1

Closing Learning Gaps with Differentiated Math Lessons

Tiffany Ng
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
United States of America
[email protected]
https://canvas.instructure.com/courses/1293377

Abstract: In a multiethnic mathematics classroom, there are many different

students with unique learning backgrounds and academic needs. Often in a
public school, it is difficult to address individual needs with personalized
attention and instruction in a classroom setting. At San Francisco
International High School, a public school that serves immigrant students,
teachers are often faced with the challenge of assessing all their students’
learning levels, teaching required content, and motivating each
student. This daunting and seemingly impossible task might be possible
with the aid of technology. This action research project studied the effects
of using an online learning platform to differentiate mathematics
instruction. Lessons were intended to strengthen mathematics skills of
those with learning gaps and further the knowledge of those who needed to
be challenged with new content. With different levels of lessons, students
focused only on lessons that they needed and were able to test out of lessons
in which they were already competent. The action research method was
used to make observations and necessary modifications to improve the
subsequent week’s lessons. Quantitative data from the teacher observation
tools and module quizzes and qualitative data from the teacher journal and
student reflections were collected to assess the effectiveness of these lesson
based on the areas of learning mathematics, engagement, and confidence
level. The research results found that differentiated learning had positive
results for students’ mathematics learning, engagement, and confidence
level. For future lessons, differentiation can be enhanced through
incorporation of other structures and teaching strategies.

Introduction

Many immigrants come to America for a better education. Some immigrate for an
educational opportunity that would not have been possible in their home countries due to
their low socioeconomic status. Others who are more affluent have come for a more
desirable education philosophy that does not only focus on rote memorization. San
Francisco International High School (SFIHS) serves this diverse immigrant population.
Having had different educational upbringings, some students come with very little formal
education while others have been exposed to the equivalent of U.S. college level
mathematics content in the seventh grade. Creating project-based lessons in a
collaborative environment, teachers at SFIHS seek to simultaneously educate students in

Master’s Project Date of Completion: April 26, 2018

 2

different content areas and English. Through this collaborative learning environment
where students travel in cohorts, students are able to develop strong friendships and a
supportive learning culture. Students who had lower mathematics content knowledge are
often able to succeed in their classes with the support of their peers, despite having severe
learning gaps. Students who supported their peers through projects and collaboration,
were able to strengthen their language skills, develop cooperative skills, and deepen their
knowledge on mathematics concepts. However, the breadth of knowledge in which they
could have learned was limited in this cooperative learning structure. The purpose of this
action research project was to evaluate the effectiveness of online differentiated
mathematics skills lessons for 12th grade Pre-Calculus students at SFIHS. This project
focused on helping students fill in learning gaps from previously missed content, deepen
their current understanding of mathematics content, and further their mathematics
knowledge beyond the Pre-Calculus curriculum. Weekly lessons were designed in three
different levels to target students’ different skill levels and the online platform was used
to allow students to work individually at their own pace.

Literature Review

This literature review covers different topics related to planning online mathematics
lessons for high school students. The two main sections of this review explores ways to
strengthen students’ mathematics skills and theories for online course design.

Strengthening mathematics skills.

Missing content in students’ mathematics knowledge. Learning gaps in math are

often the cause of why high school students are not ready for college. Race and poverty
readiness gaps could possibly be closed by having students take higher level math
courses (Long, Iatarola, & Conger, 2008). The high school courses that students take
significantly contributes to their college readiness and the results from taking Advanced
Algebra had the greatest positive impact on students (Long et al., 2008). Besides
Advanced Algebra, a consistent relationship between students’ fractional knowledge and
their general mathematical knowledge was observed regardless of whether students were
from US, China, or Belgium (Torbeyns, Schneider, Xin, & Siegler, 2015). Further
research still needs to be done to observe whether understanding fractions can transfer to
mathematical achievement (Torbeyns et al., 2015) but the fractional knowledge and
Advanced Algebra content seem to be crucial for students’ success in mathematics and
college.

Importance of conceptual and procedural understanding. For students to be

proficient in math, they need to have a good grasp of both conceptual understanding and
procedural skills (Yu & Singh, 2016). Another epistemological framework furthers this
idea and suggests that mathematical understanding equates to the ability to problem solve
(Cottrill, 2003). It is a cyclic process where building a solid conceptual understanding
helps students learn procedural skills and practicing procedural skills strengthens
conceptual understanding (Yu & Singh, 2016).
 3

Theories and strategy for mathematics learning using technology.

Connectivism and constructivism. The connectivist theory focuses on accessing

students’ prior knowledge while having students make sense of what they learn through
different interactions. When amalgamating mathematics content creation with the use of
technology, technology can provide different forms of interactions and aid in customizing
learning for students (Bari & Stafford, 2016). The use of technology also allows teachers
to more effectively differentiate instruction (Bari & Stafford, 2016). With the use of
technology to differentiate instruction, there is a greater capability to meet students’
individual needs compared to traditional classrooms (Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013).
Adding to connectivism, constructivism helps students learn mathematics by constructing
new personalized knowledge through connections with their prior knowledge (Mercer,
Jordan, & Miller, 1994). This works when students are proactive in their learning
process and have ample opportunities to learn, practice, and reflect (Mercer et al., 1994).

