differences particularly in, mathematics classes, may be significant.
In order to attain optimal levels of learning for all students, instructional leaders
must move beyond the one-size-fits-all conception of curricular and instructional
practices. Rather, the curriculum should include a sequence of learning activities
constantly being developed in response to learner readiness, which includes the
point at which a student enters a particular study and the pace at which the student
acquires new knowledge and skills. (p. 53).
Educators use the differentiated instruction to build stronger thinkers and learners.
Differentiating learning environments helps to broaden the education of all learners.
However standardized assessments are not driven to protect these differentiated thinkers
and learners. Educators feel torn about differentiated instruction based on standardized
assessments.
There are opponents of differentiated instruction that state that it is not an
appropriate instructional strategy. Stahl (1999) contends that there is no research that
proves that determining a student’s learning style and matching instruction to it has any
28
effect on learning. Stahl (1999) further argues that there are no studies that prove the
implementation of Gardner’s multiple intelligence model improves achievement. Martel
(2006) theorizes that studies have shown that instruction is effective when matched with
knowledge, skills, and performance levels only. He states that “there is no evidence that
matching instruction to instructional level or learning style has any effect on learning”
(para. 6).
Traditional Lecture Style Instruction (Whole Class)
Traditional lecture style instruction is another predominant instructional strategy
that teachers utilize in classrooms around the United States. Traditional lecture style
instruction places the teacher in the front of the room delivering the information to
students. There are theorists that believe traditional, whole class instruction is the best
instructional strategy for educators to utilize. Whole class instruction is an effective tool
in identifying students’ prior knowledge and experiences that will affect the ability to
learn new concepts (Valentino, 2007). Snow (2003) concludes that teachers rely
primarily on whole class instruction and that other forms of instruction do not result in
significant improvement in student achievement. “Whole class instruction is teacher
centered and supports the notion: one group of students, one set of outcomes, and one
instructional plan” (Craft, 2002, p. 1). Teachers may be more effective using whole class
instruction due to the familiarity of whole class instruction (Lloyd, 2008).
Abrami, Yipping, Chambers, Poulsen, and Pence (2000) stated “whole class
instruction is uniform opposed to differentiated instruction and the whole class is taught
by a single set of instructional goals. Whole class instruction still stands as an important
tradition that has been in place since the one room schoolhouse” (p. 162). Ebeling (2000)
29
argues that schools in the United States are not designed for one on one instruction and
teachers are assigned a group of students that should be taught in that group. In Japan,
whole class instruction is utilized but the teacher is not a dispenser of knowledge but a
guide for discussion of students (Nagasaki & Becker, 1993).
Small Group Instruction with Teacher
Part of the process of differentiation is to provide a more diverse learning
environment. Small group instruction is one of the instructional approaches that is
utilized in my action research. “A myriad of instructional and management strategies
invite teachers to break classes into smaller learning units. Subdividing the class enables
the teacher to think about variation in student need and to create groups that attend to
student learning differences” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 6). Kameenui (1993) states “the
identification of children as diverse learners itself suggests that multiple perspectives and
approaches will be necessary to accommodate the needs of children who possess
differences in abilities and learning histories, and who will be schooled in various
instructional contexts” (p. 11). Small group serves as a structure that offers opportunities
to meet with a student or students to support them as they work to acquire new learning
and to support them as they transition to their own independence (Serravallo, 2010).
Small groups provide opportunities for students to watch the teacher demonstrate,
opportunities for the student to practice with teacher support, and opportunities to
practice independently, offering a bridge to independence (Serravallo, 2010). Vygotsky
(1978) asserts that new learning occurs when the child accepts the challenge to take on
new competencies, not repeat old ones. Engaging students in the small-group instruction
makes the small groups more similar to conferences than mini-lessons as each child is
30
responded to as an individual. The teacher gives one-on-one attention and tailors the
focus of the lesson to the individual’s needs. The teacher also differentiates by changing
how he interacts with each child and the type of output expected (Tomlinson, 2001). In
linking the small group, the teacher reiterates what was taught and encourages the
children to practice independently. This is an important part of the conference because it
is essential that children transfer what they’ve done in the small group to their
independent work (Serravallo, 2010). Small group instruction offers time for the teacher
to assess students continuously instead of just through formal assessments. Goodman
(1985) notes:
Evaluation provides the most significant information if it occurs continuously and
simultaneously with the experiences in which the learning is taking place.
Teachers who observe the development of language and knowledge in children in
different settings become aware of important milestones in children’s
development that tests cannot reveal. (p. 10)
During small group learning, teachers’ verbal behaviors could be categorized as
encouraging student initiatives, helping students with their learning tasks, facilitating
communication among students, giving feedback on task performance, and praising
individual student’s effort (Gillies, 2006). Teacher’s mode of teaching also changes
during small group instruction, it is not the lecturing type of teaching. This small group
setting provides the opportunities for teachers to observe and provide more individual
feedback. “When students work in cooperative classrooms where teachers use more
facilitative learning behaviors, they too engage in more positive helping behaviors with
their peers than do students who work in groups where cooperative learning is not
31
strongly endorsed” (Gillies, 2006, p. 275). Manouchehri and Enderson (1999) claim that
small group discussions encourage students to develop a more reflective stance as they
take ownership of their contributions and learn to justify them in the face of questions
from others. We must remember that decisions about grouping are preliminary and that
what matters most comes next. Given poor instruction, neither heterogeneous nor
homogeneous grouping can be effective; with excellent instruction, either may succeed
(Gamoran, 1992). Research suggests that small group activities were more effective for
social support and the benefits of discussion, while being more inclusive (Howe and
Mercer, 2007). Small group interactions that encourage and prompt students to think
aloud as they do mathematics, with peers providing feedback on their strategy use, is
known to improve student learning (Van Luit & Naglieri, 1999).
Collaborative Learning
Another differentiated instructional strategy that I encompassed in my action
research study is collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is now accepted as an
important teaching-learning strategy that promotes positive learning outcomes for all
students, including students with a range of diverse learning and adjustment needs
(Johnson & Johnson, 2002). The open discussion that occurs in groups enables
participants to clarify ideas and perspectives in a context that is free of the perpetual
scrutiny of the teacher and the wider class group (Howe, 1990). Collaborative groups also
help students to work with diverse students and begin to maximize their opportunities to
develop positive attitudes toward different racial and cultural groups. According to Banks
(1992), problems related to diversity will intensify rather than diminish as the ethnic
texture of the nation deepens. Educators must make efforts to change the problems
32
related to racial and ethnic diversity into opportunities and strengths. If schools are to
achieve their goals of maximizing human potential, improving the quality of life for all
students, and promoting the ideals of freedom, justice, and dignity for all, they must meet
the challenge of helping students develop more positive attitudes toward different
cultural, racial, and ethnic groups. When children are part of a group with a common
goal, it makes it more likely that they will reach out to peers when they encounter
difficulty. Small collaborative groups give children the chance to hear other students’
thinking (Serravallo, 2010).
School must be a forum where children can express and negotiate meanings,
where each child is engaged and supported in growing toward an understanding of
his or her power to participate in the community. Then the knowledge gained can
be functional and meaningful. (Berghoff & Egawa, 1991, p.130)
If a differentiated classroom is student-centered, students are the workers. The teacher
coordinates the time, space, materials, and activities. Her effectiveness increases as
students become more skilled at helping one another and themselves achieve group and
individual goals (Tomlinson, 1999).
Pupils attain a better understanding of their classmates’ needs, their points of
view, and a better perception of problems. That is why when children help a
classmate they gain a great understanding of their own perspective on the problem
at hand. (Gillies, 2006, p. 278)
Callaghan et al. (2011) points out that collaborative activities oriented towards a common
goal require children to focus their attention on the task, monitoring each other’s attention
33
in order to comprehend and anticipate their partner’s action. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) suggested a shift away from the traditional emphasis
on individual paper and pencil mathematics toward interactive, discussion-based
mathematics classrooms (2000). Learning is a social endeavor, and a student’s ability to
participate in the society of the classroom determines, in part, his ability to construct
useful concepts. A student’s ability to construct useful concepts determines his ability to
take part in the society of the classroom. Thus, discussions among members of the
classroom are ultimately tied to learning (McCrone, 2009). Wagner (1994) defines
instructional interactions as follows:
An instructional interaction is an event that takes place between the learner and
the learner’s environment. Its purpose it to respond to the learner in a way
intended to change his or her behavior toward an educational goal. An
instructional interaction is effective when the environmental response changes the
learner’s behavior toward the goal. Instructional interactions have two purposes:
to change learners and to move them toward an action state of goal attainment.
(p.8)
Collaborative learning is one differentiated learning strategy than fosters students
to search for deeper understanding. Laird, Shoup, Kuh, and Schwarz (2008) identified
“that students who use deeper learning strategies, combine a variety of resources, discuss
ideas with others, reflect on how individual pieces of information relate to larger
constructs or patterns, and apply knowledge in real world situations” (p. 470). Students
who are only learning on the surface level, is due to instruction provided by teachers,
which resulted in students memorizing, reproducing, and repeating information without
34
much understanding (Smith, Gordon, Colby, & Wang, 2005). Hill and Woodland (2002)
suggested that deep learning is not a one-sided process, but a two-way exchange between
effective teaching and receptive learning. "When the students are more active in the
learning process, the material becomes more relevant and more significant for them, they
remember it better, understand it, and as a result their achievement improve" (Offir, Yev,
& Bezalel, 2008, p. 1181).
Technology in Mathematics
Chisholm (1998) asserted that integrating technology in the classroom is
important for several reasons: the preparation of children for a technological society, the
assurance of equal opportunities and participation in society, the empowerment of human
capabilities within all children, especially those of a minority who are currently
marginalized. “As we move into the 21st century, the growing variety of technologies that
have become available to the general public has changed the way society conceptualizes
technology integration, whether at school or for personal uses” (Allsopp, McHatton, &
Farmer, 2010, p.57). In the United States, billions of dollars have been invested in
purchasing technology-related resources (New Media Consortium, 2014). Computers and
their associated technology can revolutionize the way we teach and learn and offer
tremendous potential learning. People approach technology with different means,
different strengths, and certainly different interests (Guild & Garger, 1998). Technology
has great potential to provide greater access to relevant contexts within which to situate
the big ideas in mathematics (Allsopp, McHatton, & Farmer, 2010). Students enjoy using
technology and it provides an interactive way for students to encounter learning in a fun
and new way. Technology tools allow students to organize data, model mathematical
35
situations, and support calculation work. These functions decrease cognitive load by
allowing students to focus more on mathematical reasoning, forming and testing
conjectures, and evaluating various mathematical situations (National Council of
Teachers for Mathematics, 2011).
Many educational justifications for the use of computers in schools center on the
need to prepare students for the information age and life with computers. An integral part