Online differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is a teaching strategy

where teachers recognize their students’ differences and teach in a way that personalizes
instruction. Features of differentiation include starting students at the right level,
allowing students to work at their own pace, and providing instruction that stimulates
students (Morgan, 2014; Tomlinson, 2014). The proper amount of stimulation to the
brain needs to happen for students to learn successfully and physiological brain research
has shown that when instruction is too difficult or too simple, the brain will release too
much or too little noradrenalin which will cause students to become withdrawn or cause
their brains to have a lack of stimulation (McAllister and Plourde 2008; Morgan, 2014).
Teachers must remember that students are different in many way and there will not be a
specific learning approach that will work for every student all the time (Ares, 2010;
Tomlinson, 2014). As the United States is becoming more diverse, differentiation
through the use of technology is becoming more crucial to personalize learning for
students and work at bridging the achievement gap (Morgan, 2014; Rosen & Beck-Hill,
2012). Brain research supports the notion that technology enhances learning and that
brain activity increases when navigating a web page as opposed to reading from print
(Herther, 2009; Morgan, 2014). Since many students are more interested in using
technology than traditional approaches, using technology for teaching can help teachers
to motivate students and differentiate learning (Morgan, 2014). The online differentiated
learning approach is becoming an important trend to help the education field improve
(Morgan, 2014).

Challenges in online learning environments. Often with online math courses,

issues with a lack of motivation, low self-efficacy, and frustration lead to low completion
rates (Cho & Heron, 2015). A strategy to counteract low completion rates is to teach
students to become better self-regulated learners through completing reflections on their
learning process (Cho & Heron, 2015). Reflections are especially important in
multicultural classrooms because it helps integrate language and mathematical learning
(van Eerde & Hajer, 2014). Providing a flowchart is a tool to help students take more
ownership of their learning by helping students better visualize their progress (Foshee,
Elliott, & Atkinson, 2016). Besides low completion rates, another obstacle that must be
 4

avoided when designing and delivering multimedia is cognitive overload because learners
are only able to process a certain amount of information at a given time (Bari & Stafford,
2016). Micro learning, is a method that can prevent cognitive overload because it closely
aligns with the way learners naturally acquire information through bursts of learning
(Jomah, Masoud, Kishore, & Aurelia, 2016).

Action research to improve teaching. In designing instruction, there needs to be

a certain amount of flexibility for students to test out of and modify lessons to fit their
needs (Cara-Chellman, 2015). Action research is a spiral iterative research method that
teachers can use to implement changes in their classroom to improve their practice (Hien,
2009). This is a highly reflective research process that leads to implementing
modifications. It is a fitting method to study online differentiation because like
differentiation, it seeks to make changes to better meet students’ needs. Not only does
action research benefit students, action research can transform teachers’ attitudes and
their approach to mathematics instruction (Bonner, 2006). An important tool that can be
used in action research is a teacher research journal (Rust & Clark, n.d.). The teacher
journal can be used to record observations, keep track of the research, and write down
thoughts. This tool supports the action research process as it provides a forum for the
teacher researcher to reflect on the lesson as well as the research.

Project Design and Development

Purpose statement. The purpose of this action research project was to evaluate
the effectiveness of online differentiated math skills lessons for 12th grade Pre-Calculus
students at SFIHS. When developing this project, it was important to have enough
lessons so that learning can be personalized to match students’ skill levels. Choosing the
right content for each lesson and structuring a logical lesson progression of the topics was
essential to ensure that learners can have the right starting point in their learning and be
able to create their own learning paths.

Development of the lessons. The online mathematics lessons were built based on
different concepts from the literature review. Since the online lessons were developed to
fit English learners’ mathematics needs, each math lesson contained a balance of
conceptual teaching with procedural practice and concluded with student self-reflections
(Figure A1 in Appendix). Written reflections (Figure A2 in Appendix) and vocabulary
reviews (Figure A3 in Appendix) were integrated with the mathematical content to help
students simultaneously learn mathematics and English. Each lesson included the
following components: a pre-quiz, an introduction with the objectives and basic
vocabulary, some content material, different examples, at least ten practice problems,
additional activities, a post-quiz, and a self-reflection. In terms of the lesson topics,
concepts around numeracy, fractions, and Advanced Algebra content were emphasized
since studies have shown that these areas have high effects on students’ general math
knowledge and college readiness (Torbeyns et al., 2015; Long et al., 2008). To avoid
cognitive overload, content in each lesson was designed to be minimal but specific and
descriptive. (See Appendix A to see screenshots of sample lesson components.) Another
design to prevent cognitive overload, was to present a limited number of lessons each
 5

week. During each week, only three to four lessons were published for students to access
and these lessons were leveled to be of increasing difficulty. An interactive flowchart
was created for students to view the lesson progressions they could choose (Figure A8 in
Appendix). Lessons were structured to be built on the knowledge developed from the
previous week and were progressively more difficult each week.

Development of the online module. When choosing a Learning Management

System to create these lessons and quizzes, it was important to have a quiz creation
feature with formulas. Canvas has a multifaceted quiz creation tool that allows typing
mathematics formulas and creating different types of test questions such as fill-in the
blank and multiple-choice questions. Canvas also has a test bank feature that allows
multiple questions to be stored in the test bank. Each quiz will randomly select different
questions from the test bank. This allowed students to take the quiz multiple times
without having the exact same questions. Having Canvas randomly generate different
questions for the quiz from the quiz bank prevented students from passing quizzes by
memorizing the answers from the previous time they took the quiz. To build an online
differentiated math skills course, there needed to be different levels of lessons to meet
students’ needs. There were three different levels of lessons and one lesson from each
level was presented in each of the four weeks for a total of twelve lesson. Also, the
lessons needed to progress by level and by the week. An interactive flowchart was
presented on the homepage to help students better manage and self-regulate their
learning. They used this chart to visualize which lessons they have completed and which
lessons they could take next. There were originally 12 lessons created but an additional
three lessons were added to the course so that Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4 each had a
total of four lessons instead of three. This was a modification made during the action
research process and the course now has a total of 15 lessons.

Development of the research tools. For the research portion of this project,
quantitative and qualitative data from students were collected from the quiz scores on
Canvas. Additional data from the teacher was collected from an observation tool (Figure
B1 in Appendix) and research journal (Figure B2 in Appendix). These tools as well as
the student reflections focused on observing student learning, engagement, and math
confidence (Figure B3 in Appendix).

Methodology

Research questions.
1. What changes has the use of online differentiated lessons had on the 12th grade
Pre-Calculus students’ engagement at SFIHS?
2. How has the implementation of online differentiated lessons influenced the 12th
grade Pre-Calculus students’ math confidence level at SFIHS?
3. What changes has the use of online differentiated lessons had on 12th grade Pre-
Calculus students in learning mathematics at SFIHS?

Participants. The learners of this action research project were 12th grade Pre-
Calculus students at SFIHS. All of the students at this school are immigrants and English
 6

Language Learners. The teacher taught four different sections of Pre-Calculus classes
with a total of 66 students. The teacher explained this research project to the student and
allowed them to choose whether they would like to participate or not. (See Appendix C
for recruitment statement.) Only the 24 students who returned both the assent and
consent forms participated in the study (See Appendix D for assent and consent forms.)
Since this was an action research project, the study participants did not do anything
different from those who did not participate in the study. The only difference is that the
study participants’ data were analyzed while the data of those who did not participate in
the study were not.

Instruments. The action research method was used to conduct this project. This
action research process evaluated the effectiveness of the online differentiated
mathematics lessons. During the class time, an observation tool was used by the teacher
to observe and tally the students’ engagement and confidence to provide quantitative
data. A research journal was used for the teacher to reflect on how the lessons went, how
students did, and what changes could be made for the following week’s lessons. This
was used for the teacher to process what happened in class as well as record qualitative
data that was later reviewed and analyzed. Quiz scores from Canvas were analyzed and
provided quantitative data on student learning. At the end of each lesson, students
completed a self-reflection on Google Forms. This allowed students to process their
learning, their engagement, and their confidence. This provided both quantitative data
from the scaled responses and qualitative data from the comments sections.

Procedures. This action research project was conducted once a week for four
consecutive weeks during the students' normal Pre-Calculus class time. During these
times, students had individual computers and logged into Canvas to access the online
differentiated math lessons. The teacher explained to the students that the purpose of
these lessons were to strengthen their mathematics skills and better prepare them for their
college placement tests, college, and their futures. The goal was for them to focus on
specific lessons, practice, and learn the lessons at their own level and pace. There was
also a homepage on Canvas explaining the goal, modules, and lessons progression. Each
week, three lessons at three different levels were provided for students. Each lesson had
a pre-quiz, an introduction with the objectives and basic vocabulary, some content
material, different examples, at least ten practice problems, additional activities, a post-
quiz, and a self-reflection. Students needed to successfully complete the pre-quiz or the
post-quiz to unlock other lessons. If students passed the pre-quiz, they could unlock the
next lessons without having to go through the whole lesson, but if they did not pass the
pre-quiz, they needed to go through the lesson and pass the post-quiz to continue onto
other lessons. The pre-quiz could only be taken once while the post-quiz could be taken
as many times as needed for students to pass. There was a certain progression for the
lessons but also some autonomy for students to decide which progression they wished to
follow. For lessons that students completed, there was a self-reflection for students to
process their learning as well as give feedback to the teacher about the lessons.