of this is that children love to work and play with computers (Yelland, 2002). NCTM
(2008) wrote: “With guidance from effective mathematics teachers, students at different
levels can use these tools to support and extend mathematical reasoning and sense
making, gain access to mathematical content and problem-solving contexts, and enhance
computational fluency” (p. 1). From an analysis of thousands of students in the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study found that using technology paired with mathematical
reasoning was associated with statistically significant gains in mathematics achievement
compared to reasoning without technology (Polly, 2008).
“Prior investigations indicate that instructional gaming can be an effective tool for
enhancing both motivation and achievement in the learning of mathematics” (Allen,
Jackson, Ross, & White, 1978, p.27). Computer games constitute an important part of
young children’s lives out of school, and within school contexts, games are often used to
consolidate practice or in order to motivate students to engage with conceptual material
or ideas (Yelland, 2002). "To emphasize the equal positions of motivational and
cognitive aspects of learning processes in multimedia learning environments, studies
have proposed a potential relationship between learners' motivational processing and
their mental effort investment" (Mayer, 2001, para. 3). Traditional mathematics curricula
36
typically use rote procedures that do not improve mathematical understanding and are not
motivating to students (Woodward, 2011). Getting students engaged using real-world
applications and technology is critical to improve their problem-solving skills and
increase their productive dispositions (NRC, 2001). Slow and inaccurate computational
skills has serious implications for later learning of higher level mathematical and
technological skills essential for the vast majority of jobs in the 21st century (Mautone,
DuPaul, & Jitendra, 2005). Academics interventions that alter the classroom
environment, such as peer tutoring, task or instructional modifications, and computer-
assisted instruction (CAI), may provide the conditions necessary for enhancing the
academic performance of children (DuPaul & Eckert, 1998). DuPaul and Eckert (1998)
state that computer-assisted instruction is presumably more cost effective than
consequence-based interventions, and this is especially useful in general education
classrooms where teachers must work with large classes and under difficult time
constraints (p. 310). Mautone, DuPaul, and Jitendra (2015) argue:
Computer Assisted Instruction requires minimal teacher involvement and
preparation time. Teachers can adjust the computer software settings to each
student's instructional level. Furthermore, many software programs allow the
computer to monitor the student's progress and make instructional-level
adjustments accordingly. In addition, while the student receives increased
opportunities to practice the targeted skill and frequent feedback and progress-
monitoring information from the computer, the teacher is free to focus on other
students and/or classroom tasks. (pp. 310-311)
37
Various interactive web sites and mobile device applications allow students to
model and create representations of mathematical situations (Arzarello, 2012). Since
these representations of mathematical situations are digital, they can easily be
manipulated, allowing learners to view multiple representations to compare and analyze
in a short period of time (Zbiek, Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007). Studies have demonstrated
that by offering challenges, gameplay can be both enjoyable and motivating, as
challenges are almost inherently motivational (Allen, 2007). Baker, D’Mello, Rodrigo,
and Graesser (2010) summarize engaged concentration as a state of engagement with a
task such that concentration is intense, attention focused, and involvement complete.
Technology can support students’ task exploration, create dynamic mathematical
representations, and model mathematical situations. While concrete manipulatives or
pictorial drawings could be used to explore the mathematical content, using technology
provides learners with the ability to quickly generate and manipulate mathematical
representations (Polly, 2014).
Researchers of interactive learning environments have grown increasingly
interested in designing these systems to become more responsive to differences in
students’ cognitive-affective states. They believe that the detection of and
adaption to student cognition and affect may boost student learning gains and
enhance the quality of students’ overall learning experience. (Rodrigo, 2011,
p.116)
Researchers believe that games that can detect and adapt to changes may become more
effective at boosting student learning gains and the quality of students’ overall learning
experiences (Rodrigo, 2011). We think and understand best when we can imagine a
38
situation and that prepares us for action. Games present a similar situation through
simulation, providing us the opportunity to think, understand, prepare, and execute
actions (Gee, 2003). Games are built with clear goals and provide immediate feedback
(Dickey, 2005). These games should present players with challenges that are matched to
their skill level in order to maximize engagement (Kiili, 2005). "The key is to set the
level of difficulty at the point where the learner needs to stretch a bit and can accomplish
the task with moderate support" (Jalongo, 2007, p. 401). Gee and Shaffer (2010) state:
Games require the kind of thinking that we need in the 21st Century because they
use actual learning as the basis for assessment. They test not only current
knowledge and skills, but also preparation for future learning. They measure 21st
Century skills like collaboration, innovation, production, and design by tracking
many different kinds of information about a student, over time. (p.3)
Games are frequently cited as important mechanisms for teaching 21st century
skills because they can accommodate a wide variety of learning styles within a complex
decision-making context (Squire, 2006). Dowker (2004) argued that the use of computers
might reduce the impact of emotional communication or motor difficulties: software
programs might therefore enhance children’s confidence, so long as they do not replace
teachers. “Technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the
mathematics that is taught and enhances students’ learning” (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, p. 11).
Summary
As our nation has become more culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse,
so has our educational system. Demographers report that by 2020, one in every three
39
people will be what is now termed a minority (Sobol, 1990). Educators and students are
engrossed in conversations about how our one size fits all delivery system-which
mandates that everyone learn the same thing at the same time, no matter what their
individual needs-has failed them (Sarason, 1990). Through test scores and classroom
observation, students are screaming for help in mathematics instruction. The one size fits
all classroom is no longer an option for learners to be productive in our global society.
Education is facing many changes by having to adapt instructional strategies to better
meet the needs of this society now and for the future. Whole group instruction is still a
predominant teaching strategy for many classrooms. However, differentiated instruction
is causing a shift toward meeting the needs of the individual learners through different
instructional methods. There is an intense body of research and published works on
traditional lecture style instruction (whole class) and differentiated instruction. The
research presented methods utilized in my classroom to facilitate the differentiated
instructional strategy: small group instruction, collaborative learning, and online
activities. Jointly, the research review stressed the significance of the study, the rationale
for the purpose of the study, and provided a theoretical basis for the research question
addressed in this study.
40
CHAPTER 3
Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
This study investigated instructional strategies and the impact that each strategy
has on student achievement. The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare
instructional strategies with student achievement. The instructional strategies that were
used were traditional lecture style (whole class) instruction and differentiated instruction.
One group of students received traditional lecture style (whole group) instruction. The
other group received differentiated instruction with flexible grouping utilizing, small
group instruction, collaborative learning, and online math activities. Both classes will
receive mathematics instruction from the My Math Textbook Series, adopted by the
Daisy School District. However, the method of differentiated instruction will vary the
presentation of instruction to meet the identified strengths and weaknesses of the group of
students. The purpose of this study is to investigate which instructional strategy was most
effective based on student achievement on a post-test after unit instruction, traditional
lecture style instruction (whole class) or differentiated instruction.
Quantitative research is the best choice for this action research study after
analyzing the question, purpose of the study, and problem of practice. The identified
problem of practice for this Dissertation in Practice (DiP) focuses on the deficit that
exists in many public school students who do not demonstrate high levels of mathematics
41
reasoning as measured by state assessments. Based on the research question, the
study will compare the achievement of third grade mathematics classes one with
traditional lecture style instruction (whole class) and differentiated instruction. In
comparing the achievement of the two groups, the quantitative data will include the pre-
and post-test scores from a mathematics assessment. The mathematics assessment will be
taken from the My Math Series Assessment Masters, which was adopted by the Daisy
School District.
“To have an equal opportunity to pursue success, particularly financial success,
citizens need equal access to the skills necessary to that pursuit, and schools are charged
with providing everyone with these skills” (Weber, 2010, p 152). Educators today not
only have to enable students with basic skills but critical thinking and process skills to
utilize not only in school but in their daily lives. Some 21st Century skills that have been
identified as important for all learners are critical thinking, communication, collaboration,
and creativity (NEA, 2016). These skills are not new to education but tend to be the basis
of great teaching. Educators and administrators need to incorporate these skills in
classrooms and learning communities around the country.
curriculum guide, but rather where students are in regards to their ability (Tomlinson,
2001). Educators must understand the diverse ability levels of the students in their class
to make quality instructional decisions. This understanding allows educators to
implement instructional strategies conducive to their students’ strengths and weaknesses.
Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack (2001) stated that the individual instructional strategies
that a teacher uses have a powerful effect on student learning.
42
The challenge for classrooms and schools is finding the best instructional
strategies that meet the needs of the diverse student population. The Daisy School District
implemented High Progress Literacy Classrooms in response to Read to Succeed.
Teachers rework their daily English Language Arts (ELA) schedule and have arranged
use of time so that all students can be highly engaged with text reading and writing at
least 75% of classroom instructional time (HPLC Implementation, 2015). Educators’
daily schedules reflect the large chunk of instructional time dedicated to reading, writing
and research, leaving a small section of time for mathematics instruction.
Research Design and Approach
The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics instructional
program utilizing small group instruction, collaborative group instruction, and
online instruction with one classroom. Traditional lecture style instruction was utilized
with the other classroom. Both groups received a five-week period of study in preparation
for the Post-Assessment. Both groups received instruction from the My Math Series,
adopted by the Daisy School District. However, the differentiated instruction was varied
in the presentation based on the pre-test analysis of the student’s strengths and
weaknesses. Quantitative data included Mathematics Pre- and Post-Test scores which
were given to students to gage their mathematical problem solving abilities before and
after the treatment. The Mathematics test was taken from the My Math Assessment
Masters that was adopted by our district for Mathematics Instruction. The test was used
to gauge students’ skill levels to determine their prior knowledge of the concepts in the
chapter. The test scores were also utilized to determine class groupings for differentiated
instruction.
43
Action research is defined as any systematic inquiry conducted by teachers or
teach, and how their students learn (Mills, 2011). Johnson (2008) stated, action research
is characterized as research that is done by teachers for themselves. It is truly a systematic
inquiry into one’s own practice. “Action research is participative, since educators are
integral members- not disinterested outsiders-of the research process” (Mertler, 2014, p.
20). “Action research in not done “to” or “by” other people; it is research done by
particular educators, on their own work, with students and colleagues” (Mertler, 2014, p.
21).
Schmuck (1997) stated that the public, fueled by the mass media, has criticized
schools for low levels of achievement in math, science, reading, writing, and history.
Action Research is an important step for educators to guide the first steps toward school
improvement. Because of the continued imposition of more traditional research findings,
there is a real need for the increased practice of teacher initiated, classroom-based action
research (Mertler, 2014). Action research is a way to examine issues within a school or