While students worked on these lessons individually, the teacher took on the roles
of being a researcher and an instructional facilitator. As a researcher, the teacher used an
 7

observation tool to observe student engagement and confidence. As an instructional

facilitator, the teacher circulated the classroom to help students who had math questions
or needed support with using the different technology tools. After each lesson, a research
journal was used to reflect and process on how each lesson went. The different data
collected were reviewed and used to modify the following week's lessons to better meet
students' needs. At the end of the four weeks, all the data was revisited to determine the
effectiveness of the online differentiated math skills lessons regarding student learning,
engagement, and math confidence.

Results

Since the purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the online
differentiated math skills lessons at meeting students’ needs, the results of this paper are
separated into three sections. Each section will seek to answer one of the three research
questions and provide insight on what areas were successful and which areas are in need
of improvement.

Impact student’s engagement. Engagement and disengagement data was

collected from the teacher observation tool, the teacher journal, and the student
reflections. For overall engagement and disengagement levels, the data collected from
the observation tool (Table E1 in Appendix) suggests that 74.61% of the time, students
displayed signs of engagement and 8.98% of the time, students displayed signs of
disengagement. Students were categorized as both when they displayed both engaged
and disengaged behaviors. For example, if a student was taking notes and talking to their
friends, the teacher would mark E2 and D3 on the observation tool and categorize that as
both. Using this method of categorization, students displayed both behaviors 16.41% of
the time observed. The level of engagement observed was lower than student self-
reported data from the student reflections (Table 1). From all the student reflections,
90.74% of the time was charted as engaged, 7.41% neutral, and 1.85% disengaged.
Overall, the differentiated online mathematics lessons were succeeded in engaging most
students but there was a small percentage of students who were disengaged. Since the
purpose of differentiated instruction is to personalize instruction for every student, more
needs to be done to tailor lessons to the needs of the disengaged students.

Table 1. Tally of Teacher and Student View on Engagement.

Teacher Observation Student Reflection
Engaged Neutral Disengaged
Engaged Both Disengaged
(4 or 5) (3) (1 or 2)
Total Student Data 256 256 256 54 54 54
Tally 191 42 23 49 4 1
Percentage 74.61 16.41 8.98 90.74 7.41 1.85
Note. Total refers to the total amount of data collected not the total number of students. Tally is the number
of times teacher or student rated a certain category. Student data was measured on a Likert scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 was not engaged or not confident and 5 was very engaged or very confident. Student responses were
tallied and grouped into the categories above.
 8

Impact on students’ confidence. Similar to the engagement data, data on

students’ confidence was collected from the teacher observation tool and the student
reflections. When using the observation tool, confidence data was much more difficult to
collect than engagement. It was difficult to decipher what certain facial expressions and
body languages meant. For example signs of stress can often be misinterpreted as focus
and vice versa. Thus, when collecting data on confidence level, nothing was logged
unless it was obvious that a student was displaying signs of confidence or a lack thereof.
Examples of these obvious signs were when students verbalized their triumphs or their
frustrations. Although percentages of this data might not be fully accurate, certain trends
can be observed. According to the data from the teacher observation tool, students
displayed many more signs of confidence during the middle of the class period rather
than the beginning or the end of a class period (Appendix Table E2). Also, throughout
the four weeks, confidence level stayed about the same but students’ lack of confidence
more than doubled during the fourth week than the first week. This could be due to the
fact that students were to take their college placement test at the end of the fourth week.
A lack of confidence could also have stemmed from the increased amount of lessons that
were available in later weeks. Each week, three new locked lessons would be available
for students to work on. For students who only worked on one or two lessons, the
increased amount of locked lessons became a sign that there was a lot that they did not
learn and complete. The intent of this course was for students to learn lessons at their
skill level. This would mean that students should complete approximately one lesson at
their level each week but from the students’ view of the online module, lower skilled
students might have felt that they needed to complete three to four lessons each week.
This lower confidence could have resulted from students feeling rushed or having a lack
of time. This speculation was mentioned in student’s final reflection. Students
commented that they wanted more time or that they wished that the Canvas practice days
started earlier in the year (Figure F1 in Appendix). Some students even worked on the
lessons after the four weeks of the action research project. Running out of time during
the end of a class period and feeling the pressure of the placement test approaching
probably resulted in students feeling less confident. Rather than being able to focus on
the success of completing a lesson students saw the many lessons that they were unable
to finish.

In comparison to the teacher observation data, students’ self-reported data from

the student reflections reported a much higher level of confidence. The percentage of
students who felt confident was even higher than the percentage of students who were
engaged (Table 2). On a scale of 1-5 where 1 was very unconfident and 5 was very
confident, 94.44% of the students felt confident or very confident, while 5.56% were
neutral, and no students reported that they felt unconfident or very unconfident. This was
pretty consistent throughout the four weeks of data collection. The difference in having a
lack of confidence could not be observed from this data because only one student
completed a self-reflection on the fourth week. Although the link to the self-reflection
was on the home page, it was also the last page of each module. That could means that
students who completed a module were the students that filled out the self-reflection and
not as much data was collected from students who were struggling to pass a module.
 9

Table 2. Tally of Teacher and Student View on Confidence Level.

Teacher Observation Student Reflection
Confident Neutral Unconfident
Confident Both Unconfident
(4 or 5) (3) (1 or 2)
Total Student Data 86 86 86 54 54 54
Tally 51 7 28 51 3 0
Percentage 59.3 8.14 32.56 94.44 5.56 0
Note. Total refers to the total amount of data collected not the total number of students. Tally is the number
of times teacher or student rated a certain category. The both category in the Teacher Observation is when a
teacher notices a student displaying both an engaged and disengaged behavior within the 5 minute data
collection time.

Impact on student’s mathematics knowledge. The changes that the

differentiated lessons had on students’ learning gaps were mainly measured through their
quiz scores on Canvas. Averaged pre-quiz and post-quiz scores were compared to
observe whether learning occurred and the number of lessons students were able to
complete was used to measure how much math students were able to learn.

Pre-quiz vs post-quiz scores. In general it can be assumed that students’

mathematical knowledge improved. The final averaged post-quiz score of 4.7 is higher
than the average pre-quiz score of 3.25 (Table G1 in Appendix). A more holistic
perspective of students’ learning for each lesson can be observed through the analysis of
specific post-quiz scores. For each lesson, the results are similar to the total quiz average
since average post-quiz scores for each lesson was higher than the pre-quiz score for the
corresponding lesson (Figure 2). All the pre-quiz and post-quiz attempts were included
in Figure 2 but scores of students who tested out of a lesson through a pre-quiz were
removed. This was done to specifically observe only the students who went through the
whole lesson and took the post-test and not the students who tested out of the lesson.
When observing all the 237 post-quiz attempts, there were 222 times where post-quiz
scores were higher than pre-quiz scores and 15 times when post-quiz scores were lower
than pre-quiz scores (Table G2 in Appendix). That means that around 93.7% of all the
individual quiz scores were higher than pre-quiz scores. Having the total final average
post-quiz scores be higher than pre-quiz scores means that in general, most students were
able to master the mathematical concepts. The higher post-quiz scores for each lesson
shows that all the lessons were successful in helping the average student improve their
mathematics knowledge. Having over 90% of all the post-quiz attempts be higher than
the pre-quiz attempt shows that over 90% of the time that students took a post-quiz,
students improved their learning. Students might not have been able to master the
concepts and pass the post-quiz in one attempt but students were able to progressively
improve.
 10

Figure 2. Comparison of Averaged Pre-Quiz and Post-Quiz Scores for each Lesson.

Lessons available and lessons completed. Looking at the number of lessons that
students were able to complete can shed light on whether these lessons worked better for
higher or lower skilled students. It can also show whether further differentiation was
needed.

Traditional classroom instruction versus differentiated instruction. Without

differentiation, only one lesson would be taught per class period. So in the four weeks of
this action research project, there could have been around four traditional lessons
taught. However, even if four lessons are taught there is no guarantee that students
would have learned or mastered the concepts in these four lessons. From the online
differentiated lessons, the average number of new lessons students mastered through
post-quizzes was 3.1, the average number of lessons completed through pre-quizzes or
post-quizzes was 5.5, and the average total number of lessons that students worked on but
might not have completed was 6.7 lessons (Table G3 in Appendix). Although the
number of new lessons mastered is about one lesson less than what could be offered in a
traditional setting, this number does not represent what was offered to students but what
they were able to successfully learn and complete. Using the online lessons provided a
better guarantee that students master what they learned. In addition, without
differentiation, four lessons would be taught but those four lessons might not be the
lessons that all the students were ready for or needed. With these differentiated online
lessons, students were able to work on lessons for their specific skill level and be able to
work at mastering those concepts. There was a total of 391 quizzes taken and graded by
the online module and students were able to receive instant feedback. This would have
been extremely difficult for a teacher to do by hand. These differentiated online lessons
were much more adept at providing a personalized learning experience for students.

Successful and struggling students. Besides being able to complete more lessons
that fit their needs, the amount of content that students were able to learn, significantly
varied. A student only completed one lesson while another student completed twelve.
Student skill levels were extremely different and differentiation was necessary for
 11