district. Educators analyze their teaching and learning environments on a daily basis to
meet the diverse needs of their students. McMillan (2004) describes action research as
being focused on solving a specific classroom or school problem, improving practice, or
helping make a decision at a single local site. Action research offers a process by which
current practice can be changed toward better practice. This research seems like the
appropriate format for my study because of the emphasis that it would eventually have on
my teaching. The researcher is hoping to provide insight to the school and district to
44
facilitate mathematics teaching and learning models that will meet the diverse needs of
the student population.
Mills (2011) stated that action research consists of four steps: (a) identifying an
area of focus; (b) collecting data; (c) analyzing and interpreting the data; (d) developing a
plan of action (p. 12). Action research usually refers to research intended to bring about
change of some kind, whereas teacher research quite often has the goal only of
examining a teacher’ s classroom practice in order to improve it or to better understand
what works (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2014). To satisfy the daily questioning
educators/researchers bring forth the action research process is used to gather data that
can support their action plans. Educators are active in the role of researchers in the
learning process. McLean (1995) stated the fact that action research is largely about
examining one’s own practice, reflection is an integral part of the action research process.
Parsons & Brown (2002) stated that in order for teachers to be effective, they must
analyze and interpret classroom information-that has been collected in a systematic
manner-and then use that information as a basis for future planning and decision making.
Mill’s work (cited in Mertler, 2014) noted that teachers are encouraged to become
continuous, lifelong learners in the classrooms with respect to their practice. This notion
is central to the very nature of education-action research encourages teachers to examine
the dynamics of their classrooms, critically think about the actions and interactions of
students, confirm and challenge existing ideas or practices, and takes risks in the process.
Action research is a great way for educators to examine various techniques to meet the
needs of their students.
45
This quantitative action research study will utilize a group comparative design.
The general idea behind group comparison designs is that two or more groups,
which differ on some characteristic or have somehow been exposed to different
conditions, are compared on a single, common measure in order to see if the
differing characteristic or condition may have resulted in different performance.
(Mertler, 2014, p. 98)
The initial step of my study included questioning the techniques and procedures that are
in use in my classroom, school, and district. Answers to questions of a professional
nature often require much more information; however, human nature prompts us to try to
find answers to those questions as quickly as possible (Mertler, 2014).
Action research is also a cyclic process- providing educators/researchers the
opportunity to continue to build on research. here may never be a clear end to the study-
teachers may continue to go through subsequent cycles of planning, acting and observing,
developing a new plan, and reflecting, which seemingly spiral from one year into the next
(Mertler & Charles, 2011). Many action research projects are completed several times in
order to increase findings on a given topic. Most action researchers firmly believe that
once through an action research cycle is simply not enough. It is critical to proceed
through a number of cycles, where the earlier cycles are used to help inform how to
conduct the later cycles (Melrose, 2001). To have a deeper understanding of your topic
and research completing the research several times adds credibility to your action
research. Bachman’s (2001) downward spiral suggests that participants gather
information, plan actions, observe and evaluate those actions, and then reflect and plan
for a new cycle of the spiral, based on the insights that were gained in the previous cycle.
46
The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare instructional strategies with
student achievement. The instructional strategies that were used were traditional lecture
style (whole class) instruction and differentiated instruction. One group of students
received traditional lecture style (whole group) instruction. The other group received
differentiated instruction with flexible grouping utilizing, small group instruction,
collaborative learning, and online math activities. Both classes will receive mathematics
instruction from the My Math Textbook Series, adopted by the Daisy School District.
However, the method of differentiated instruction will vary the presentation of instruction
to meet the identified strengths and weaknesses of the group of students. The purpose of
this study is to investigate which instructional strategy was most effective based on
student achievement on a post-test after unit instruction, traditional lecture style
instruction (whole class) or differentiated instruction
Setting and Participants
Daisy School District, located in Clover, serves a diverse range of students. There
are approximately 9,620 students in the district. The District has 20 schools: nine
elementary schools, one intermediate school, one charter school, four middle schools,
four high schools and one adult education center. Based on Clover’s Department of
Education Website, Daisy School District received an Absolute Rating of Excellent on
the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Card and a C based on the Federal
Accountability Rating System. Based on the South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Test
of State Standards (SCPASS) 71% of our students received Met Or Exemplary on the
ELA portion of the test. Sunshine Elementary received an overall AYP Report Card
Absolute Rating of Average and a C based on the Federal Accountability Rating System.
47
Based on the SCPASS, 55% of our students received Met or Exemplary on the
Mathematics portion of this test. These statistics put us below “Elementary Schools with
Student’s Like Ours (61%)”, meaning Poverty indexes are not 5% below or above. This
also places us below “Elementary Schools in the State (76.9%)” in Clover in
Mathematics (Clover Annual Report Card Summary, 2014).
Based on Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) for Mathematics students in
Sunshine Elementary also show a deficit. In fall of 2014, 45.3% of third grade students,
62.8 % of Fourth grade students, and 39.7% of fifth grade students were Proficient in
Mathematics. Based on test scores from these assessments, educators need to evaluate
instructional strategies which are most effective in meeting individual students’ needs.
Diverse student populations make finding effective instructional strategies a challenge
faced by many administrators and educators.
Sunshine Elementary is a rural school in Clover. Sunshine Elementary is a Title I
school. Title I provides federal funding to schools that have low poverty levels. The
funding is meant to help students who are at risk of falling behind academically (Meador,
2015). Poverty rates for rural families are higher across all categories and more enduring
than their urban counterparts. Rural African American families and their children are not
empowered by the educational system or provided educational services in a culturally
sensitive context (Kea, 2009). Sunshine Elementary has an 89% Free/Reduced Lunch
Status. Farrigan and Parker (2012) stated in the United States, people living in poverty
tend to be clustered in certain regions, counties and neighborhoods rather than being
spread equally around the Nation. “Rural children are less likely than non-rural children
to be in center-based care other than Head Start during the pre-kindergarten year” (Kea,
48
2009, p.14). Students at Sunshine come to school exhibiting deficits because of the
poverty level and lack of pre-kindergarten experience.
Sunshine Elementary is the school where I am a third grade teacher. The
differentiated instruction group (N=13) were my third grade students, who were assigned
prior to the beginning of the study. The traditional lecture style instruction group (N=15)
were from a team member’s class of third grade students, who were assigned prior to the
beginning of the study. The student’s in this study were third grade students with
comparable socioeconomics demographics. Based on school wide mathematics PASS
and MAP data, the students are not making significant gains in mathematics.
In conducting action research, the educator/researcher made sure to receive
consent from the parents and students prior to beginning the research. Prior to action
research, the parent of the participants received a parental consent form (Appendix A).
According to Mertler (2014), parental consent form describes what the study is about and
what the participants will be asked to do. The participants also received an assent form
that is equitable to their reading level to describe the study and their responsibilities
(Appendix B).
Mertler (2014) states that ethical treatment of students, colleagues, and data must
be a key component of the design of action research. As an educator-researcher, it is
important to make sure that the rights of the research participants are protected at all
times. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the name of the school has been
changed to a pseudonym. In addition, each participant has been assigned a number. The
number and participant name list will be kept in a locked cabinet in the educator-
researcher’s room.
49
The researcher understands the ethical responsibility towards the participants.
The participants were a part of the review of data from the pre-test. The researcher and
participants discussed strengths and challenges to better meet the differentiated
mathematics curriculum. In better understanding the individual strengths and weaknesses
of each individual, the researcher utilized the data to build stronger differentiated learning
groups. The participants felt a part of the action research plan and should know their part
in promoting their strengths and building on their challenges.
Data Collection
The participant-researcher contacted the Superintendent of the Daisy School
District prior to the study to discuss the purpose, question, and action plan for the study.
The school principal was also contacted in person to discuss all details of the research
study. The researcher designed a way to code the participants to insure accurate data were
anonymously gathered from the third grade participants. The two third grade classes were
assigned a letter, and each student was assigned a number. The letter and number code
insured the confidentiality of the classes and students. The pre-test was administered
prior to beginning the instructional unit and administered again after the instructional
unit, with a five week period between the two administrations. The researcher recorded
all test scores on a spreadsheet using the designated codes for the participants. A pre-test
and post-test were administered to determine students’ mathematical abilities before and
after the intervention. The 15 question test provided several multiple choice questions
that helped to gauge students’ skill level based on each standard to determine the
student’s prior knowledge prior to starting the instructional unit. The pre- and posttest
identified students’ strengths and weaknesses before and after the instructional unit. The
50
posttest provided a measure of what the students had learned: a summary of student
performance, and mastery of standards.
The materials for the study consisted of the third grade My Math textbook that
was published by McGraw Hill for the class receiving whole group instruction. The
group receiving differentiated instruction also used the My Math textbook, manipulatives,
laptops, games, and activities. Data was collected by the participant researcher. All data
was collected on site and over a five-week interval.
Data Analysis and Reflection
The purpose of collecting data was to determine if students receiving
differentiated instruction are different in terms of their math achievement test scores than
students receiving traditional lecture style (whole class) instruction. The independent t-
test was used to determine if the post-test means are significantly different. The t-test
determined whether the observed difference was sufficiently larger than would be
expected solely by chance. The independent t-test was used because the members from
each class were not related. The t-test for independent samples was used to determine
whether there was a significant difference between mathematics scores for students in
differentiated instruction compared to students in traditional lecture style (whole group)
instruction.
Summary
Chapter 3 clarifies the purpose and goal of the study and the appropriateness of
the comparative research design. This discussion explains why the quantitative method is
selected for the purpose of this study. This chapter describes the population and the
setting of the action research study, as an elementary school in a rural area. The purpose
51
of the study was to compare the mathematics achievement of two groups: one receiving
differentiated instruction and the other traditional lecture style (whole group) instruction.
A pretest was given prior to the instructional unit, a posttest was administered
after instruction, with an interval of five weeks. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the
procedures to conduct the study, collecting information, and analyzing the data. Chapter
4 presents and analyzes the data from the quantitative study. Chapter 5 presents a
summary, conclusion, and recommendations for future research.
52
CHAPTER 4
Findings and Interpretations of Results
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare the achievement of two
third grade mathematics classrooms; one with differentiated pedagogy and one with
traditional pedagogy. This chapter presents the results of the data collected from the Pre-
and Post-test for Unit One in the My Math Mathematics Series adopted by the School
District. The findings relate to the research question that guided the study. Educators and
administrators cannot change the environment that students are born into, but we can
change a student’s life by providing the best education possible. It is important that as
teachers and administrators, we focus on the points of instruction that we can change. “It
is clear that when teachers and administrators focus on things they can control, such as
instructional strategies, opposed to things outside of their control, such as socioeconomic
status and demographic factors, students perform better” (Clayton, 2011, p.682). Katz
and Porath (2011) argued that for all students to learn, students must be recognized as
having diverse needs, and a classroom created that allows all students to learn and
develop a sense of belonging. The heart of instruction has to focus on meeting the diverse
needs of the students not teaching the standards and teaching to the test.
“Differentiation provides one method by which teachers can provide appropriate
at challenge at appropriate levels for all learners in a heterogeneously grouped
53
mathematics classroom where the range of abilities and interests can be wide”
(Reed, 2004, p. 8). Differentiated math instruction based on student readiness meets the
needs of students who are below grade level, as well as those that exceed benchmarks.
When applied correctly, differentiated instruction in mathematics ensures student success
(Grimes & Slavin, 2009).
Using a more diverse technique for delivering mathematics instruction allows
students the opportunity to build their knowledge by engaging in multiple mathematic
activities. “Basic skills with numbers continue to be vitally important for everyday uses.
They also provide a crucial foundation for the higher-level mathematics essential for
success in the workplace which must now also be part of a basic education” (Ball et.al,
2005, p. 1056).
The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics instructional
program utilizing small group instruction, collaborative group instruction, and
online instruction with one classroom. Traditional lecture style instruction was utilized
with the other classroom. Both groups received a five-week period of study in preparation
for the Post-Assessment. Both groups received instruction from the My Math Series,
adopted by the Daisy School District. However, the differentiated instruction was varied
in the presentation based on the pre-test analysis of the student’s strengths and
weaknesses. Quantitative data included Mathematics Pre- and Post-Test scores which
were given to students to gage their mathematical problem solving abilities before and
after the treatment. The Mathematics test was taken from the My Math Assessment
Masters that was adopted by our district for Mathematics Instruction. The test was used
to gauge students’ skill levels to determine their prior knowledge of the concepts in the
54
chapter. The test scores were also utilized to determine class groupings for differentiated
instruction. The pre- and post-test data helped the participant-researcher to gain a more in
depth understanding of the students’ mathematical problem solving abilities. The
research findings that this chapter reports are based on analysis of the pre- and post-test
data for the two grade three mathematics classrooms.
Research Topic
This study examined promoting higher achievement in third grade students
utilizing differentiated mathematics instruction compared to traditional lecture style
instruction. This is a quantitative action research study and data was collected using pre-
and post-mathematics assessment scores.
Problem of Practice
The Problem of Practice for the action research study involves two rural, third
grade mathematics classrooms, where students were showing deficits in mathematical
reasoning. In particular, my school showed a deficit in our students’ mathematics test
scores when compared to other students in the State of Clover. My district is interested in
enabling students to be engaged in reading, writing, and research for seventy five percent
of their school day. However mathematics has to be kept within a small block of time.
This small amount of time requires teachers to make the most of the instructional time to
provide effective mathematics instruction. This information led me to look at an
intervention method to enable other educators in my school/district to utilize
differentiated mathematics instruction as a way to promote higher achievement in
mathematics students.
55
Purpose of Action Research
The specific purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the utilization of
small group instruction, collaborative groups, and the use of online games/activities as a
framework to differentiate the learning of third grade math students. The post-test data
was analyzed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the
achievement of third grade students taught by differentiated instruction or traditional
lecture style instruction. Sunshine Elementary School shows a deficit in our students’
mathematics test scores when compared to other students in the State of Clover. The
action research attempted to determine if a differentiated instructional model compared to
the traditional lecture-style instructional model strengthened student achievement in two
third grade groups during the fall semester by utilizing a pre- and post-test for
mathematics.
Research Question
Action Research Data Collection Plan
A pre-test and post-test was administered to determine students’ mathematical
abilities before and after the mathematics instructional unit. The instructional unit was
Unit 1 in the My Math, Third Grade Edition, which covered Place Value, Writing Multi-
Digit Numbers, Compare and Order Numbers, and Rounding. The 15 question test
56
provided several multiple choice questions that helped to gauge students’ skill levels on
each standard to determine their prior knowledge of concepts addressed in the chapter.
The Pre-test/Post-test is located in Appendix C. The data was also used to
determine grouping of students for differentiated instruction in the intervention class.
The My Math Series has a Diagnose and Prescribe section that the participant-researcher
utilized in determining grouping for differentiated instruction. The Diagnose and
Prescribe chart provided leveled intervention recommendations that helped to address
individual needs as new skills and concepts were presented in the chapter. The pre- and
post-test responses helped identify students’ strengths and weaknesses that helped to
provide ongoing support during the instructional unit.
Quantitative Data
The third grade students in both classes at Sunshine Elementary School received
the pre-test for the mathematics series, My Math, which is included in the teacher’s
edition for third grade. The differentiated instructional group of third graders received
instruction through a differentiated mathematics instructional model utilizing small group
instruction led by the participant-researcher, collaborative groups, and online/game
activities during mathematics instruction. The participant-researcher used the small group
instructional time to support the ongoing needs of the students based on their
performance on the pre-test. The My Math Series provides differentiated instructional
strategies in each lesson to help meet individual learning needs. The Differentiated
Instructional suggestions were separated into Approaching Level, On Level, and Beyond
Level activities based on the results from the pre-test for the chapter. The My Math Series
also suggested problems during each lesson that would best meet the needs of each of the
57
learning groups. Collaborative groups were used for students to work with partners or
their group on a game or activity that was based on the lesson or chapter. The online
game activities were also tied to the skills and concepts addressed in the lesson or
chapter. This allowed students multiple opportunities to practice concepts on a daily
basis. The traditional lecture group of third grade students received instruction through a
traditional lecture-style instructional model, using the My Math series. At the end of the
five-week mathematics instructional unit, each class took the post-test. The scores on
both the Mathematics Pre- and Post-Test were compared using an independent t-test to
evaluate the differences of mean scores of the third grade students based on their
instructional model.
Overview of Data Collection
Action research is defined as any systematic inquiry conducted by teachers, or
teach, and how their student’s learn (Mills, 2011). This research was an appropriate
format for my study because of the emphasis that it would eventually have on my
teaching. The researcher will help to provide insight to the school and district to facilitate
mathematics teaching and learning models that will meet the diverse needs of the student
population. Action research allows teachers to study their own classrooms, in order to
better understand them and to be able to improve their quality or effectiveness. It focuses
on the unique characteristics of the population with whom the action must be taken. This
in turn increases the effectiveness for the practitioner (Parsons & Brown, 2002).
Educators must be willing to step up and find the best practices that work for their
58
classrooms. Making sure that each classroom is different and that the differences reflect
the individual needs of the students within. “True school improvement must begin within
the four walls of the classroom. Teachers must be able and willing to critically examine
their own practice as well as how their students learn best” (Mertler, 2014, p. 12).
Schmuck (1997) stated that the public, fueled by the mass media, has criticized
schools for low levels of achievement in math, science, reading, writing, and history.
Action Research is an important step for educators to guide the first steps toward school
improvement. Because of the continued imposition of more traditional research findings,
there is a real need for the increased practice of teacher initiated, classroom-based action
research (Mertler, 2014). Action research is a way to examine issues within a school or
district. Educators analyze their teaching and learning environments on a daily basis to
meet the diverse needs of their students. McMillan (2004) describes action research as
being focused on solving a specific classroom or school problem, improving practice, or
helping make a decision at a single local site. Action research offers a process by which
current practice can be changed toward better practice. The researcher will provide
quantitative data from the action research study to determine if a differentiated
instructional method impacts student achievement more than the traditional lecture style
method.
Ethical Research Action Plan
In conducting action research, the educator/researcher made sure to receive
consent from the parents and students prior to beginning the research. Prior to action
research, the parent of the participants received a parental consent form (Appendix A).
According to Mertler (2014), parental consent form describes what the study is about and
59
what the participants will be asked to do. The participants also received an assent form
that is equitable to their reading level to describe the study and their responsibilities
(Appendix B).
Mertler (2014) states that ethical treatment of students, colleagues, and data, must
be a key component of the design of action research. As an educator-researcher, it is
important to make sure that the rights of the research participants are protected at all
times. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the name of the school has been
changed to a pseudonym. In addition, each participant has been assigned a number. The
number and participant name list will be kept in a locked cabinet in the educator-
researcher’s room.
The researcher understands the ethical responsibility towards the participants.
The participants were a part of the review of data from the pre-test. The researcher and
participants discussed strengths and challenges to better meet the differentiated
mathematics curriculum. In better understanding the individual strengths and weaknesses
of each individual, the researcher utilized the data to build stronger differentiated learning
groups. The participants felt a part of the action research plan and should know their part
in promoting their strengths and building on their challenges.
Findings of the Study
The My Math Chapter 1 Pre-test and Post-test data were analyzed by performing
an independent t-test. The Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to
analyze the data for the Pre- and Post-test to compare the achievement of the two third
grade mathematics classes. Descriptive Statistics are appropriate for comparing outcomes
60
of two classes. The t-test for two independent samples were used to determine statistical
difference of the mean math scores concerning mathematical achievement for groups
receiving traditional instruction and differentiated instruction.
All students’ pre-test and post-test scores for the mathematical assessment are
shown in Appendix C. The differentiated instruction group (N=13) was associated with a
pretest score M=56.92 (SD=20.35) and post-test score M=84.15 (SD=12.20). By
comparison, the traditional lecture style group (N=15) was associated with a pre-test
score of M=56.40 (SD=19.30) and post-test score M=82.00 (SD=11.10). Based on the
post-test means data, the third grade students who received differentiated mathematics
was 2.15 (SE= 4.40) higher than the third grade students who received traditional
mathematics instruction. The test revealed there was no statistically significant difference
in mathematics achievement for third grade students who received differentiated
instruction or traditional instruction (t= 0.49, df = 26, p > .005). Table 4.1 shows the two
classes’ average mean scores from the pre-test and post-test. In addition, it shows the
average difference between the two groups. The assumption of homogeneity of variances
was tested and satisfied via Levene’s F test, F= .000, p=.998. See Table 4.2 for Levene’s
Test.
61
Table 4.1Math Chapter 1 Assessment Results
Group Pretest Score- SD Posttest Score-SD Difference
Differentiated 56.92- 20.35 84.15- 12.20 +27.23