students’ diverse needs to be met. If only four lessons were taught to all the students, the
lessons would have been too easy or too hard for most students. From the higher post-
quiz scores for each lesson, it can be assumed that many students were able to learn
mathematical content through these differentiated lessons. From the lessons that students
were able to complete and master, it can be seen that the differentiation process was
effective in having students work on lessons that matched their skill level. However,
looking at the range of number of lessons students completed, the lowest starting point of
these modules might have been too high for some students. Six of twenty four students
only completed one to two modules. This equates to having one fourth of the students
being exposed to less than half of what they would have in a traditional learning setting
(Table G4 in Appendix). Thus for certain students who started with fewer mathematics
skills, they probably struggled more than the other students. This could also mean that
the online differentiated lessons worked better for average and higher skilled students.
The high number of post-quiz attempts needed for lesson [1-1] confirms that some
students struggled to complete the starting level lesson. Although, no student mentioned
lessons being too hard, there were two students who used seven attempts to pass lesson
[1-1] (Figure G1 in Appendix). For these students to be more successful, there are
several possible modifications that might be needed. First, lessons might need to be
further differentiated to have an easier starting level for certain students. Second, there
might be a need to modify the content presentation method and lesson styles to better
match students’ different learning styles. Third, there might need to be an intervention
from the teacher to help these struggling students. Since students are working
individually on these online differentiated lessons, the teacher is freed up to give
individual help to higher need students.

Discussion and Conclusions

Being in the same grade level and taking the same mathematics course does not mean
that students’ mathematics skills are the same. Observing that a student completed one
out of fifteen lessons while another student completed twelve out of fifteen lessons,
confirms the need for differentiation. The intent of this research project was to explore
the impact that the online differentiated mathematics lessons had on students’
engagement, confidence, and mathematics learning.

Positive effects for higher skilled students. Most students rated favorable
results in engagement and confidence. However, for learning math content, the
differentiated lessons were most successful for higher skilled students. These students
were able to learn content, master the quizzes, and expand their mathematical knowledge.
They mentioned that the simple and straightforward content presentation style used
within these lessons were helpful and they had very positive comments about the online
differentiate math lessons. Many students also appreciated the quiz feature that gave
immediate feedback on what skills they needed to work on. Some other students also
commented on how these lessons were practical in helping them prepare for the college
placement test. Providing an abundance of lessons, allowed higher skill students to be
challenged to do more. Rather than having to work at the pace of the rest of the class,
these students were free to work as quickly as they could. This increased the amount that
 12

they could learn within a class period. Without the usage of the online module, there
would be no way for a classroom teacher to provide that amount of differentiated lessons
and give instant quiz feedback to students. The online differentiated mathematics lessons
accomplished the goal of meeting students’ needs to learn more than what can be offered
in a traditional classroom. By providing personalized lessons for students’ varying skill
levels, students were able to work on lessons at their skill level and at their own pace.

Improvements to better support struggling students. For most students, the

differentiated content and the teaching style used within the module lessons were
successful. However, some students’ lack of confidence increased during the end of each
lesson and over the four weeks, a small group of students were disengaged, and about one
fourth of the class was not able to successfully progress through lesson modules as
quickly as intended. Students’ struggle in these areas does not mean that differentiation
was not needed or that it was ineffective. Rather, modifications need to be made to how
lessons are differentiated so that struggling students can be supported and successful
during this learning process.

Ways to prevent students’ decrease in confidence. To improve students’

confidence, tactful time management skills are needed. Rushing to ending each period
possibly caused students to have a lack of confidence. To implement the micro learning
strategy successfully, the teacher must ensure that lessons would not take longer than the
45 minute class period for students to complete with multiple quiz attempts. If lessons
are more difficult, they should be further differentiated and separated into additional
lessons. Further differentiation will also be helpful for students who struggled with
passing the first lesson. If students struggle with a lesson, there should be lessons that
differentiate down for students. In the current iteration of these online differentiated
math lessons, all lessons are differentiated upwards, thus if students’ struggle, there is no
other option besides continuing to struggle until they pass. The students’ view of the
module with many uncompleted locked lessons is another confidence wrecker. Although
Canvas does not have this structure, if lessons were not published for students to view
until they unlock it, students would not feel the pressure and discouragement from seeing
numerous uncompleted lessons.

Using different teaching strategies for students’ different learning styles. When
students struggle, it could also mean that a different style of teaching is needed. These
lessons only differentiated content for students’ different skill levels but the lessons were
not differentiate for students’ different learning styles. If students tried to learn a lesson
but could not pass the quiz, it might mean that they needed another approach to learning
the same lesson. Although varying methods such as games and discussions were used to
help students practice solving problems, these practices were not highlighted for students.
A reminder of the games and discussions could have helped students better prepare to
pass the quizzes. Also, content was taught through images and color coded text. This
worked for many of the higher skilled students but might not have been as learner-
friendly for the lower skilled students. In other lessons that the teacher has taught, the
use of videos, games, and demonstrations were more engaging for these students. During
a video lesson, a student purposely mentioned to the teacher that the video lessons could
 13

have aided the effectiveness of the text-based content in Canvas. Differentiating the way
that content is presented is key to differentiating for students’ different learning styles.