Instruction (N=13)
Traditional 56.40-19.30 82.00- 11.10 +25.60

Instruction (N=15)
Table 4.2 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Pretest Data F Sig.
Equal Variances Assumed .000 .998
Equal Variances Not
Assumed
Interpretations of Results of the Study
Thus, the test revealed that there were not statistically significant differences
among mathematics scores (achievement) and the type of instructional pedagogy in
which the students participated.
Conclusions
The purpose of this action research study was to examine the effects of
differentiated mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on two
third grade mathematics classes. To fulfill these purposes, the study utilized an
62
independent t-test comparing pre- and post-test scores for mathematics. The t-test was
used to identify statistical differences among variables. The assumption of homogeneity
of variances was tested and satisfied via Levene’s F test, F= .000, p=.998. See Table 2
for Levene’s Test. The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics
instructional strategy of small group instruction, collaborative group instruction, and
online instruction with one classroom and traditional lecture style pedagogy with the
other classroom over a five-week period in preparation for a Post-Assessment.
Quantitative data included Mathematics Pre- and Post-Tests which were given to students
to gage their mathematical problem solving abilities before and after the comparison
study. The pre- and post-test data helped the participant-researcher to gain a more in
depth understanding of the student's mathematical problem solving abilities. There was
no statistically significant difference among mathematics score (achievement) gains and
the type of instructional pedagogy in which the students participate.
63
CHAPTER 5
Summary and Discussion
Introduction
differentiated mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on third
grade mathematics students. The research question that guided this study: What is the
difference in mathematics achievement in third grade students who have received
differentiated mathematics instruction when compared to third grade students who
received traditional mathematics instruction? The research question was addressed in this
research study.
The research design with regard to the third grade students utilized quantitative
analysis techniques. Data consisted of pretest and post-test scores from the My Math
Chapter 1 Form 1A Assessment. All scores were used to analyze student mathematical
achievement. The chapter assessment analyzed standard form, expanded form, written
form, place value, comparing numbers and rounding. The pre- and post-test data was
analyzed using an independent t-test.
Focus of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to compare instructional strategies and
their effectiveness in mathematics achievement of third grade students. The quantitative
study was designed to determine the impact that varied pedagogical methods have on
64
Mathematics’ abilities of third grade students in a rural school setting. The
researcher investigated and compared how a math class of third grade students performed
when receiving differentiated instruction. The comparison group was from another class
that received traditional lecture style instruction.
The researcher utilized small group instruction, collaborative groups, and the use
of online games/activities as instructional tools to facilitate differentiated instruction.
Sunshine Elementary School shows a deficit in our students’ mathematics test scores
when compared to other students in the State of Clover. The action research attempted to
determine if a differentiated instructional model compared to the traditional lecture-style
instructional model strengthens student achievement in third grade students during the
fall semester by utilizing a pre- and post-test for mathematics.
Overview of the Study
curriculum guide, but rather with, where the students are in regards to ability (Tomlinson,
2001). The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has created the need for an aggressive look
at classroom instruction and its effect on student achievement. It is critically important
that educators investigate and evaluate instructional strategies that are dominating the
education arena.
Katz & Porath (2011) argued that for all students to learn, students must be
recognized as having diverse needs, and a classroom created that allows all students to
learn and develop a sense of belonging. Although educators are bound by the mandated
state standards as to the skills and topics to teach, the learning strategies that are
implemented in classes are not dictated. Good mathematics instruction engages all
65
students as active learners (NAEYC & NCTM, 2002). Based on school wide mathematics
PASS & MAP data, the students were not making significant gains in mathematics.
Students who are taught through differentiated methods not only learn mathematics
effectively, but they also become motivated students who view themselves as successful
mathematicians (Lawrence-Brown, 2004).
Summary of the Study
The pre-test and post-test was used to answer the question: What are the
differences in student achievement levels in mathematics between students taught with
differentiated instruction and students taught with traditional lecture style instruction? In
the pretest, the group receiving differentiated instruction had a statistical mean of 56.92.
The group receiving traditional lecture style instruction had a statistical mean of 56.40.
Based on the pre-test scores, the class receiving differentiated instruction showed a
slightly higher score of 0.52. The original pre-test was given as the post-test at the end of
the five-week instructional unit. The mean score of the group receiving differentiated
instruction increased to a mean score of 84.15. The mean score increased by 27.23. The
mean score of the group receiving traditional lecture style instruction increased to a mean
score of 82.00. The mean score increased by 25.60. There was a difference (2.15) in the
score increase of the group receiving differentiated instruction and the class receiving
traditional lecture style instruction. However, the test revealed there was no statistically
significant difference in mathematics achievement for third grade students who received
differentiated instruction or traditional instruction (t= 0.49, df = 26, p > .005).
66
Implications of the Findings
This study examines differentiated instruction as it relates to mathematics
achievement in third grade students. The study has implications for educational change
because it can add to the discussion of providing professional development for
differentiated instruction to assist in the challenges of meeting the needs of diverse
learners. Findings of the action research study will be shared with the administration
team and the school district to provide opportunities to enhance the instructional methods
for teaching across grade levels. Even though there was not a statistically significant
difference associated with the differentiated instructional pedagogy, this is a great
instructional strategy to better meet the diverse needs of students through analyzing
formative data.
After analyzing the action research data, the participant researcher was able to
formulate an action plan. This action plan was designed to assist school staff members in
future planning for staff development. Most importantly, this action plan provides staff
members with continued support throughout the school year to improve consistency in
differentiated instruction across the school. Utilizing differentiated instruction is a way
to better meet the needs of all learners and provide them with an opportunity for success.
Providing better instructional strategies in mathematics could lead to higher achievement
in mathematics and other subjects in the elementary level, ultimately leading to higher
achievement in high school, college, and careers.
Action Plan Development
differentiated mathematics instruction and traditional lecture style instruction on third
67
grade mathematics students. The curriculum in schools have become standards based,
which means all students are expected to achieve equally and meet high standards despite
their varied abilities. Educators are therefore challenged to meet the diverse needs of the
student populations. The only way to meet the objective of the standards based
curriculum is to personalize or differentiate the instruction (Lawrence-Brown, 2004),
Educators must face the challenges of changing from traditional lecture style instruction
to instructional methods that meet the diverse needs of their students.
Educators and administrators cannot change the environment that students are
born into, but we can change a student’s life by providing the best education possible. It
is important that as educators and administrators, we emphasize instructional strategies
that will produce learners who are productive citizens. “It is clear that when teachers and
administrators focus on things they can control, such as instructional strategies, opposed
to things outside of their control, such as socioeconomic status and demographic factors,
students perform better” (Clayton, 2011, p. 681). Katz & Porath (2011) argued that for
all students to learn, students must be recognized as having diverse needs, and a
classroom that allows all students to learn and develop a sense of belonging. The heart of
instruction has to focus on meeting the diverse needs of the students not teaching the
standards and teaching to the test.
School districts, utilizing administrators and Reading coaches, should provide
goals and expectations for implementing differentiated instruction in the classroom.
Professional development and ongoing support should be implemented by summer 2017
to ensure that differentiated instruction is being implemented effectively. Tomlinson
(2000) stated that differentiated instruction can be accomplished through many different
68
instructional strategies. Regardless, of the strategies that teachers implement within their
classrooms, providing a more differentiated instructional method will provide more
efficient instruction for all learners. Administrators and Reading coaches, should provide
any extra help or modeling of lessons to help make educators more comfortable
implementing a range of instructional strategies. Differentiated instruction can be
utilized to improve academic achievement, but educators and administrators are going to
have to make a commitment to the time, training, and effort needed to for
implementation.
Action Plan Timeline
The first step in the action plan would be to collaborate with teachers, the reading
coach, and administrators to define roles and responsibilities for educators utilizing
differentiated instruction. Educators will receive professional development on the
differentiated instruction framework, language, and instructional strategies, roles of the
teacher and students, and responsibilities that go along with successfully implementing
differentiated instruction in their classrooms. The reading coach would help the
participant researcher in the professional development sessions on differentiated
instruction by promoting the vision for the school, teachers, and students. The second
component of professional development is to provide training for teachers to analyze
student data to analyze student’s strengths and weaknesses. The teachers can then utilize
the data to make informed instructional decisions to better implement differentiated
instruction. The participant researcher suggests that at least one Professional Learning
Team (PLT) meeting each month should be utilized to provide comprehensive grade level
specific support with differentiated instruction. The PLT meeting would be a team-
69
oriented approach to implementing, improving teaching techniques, reviewing new data,
and assessing best practices used in differentiated instruction. In addition, a ½ day
Wednesday Professional Development should be devoted to differentiated instruction to
support and monitor teacher implementation. This professional development would be
utilized to introduce flexible grouping strategies, different teaching strategies utilized in a
differentiated classroom, and continued support to the importance of making
differentiated instruction a part of each classroom’s instruction.
This action plan was developed with the intent that professional development
would begin during the first days of school for the teachers in August, 2017. This would
allow teachers to begin the year utilizing strategies to help their students get used to the
differentiated classroom. Once the students have their Pre-tests or beginning of the year
baseline data recorded, professional development in September, can focus on analyzing
student data. Utilizing a ½ day Wednesday, Professional Development session would
allow educators to make better informed decisions for their differentiated instructional
classrooms. To foster an environment of team-oriented support, one PLT meeting a
month should be utilized for teams to share ideas, concerns, and strategies that are
working in their classrooms. To share the continued vision and importance of
differentiated instruction to the school, one Wednesday professional development ( ½
day) would continue to provide support in creating and sustaining differentiated
classrooms.
70
Table 5.1 Action Plan Implementation Timeline
Initiative Action to be Taken Outcome Completion Personnel Involved

Date
Adopt a common Collaborate with teachers, coaches, Educators will increase August 2017- Participant Researcher/
framework, definition, and and administrators to define roles understanding of differentiated Two Professional Reading Coach
language for differentiated and responsibilities for educators in instruction framework, language, Development Teachers/Assistants
instruction across the differentiated instruction. roles, and responsibilities through Days
school all curriculum areas in a two day
workshop.
Staff will utilize student Provide training for teachers to Educators will strengthen their September 2017- Participant Researcher/
data to make informed analyze student data to make understanding of how to read, ½ Day Reading Coach
instructional decisions to informed instructional decisions for translate, and use data in the Wednesday Teachers
better encompass the differentiated instruction. implementation of differentiated
strengths and weaknesses instruction.
of their class through
71
differentiated instruction
Collaborative grade level Use a team-oriented approach to Equip educators with strategies and First Tuesday of Participant Researcher/
meetings – Professional improve differentiated instruction in tools to plan instruction to meet Each Month- PLT Reading Coach/
Learning Team (PLT) to classrooms learning goals of their student’s Meetings during Administrator/ Teachers
implement Reflect on progress of changing needs to maximize the Planning Period
comprehensive, on-going, implementing differentiated potential for and quality of 2017-2018
professional development instruction differentiation.
to support differentiated Review new data
instruction. Introduce and review best practices
used in differentiated instruction.
Support and monitor Use ½ day Wednesdays for Educators will continue to improve 2nd Wednesday of Participant Researcher,
teacher growth and Professional Development related understanding, teaching strategies, Each Month- ½ Reading Coach,
progress toward to differentiated instruction. analyzing ongoing assessment day Professional Teachers
individual teacher’s data, flexible grouping strategies, Development
professional goals for and quality professional support to 2017-2018
creating and sustaining improve consistency in
differentiated classrooms. differentiated instruction across the
school.
Suggestions for Future Research
Based on the finding of this study, recommendations for future research that
might further inform the processes for improving students’ development of mathematics
achievement.
1. Analyze student data beyond just one chapter, possibly a year to evaluate if
there is stronger difference with an extended amount of time.
2. Further research is needed to determine how teachers feel about using
differentiated instruction.
3. Replicating the study to include other subject areas, grade levels, and
ethnicities to provide more data on the effectiveness of differentiated
instruction in meeting the needs of all diverse learners.
4. Implementing other methods (qualitative) to address the effectiveness of
differentiated instruction.
5. Further research is needed to see if teacher knowledge on differentiated
instruction would impact student achievement.
Conclusions
The purpose of this action research study was to evaluate the relationship between
two third grade mathematics classroom; one with differentiated pedagogy and other with
traditional pedagogy. To fulfill these purposes, the study tested the hypothesis utilizing an
independent t-test. The t-test was used to identify statistical differences among variables.
The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics instructional strategy
of small group instruction, collaborative group instruction, and online instruction with
72
one classroom and traditional lecture style pedagogy with the other classroom over a five
week period in preparation for a Post-Assessment. Quantitative data included
Mathematics Pre- and Post-Test scores which were given to students to gage their
mathematical problem solving abilities before and after the comparison study. The pre-
and post-test data helped the participant-researcher to gain a more in depth understanding
of the student's mathematical problem solving abilities. There was no significant
difference among mathematics scores (achievement) and the type of instructional
pedagogy in which the students participated
73
References
Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2010). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-
based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 20(10), 1-
40.
Allen, L. E., Jackson, G., Ross, J., & White, S. (1978). What counts is how the game is
scored: One way to increase achievement in learning mathematics. Simulation &
Games, 9(2), 371-392.
Allen, M. (2007). Designing successful e-learning. Forget what you know about
instructional design and do something interesting. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Allsopp, D. H., McHatton, P. A., & Farmer, J. L. (2010) Technology, mathematics,
PS/RTI, and students with LD: What do we know, what have we tried, and what
can we do to improve outcomes now and in the future? Learning Disability
Quarterly, 33, 273-288.
Arzarello, F. (2012). Mathematical modeling with technology: The role of dynamic
representations. Teaching Mathematics Applications, 3(1), 20-30.
Ash, K. (2011). Digital gaming goes academic. Education Week, 30(25), 24-28.
Associated Press. (2006). Report: Diversity growing in nearly every state. Census Bureau
finds minorities are bigger share of population in 49 states. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14348539/ns/us_news-life/t/report-diversity-
growing-nearly-every-state/#.VhxMhsvlvIU
74
Baker, R. S. J., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to
frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’
cognitive affective states during interactions with three different computer-based
learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68,
223-241.
Ball, D.L., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Kilpatrick, J., Milgram, R. J., Schmid, W., Schaar, R.
(2005). Reaching for common ground in K-12 mathematics education. Notices of
American Mathematical Society, 52(9) 1055-1058.
Banks, J. A. (1992). Multicultural education: For freedom’s sake. Educational
Leadership, 49(4), 32-35.
Berghoff, B, & Egawa, K. (1998). No more “rocks”: Grouping to give students
control of their learning. In R. L. Allingon (Ed.), Teaching Struggling Readers
(pp. 61-67). Albany, NY: International Reading Association.
Bolden, D. S., & Newton, L. D. (2008). Primary teachers’ epistemological beliefs:
perceived barriers to investigate teaching in primary mathematics. Educational
Studies, 34(5), 419-432.
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2014). The Daily 5 (2nd ed.). Portland, MA: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Brandt, A., & Chernoff, E. J. (2015). The importance of ethnomathematics in the math
class. Ohio Journal of School Mathematics, 71, 31-37.
75
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to
education. Science, 332(6033), 1049-1053.
Bynner, J., & Parson, S. (1997). Does numeracy matter? Evidence from the national
child development study on the impact of poor numeracy on adult life. London:
The Basic Skills Agency.
Callaghan, T., Moll, H., Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., Liszkowski, U., Behne, T., (2011).
Early social cognition in three cultural contexts. Monographs of the Society of
Research in Child Development, 76(2), 1-142.
Chisholm, I. M., (1998). Six elements for technology integration in multicultural
classrooms. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7, 247-
264.
Clayton, J. K. (2011). Changing diversity in U.S. schools: The impact on elementary
student performance and achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43(6),
671-695
Clements, D., Sarama, J., & Dibiase, A. (2004). Engaging young children in
mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
DeJesus, O.N. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Can differentiated instruction provide
success for all learners? National Teacher Education Journal, 5(3), 5-11.
76
Derman-Sparks, L. (1990). Anti bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young
children. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular
Computer and video games and inform instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 53, 67-83.
Dowker, A. (2004). What works for children with mathematical difficulties? Research
Report 554, London: DfES.
DuPaul, G. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1998). Academic interventions for students with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 14, 59-82.
Evans, J. (2000). Adult’s Mathematical thinking and emotions: A study of numerate
practices. Routledge Farmer.
Farrigan, T. & Parker, T. (2012). The concentration of poverty is a growing rural
problem. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2012-
december/concentration-of-poverty.aspx#.ViBMQ8vlvIU
Fleischner, J. E. (1985). Arithmetic instruction for handicapped students in the
elementary grades. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 7(1), 23-24.
Flinders, D. J., & Thornton, S. J. (4th ed.). (2013). The curriculum studies reader. New
York, NY: Routledge.
77
Fullan, M. G. & Stiegelbaur, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gambrell, L. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What’s most Important to know
about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher 65(3): 172-178.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Synthesis of research: Is ability grouping equitable? Educational
Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.
Gamoran, A. & Weinstein, M. (1998). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured
schools.. American Journal of Education, 106(3), 385-415.
Gee, G. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM
Computers in Entertainment. 1(1), 1-4.
Gee, G. P., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Looking where the light is bad: Video games and
the future of assessment. (Epistemic Games Group Working Paper No. 2010-02).
Madison:University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from
http://epistemicgames.org/eg/looking-where-the-light-is-bad/
George, P. S. (2010). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom.
Into Practice, 44(3), 185-193.
Gervasoni, A., Sullivan, P., (2007). Assessing and teaching children who have difficulty
learning arithmetic. Educational and Child Psychology, 24, 40-53.
78
Gifford, S., & Rockliffe, F. (2012). Mathematics difficulties: Does one approach fit all?
Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1-15.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and
small-group learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(Pt2),
271-287.
Goodman, Y. (1985). Kid-watching. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.),
Observing the language learner (pp. 9-18). Newark: DE; International Reading
Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Grimes, K .J., & Stevens, D. D. (2009). Glass, bug, mud. Phi Delta Kaplan, ?(5), 677-
680.
Gross, J. (2007). Supporting children with gaps in their mathematical understanding.
Educational and Child Psychology, 24, 146-156.
Guild, P. B., & Garger, S. (1998) Marching to different drummers. (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hill, J., & Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep
learning: A preliminary investigation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. 27(6), 539-555.
Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student-centered learning cannot reach.
British Education Research Journal, 35(1), 83-98.
79
Howe, A. (1990). A climate for small group talk. In M. Brubacher, R. Payne, & K.
Rickens (Eds.), Perspectives on small group learning (pp. 101-118) Oakville,
Ontario: Rubicon.
Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2007). Children’s social development, peer interaction and
classroom learning. Primary Review Report. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge.
Jalongo, M. R. (2007) Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of
motivation and interest in children’s academic achievement. Association for
Childhood Education International, 83(6), 395-407.
Jitendra, A. K., Dupuis, D. N., Rodriguez, M. C., Zaslofsky, A. F., Slater, S., Cozine-
Corroy, K.,& Church, C. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of
schema-instruction on mathematical outcomes for third-grade students with
mathematics difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 252-277.
Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and
meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 95-105.
Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don’t fix blame; fix
the leaky roof. In R. L. Allington (Ed.), Teaching Struggling Readers (pp. 10-18).
Albany, NY: International Reading Association.
80
Katz, J., Porath, M. (2011). Teaching to diversity: Creating compassionate learning
communities for diverse elementary school students. International Journal of
Special Education. 26(2), 29-41.
Kea, C. D. (2009). Connecting rural African American families with differentiated home
learning instruction for their preschoolers. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
28(4), 10-20.
Kellough, D. R. (1999). Surviving your first year of teaching: Guidelines for success.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 73-78.
Kiili, K. (2005). Educational game design: Experimental gaming model revisited.
Research Report 4. Tampere University of Technology. Retrieved from
http://amc.pori.tut.fi/publications/EducationalGameDesign.pdf
Kuntz, K.J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2001) A comparison of cooperative learning and small
group individualized instruction for math in a self-contained classroom for
elementary school students with disabilities. Education Research Quarterly,
24(3), 41-56.
Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of
discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes.
Research in Higher Education. 49, 469-494.
81
Lapayese, Y. V., Aldana, U. S., & Lara, E. (2014). A ratio-economic analysis of Teach
for America: Counterstories of TFA teachers of color. Perspectives of Urban
Education, 11(1), 11-25.
Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at black-white mathematics gap: Intersections of
race and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practices data. The Journal
of Negro Education, 71(4), 269-287.
Martin, L., Towers, J., & Prie, S. (2009). Collective mathematical understanding as
improvisation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 149-183.
Manouchehri, A., & Enderson, M. C. (1999). Promoting mathematical discourse:
Learning from classroom examples. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,
4, 216-222.
Margalin, I. & Regev, H. (2011). From whole to small group instruction: Learners
developing mathematical concepts. The Journal, 2, 1-13.
Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J., & Jitendra, A. K. (2005). The effects of computer-
instruction on mathematics performance and classroom behavior of children with
ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9(1), 301-312.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge. University Press.
McCrone, S. S. (2009). The development of mathematical discussions: An investigation
in fifth-grade classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 111-133.
82
McMillan, J. H. (2004) Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Meador, D. (n.d.) Small Group Instruction. Retrieved from
http://teaching.about.com/od/s-zteachingvocabulary/g/Small-Group
Instruction.htm
Meador, D. (n.d.) Title I. Retrieved from http://teaching.about.com/od/s-
zteachingvocabulary/g/Title-I.htm.
Meador, D. (n.d.) Whole Group Instruction. Retrieved from
http://teaching.about.com/od/W-Z/g/Whole-Group-Instruction.htm
Mertler, C.A. (2014). Action Research: Improving schools and empowering education
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.).
Boston Pearson.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2008). The role of technology
in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=14233
83
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2011). Technology in teaching
and learning mathematics. Retrieved from
http://222.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCTM/Position_Statements
Technology_%28with%20references%202011%29.pdf
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring
mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Finell (Eds.) Mathematics Learning Study
Committee Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC9: National Academy.
NAEYC & NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), (2002). Joint
Position Statement. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings.
Online: www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/psmath.pdf
New Media Consortium. (2014). News Media Consortium horizon report. Retrieved
from http://www.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-k12
Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning in distance education:
Synchonous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51, 1172-
1183.
84
Oxford Learning. (2010, May 5). What Does Math Literacy Mean? Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordlearning.com/2010/05/05/what-does-math-literacy-mean/
Parsons, R. D. & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action
researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Polly, D. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ use of technology during mathematics
teaching. Computers in Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory,
and Applied Research, 31(4), 271-292.
Poncy, B. C., Fontelle, S. C., & Skinner, C. H. (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair
(DPR) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class-wide
setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 211-228.
Reed, C. F. (2004). Mathematically gifted in the heterogeneously grouped mathematics
classroom: What is a teacher to do? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
15(3), 89-95.
Rimm, S. B. & Lovance, K. J. (1992). How acceleration may prevent underachievement
syndrome. Gifted Child Today, 15(2), 9-14.
Rodrigo, M. M. T. (2011). Dynamics of student cognitive-affective transitions during
mathematics game. Simulation & Gaming, 42(1), 85-99.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change
course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
85
Seravallo, J. (2010). Teaching reading in small groups: Differentiated instruction for
building strategic, independent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafino, K. & Cicchellie, T. (2003). Cognitive theories, prior knowledge, and anchored
instruction on mathematical problem solving and transfer. Education and Urban
Society,36(1), 79-93.
Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1989/90). Cooperative learning models
for the 3 R’s. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 22-28.
Smith, M. S. III (2010). Supporting Differentiated Math Instruction in a Common Core
World Metametrics.
Smith, C., Dakers, J., Dow, W., Head, G., Sutherland, M., & Irwin, R. (2005). A
Systematic review of what pupils, aged 11-16, believe impacts on their motivation
to learn in the classroom. London EPPI-center, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education, London.
Smith, T. W., Gordan, B., Colby, S. A., & Wang, J. (2005). An examination of the
relationship between depth of student learning and national board certification
status. Office for Research on Teaching Appalachian State University.
Sobol, T. (1990). Understanding Diversity. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 27-30.
86
South Carolina Department of Education. (2014). South Carolina Annual School Report
Card Summary. Retrieved from http://ed.sc.gov/data/report-
cards/2014/elem/s/e2201016.pdf
Spring, J. H. (2014). The American school: A global context (4th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Squire, K. D. (2006). From content to context: Video games and designed experiences.
Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.
Stepanek, J. (1999). The inclusive classroom: Meeting the needs of gifted students:
Differentiating mathematics and science instruction. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working
Memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for
serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471-491.
Todd, K. & Curliss, M. (2003). Mathematical acceleration in a mixed-ability classroom:
Applying a tiered objectives model. Gifted Child Today, 26(1), 52-55.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
87
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and
differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom: What does
it mean? How does it look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3-6.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kay, B., Lane, N. (2008). The differentiated school: Making
revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated
classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Valdiviezo, L.A. (2014). Something that test scores do not show: Engaging in
community diversity as a local response to global education trends. The
Educational Forum, 78(1), 68-77.
Valero, P. (2004). Mathematics education research diversity and inclusion. Post Modern
Education 28, 50-54.
Van Luit, J. E. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Effectiveness of the MASTER Program for
teaching special children multiplication and division. Journal of Learning
Disabilities,32, 98-107.
88
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes .Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
Weber, L. (2010) (2nd ed). Understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality:
A conceptual framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
Woodward, J. (2011). The role of motivation in secondary mathematics instruction:
Implications for RTI. In R. Gersten, & R. Newman-Gonchar (Eds) Understanding
RTI in mathematics: Proven methods and applications (pp. 187-203). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Yelland, N. J. (2002). Playing with ideas and games in early mathematics.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3, 197-211.
Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in
mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2. P.
1169-1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
89
Appendix A
Informed Consent
Dear Parents/Guardians,
My name is Melinda Cannon. I am a doctoral candidate in the Education Department at
the University of South Carolina. I am conducting a research study as part of the
requirements of my degree in Curriculum and Instruction, and I would like to invite you
to participate. This study is sponsored by myself.
I am studying Differentiated Mathematics Instruction in Fourth Grade students. If you

decide to allow your child to participate, your child will be asked to participate in daily
mathematics instruction in their regular classroom. Participation is confidential. Study
information will be kept in a secure location. The results of the study may be published
or presented at professional meetings, but your identity will not be revealed.
Taking part in the study is your decision. You do not have to be in this study if you do
not want to. You may also quit being in the study at any time. Participation, non-
participation, or withdrawal will not affect grades in any way.
We will be happy to answer any questions you have about the study. You may contact
me at 843-527-4411 and/or [email protected] if you have study related questions
or problems. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you
may contact the Office of Research Compliance at the University of South Carolina at
803-777-7085.
Thank you for your consideration. If you would like your child to participate, please
complete the following page and return to me.
With kind regards
Melinda Cannon
69 Woodland Avenue
843-527-4411
[email protected]
letter continues
90
My child, ________________________________________, has permission to
participate in the action research study by Melinda Cannon. I realize that all my child’s
information will be kept confidential. I also have the right to withdraw my child from the
study at any point without negative effects. In signing below, I give my child permission
to participate in the study.
Signature Date
91
Appendix B
Assent To Be A Research Subject
I am a researcher from the University of South Carolina. I am working on a study about
differentiated mathematics instruction and I would like your help. I am interested in
learning more about mathematics being taught in a more diverse way. Your
parent/guardian has already said it is okay for you to be in the study, but it is up to you.
If you want to be in the study, you will be asked to do the following
Take a Mathematics pre-test and post-test
Talk with me individually about your strengths and weaknesses in
mathematics.
Any information you share with us will be private. No one except me will know what
your answers to the questions will be.
You don’t have to help with this study. Being in this study isn’t related to your regular
classwork and won’t help or hurt your grades. You can also drop out of the study at any
time, for any reason, and you won’t be in any trouble and no one will be made at you.
Please ask any question you would like to.
Signing your name below means you have read the information about the study, (or it has
been read to your), that any questions you may had have been answered, and you have
decided to be in the study. You can still stop being in the study any time you want to.
_____________________________________ _________________
Printed Name of Minor Age
_____________________________________ _________________
Signature of Minor Date
92
Appendix C
Test Results
________________________________________________________________________
Least Greatest
Standard Expanding Written to to Pre- Post-
Name Form Form Value Form Greatest Least Rounding test test_
A1 x x x 67 80
A2 x x x x x 60 93
A3 x x x x x 53 80
A4 x x x x 67 93
A5 x x x x x 60 87
A6 x x x 67 93
A7 x x x x x x 33 80
A8 x x x 80 87
table continues
93
_______________________________________________________________________
Least Greatest
A9 x x x x 80 87
A10 x x x x x x x 20 87
A11 x x x 73 93
A12 x x x x x x x 20 47
A13 x x x x 60 87
B1 x x x x x x WP 33 76
B2 x x x 60 94
B3 x x x x x x 27 88
B4 X(H) 93 100
B5 x x x x x x 47 76
table continues
94
Least Greatest
B6 x x x x x x 47 80
B7 x x x x 60 70
B8 x x x 73 80
B9 x x 73 100
B10 x x x 73 93
B11 x x x x x x 60 70
B12 x x x x 60 76
B13 x x x 73 88
B14 x x x x x x x 27 64
B15 x x x x x 40 76
95

Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action Research Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action Research Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action Research Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of South Carolina

Differentiated Mathematics Instruction: An Action

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Education in

Curriculum and Instruction

University of South Carolina

Ken Vogler, Major Professor

Susan Schamm-Pate, Committee Member

Richard Lassier, Committee Member

Vic Oglan, Committee Member

Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

The participant-researcher utilized a differentiated mathematics instructional strategy of

week period in preparation for a Post-Assessment. Quantitative data included

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii

BACKGROUND- COMMUNITY AND DISTRICT ..............................................................6

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM....................................................................................8

RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................................9

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................................9

OVERVIEW OF DESIGN OF STUDY ...............................................................................10

THEORETICAL BASE ..................................................................................................12

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ........................................................................................12

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................14

SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER......................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................16

RELATION OF LITERATURE TO RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................16

RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................18

RESEARCH PURPOSE ..................................................................................................18

MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION ....................................................................................21

TRADITIONAL LECTURE STYLE INSTRUCTION (WHOLE CLASS) ................................29

SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION WITH TEACHER ...........................................................30

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING .....................................................................................32

TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS ...............................................................................35

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................41

RESEARCH DESIGN AND APPROACH ..........................................................................43

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS .....................................................................................47

DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................50

DATA ANALYSIS AND REFLECTION ...........................................................................51

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS ................................................53

RESEARCH TOPIC ......................................................................................................55

PROBLEM OF PRACTICE .............................................................................................55

PURPOSE OF ACTION RESEARCH ...............................................................................56

RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................56

ACTION RESEARCH DATA COLLECTION PLAN...........................................................56

ETHICAL RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ...........................................................................59

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................................60

INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS OF THE STUDY .........................................................62

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................64

FOCUS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................64

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................65

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................66

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS..............................................................................67

ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................67

ACTION PLAN TIMELINE............................................................................................69

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .....................................................................72

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ......................................................................................90

APPENDIX B ASSENT TO BE A RESEARCH SUBJECT .............................................................92

APPENDIX C TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................93