Balancing collaboration with differentiation to improve engagement and

learning. Another way to differentiate for different learning styles is to incorporate and
balance individual work with peer collaboration. Since the school structure is based on
collaboration and group work, completely taking that away for students during these
lessons was difficult. It is important to help students develop the ability to work
individually but removing group work from these lessons probably caused lower levels of
engagement and success in learning. It can be difficult to balance differentiation with
collaboration and individual work with peer interactions but this balance could improve
student engagement and their ability to learn content. A simple way of implementing
peer interaction could be having student discussions before or after lessons. Simple one
minute discussions could involve goal setting, questions they have, or other lesson related
topics. A more involved change could be to restructure these lessons by incorporating
them into a larger lesson structure. For example, these lessons could be part of a jigsaw
activity where students learn the differentiated content individually and then bring what
they learned to heterogeneous groups to complete a project together.

Using classroom structures to effectively implement differentiation. Besides

collaboration and group work, other classrooms structures such as openings, goal setting,
and turning in work were removed during these lessons. Having students be good self-
regulated learners is an important feature needed to properly implement online
differentiated learning. Although there were aspects of self-regulated learning that was
included in the design of the modules such as the lesson progression flowchart and
student self-reflections, self-regulated learning does not happen automatically. Rather
than letting students immediately regulate their own learning, student could have been
more successful if they taught how to and supported to become self-regulate learners.
Students who struggled on the same couple of lessons could have benefitted from skills
on how to self-regulate their learning. If structures such as goal setting or having to
complete a certain amount of modules was implemented, students might have been more
effective at completing lessons. Also, if there were questions asking structures or getting
help protocols implemented, struggling students would have a venue to get help and
support. Although this online module was designed for students to work on personalized
lessons and this structure was to develop students’ ability to work individually, students
do not need to struggle alone. Having a certain amount of accountability and finding
ways to get help and wrestle through their struggles are also important aspects of self-
regulated learning.

Teacher as a supporter rather than a presenter. Restructuring the role of the

teacher is also an improvement that can be made to better support students. Since
students can access the differentiated lessons on their own, the teacher’s role as a lecturer
is no longer needed. The teacher can take on more of a supporting role. When students
encounter struggles and difficulties the teacher can step in to support them and guide
them through that struggle until they can work on their own again. Besides helping
students who ask for help the teacher can also incorporate structured check-ins with
 14

individual students or small groups of students so that all students are supported and not
only those who are better as self-advocating.

Impact on improving teaching practice. A side benefit of action research is its

impact on the teacher. Having a conscious effort to observe and reflect is beneficial to
teaching and allowed the teacher to improve her teaching practice. The observation tools
confirmed a lot of general observations the teacher had and the weekly informal analysis
of all the data helped the teacher make modifications to subsequent lessons. This process
allowed the teacher to look at classroom trends more accurately and be more aware of
students’ needs. Using the teacher journal provided a forum to process through different
challenges that occurred each week, the teacher was able to more thoughtfully make
modifications to support students. Each week, the written reflection from the teacher
journal was sorted into different categories to determine what modifications were
necessary for the following week. For example, in Week 1, it was observed that some
students were able to complete all the lessons within the class period. Since the first
week included an introduction to the course and time to create a Canvas account, more
lessons will be needed in the subsequent weeks. So for the modification, the teacher
designed a fourth level of lessons so that there was an additional lesson for the second,
third, and fourth week. (See Appendix Figure H1 for categorized teacher journal notes
and detailed weekly modifications.) Besides being able to make more appropriate
modifications, the teacher also became more empathetic of students’ situations and
struggles. Rather than focusing on how students need to change and improve, the teacher
was able to focus on how the lessons can be improved for the students. The teacher’s
mindset behind action research is not focused on perfection but on how to make
improvements. Focusing on perfection is a one-time occurrence and it sets a false
expectation that the teacher needs to provide the perfect lessons and that students need to
perform flawlessly during their first attempt. However, focusing on improvement is a
process that allows the teacher and the students to have the freedom to modify and find
new ways to learn and progress. There will never be a perfect way of teaching that works
for all students all the time, but with action research, the teacher can observe and revise
lessons to best fit students’ current situations and learning needs.

Further implications. Having to teach in a classroom with a diverse student

population is a struggle for many teachers. The varying skill levels and needs that unique
students have makes it difficult for one teacher to assess and address. The results from
this study has shown that differentiated instruction is a feasibly and necessary tool for the
diverse classroom. Online differentiated lessons can be effective in helping the teacher
provide personalizing lessons for students with differing skill levels. The differentiation
process allows more students to successfully learn content that is designed for their
specific needs. Since all students are unique individuals, there is no ambiguity as to
whether differentiation is needed in the classroom and the need for differentiated learning
will always exist. The essential question for individual educators is how to effectively
implemented differentiation to best meet their students’ specific and ever-changing
needs.
 15

References

Ayers, W. (2010). To teach: The journey of a teacher (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Bair, R. A., & Stafford, T. (2016). Connected and ubiquitous: a discussion of two
theories that impact future learning applications. TechTrends, 60(2), 129-135.
doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0021-z

Bonner, P. J. (2006). Transformation of teacher attitude and approach to math instruction

through collaborative action research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 27-44.

Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2015). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom

practice. Routledge.

Cho, M. H., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: the role of motivation,
emotion, and use of learning strategies in students’ learning experiences in a self-
paced online mathematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80-99.

Cottrill, J. (2009). An overview of theories of learning in mathematics education

research. Colección Digital Eudoxus, (8).

Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional
technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580.

Foshee, C. M., Elliott, S. N., & Atkinson, R. K. (2016). Technology‐enhanced learning in

college mathematics remediation. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(5), 893-905.

Herther, N. (2009). Digital natives and immigrants: what brain research tells us. Online,
33(6), 14-21.

Hien, T. T. T. (2009). Why is action research suitable for education?. VNU Journal of
Science, Foreign Languages, 25, 97-106.

Jomah, O., Masoud, A. K., Kishore, X. P., & Aurelia, S. (2016). Micro learning: a
modernized education system. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence
and Neuroscience, 7(1), 103-110.

Long, M. C., Iatarola, P., & Conger, D. (2008). Explaining gaps in readiness for
college-level math: The role of high school courses.

McAllister, B. A., & Plourde, L. A. (2008). Enrichment curriculum: Essential for

mathematically gifted students. Education, 129(1), 40-50.
 16

Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., & Miller, S. P. (1994). Implications of constructivism for
teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 28(3), 290-306. doi:10.1177/002246699402800305

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

Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(1), 34-
38. doi:10.1080/00098655.2013.832130

Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop
environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241.

Rust, F., & Clark, C. (n.d.). How to do action research in your classroom: Lessons from
the teachers’ network leadership institute., The Education Innovator, 4.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners. Ascd.

Torbeyns, J., Schneider, M., Xin, Z., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Bridging the gap: Fraction
understanding is central to mathematics achievement in students from three
different continents. Learning and Instruction, 37, 5-13.

van Eerde, D., & Hajer, M. (2014). Language sensitive mathematics teaching in a
multicultural classroom how students’ talking and writing can enlighten hidden
problems. Working Group 10 Mathematics Education In Multicultural Settings,
1215.

Yu, R., & Singh, K. (2016). Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation,
and mathematics achievement in high school. The Journal of Educational
Research, 1-14.
 17

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Sample Lesson Components ……………………………………………18

Appendix B: Data Collection Tools ……………………………………………………23

Appendix C: Recruitment Statement ……………………………………………………27

Appendix D: Consent and Assent Forms ……………………………………………28

Appendix E: Data from Observation Tools ……………………………………………44

Appendix F: Data from Teacher Journal ……………………………………………47

Appendix G: Data from Student Self-Reflections ……………………………………51

Appendix H: Data from Canvas Quiz Scores ……………………………………52

 18

APPENDIX A
Sample Lesson Components

Figure A1. Basic Lesson Structure

Figure A2. Instructions for Self-Reflection

 19

Figure A3. Sample Vocabulary Review

Figure A4. Example of parts of a Pre- and Post-Quiz

 20

Figure A5. Lesson [1-1] Content Presentation

 21

Figure A6. Lesson [1-1] Practice Component

 22

Figure A7. Lesson [1-1] Additional Activities, Practices, and Resources

Figure A8. Lesson Topics and Progression Flowchart.

 23

APPENDIX B
Data Collection Tools

Engagement Level Observation Tool Class Period: ____________

Lesson Group/Date: ____________ Time of Observation: ______ to ______

Time of Sweep (Suggested/Actual Time)

Student
Initials First 5 mins of class At 30 mins Last 5 mins of class

❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4
❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4
❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4
❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4

❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4
❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4
❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4
❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4

❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4 ❑ E1 ❑ E2 ❑ E3 ❑ E4
❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ❑ D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4
❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4 ❑ C1 ❑ C2 ❑ C3 ❑ C4
❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4 ❑ U1 ❑ U2 ❑ U3 ❑ U4

Engagement Behaviors: Disengagement Confident Behaviors: Unconfident Behaviors:

Behaviors:
E1 - able to focus and be C1 - positive facial U1 - negative facial
on task D1 - sleeping expression (ie: smiling or expression (ie: frowning,
laughing) grimacing, or crying)
E2 - taking notes D2 - playing on cell
phones C2 - relaxed body U2 - tense body language
E3 - being excited and language (ie: leaning in (ie: leaning away and
enthused D3 - distracted or and engaging themselves withdrawing themselves
distracting others with the class) from the class)
E4 - other signs of
engagement D4 - other signs of C3 - communicates U3 - communicates lack
disengagement confidence (ie: makes of confidence (ie: makes
excited noises, open to defeated noises,
ask and give help) disengages from lesson
or is withdrawn)
C4 - other confident
signs U4 - other unconfident
signs
Figure B1. Teacher’s in Classroom Observation Tool.
 24

Research Journal
Class Period: ____________ Lesson Group/Date: _____________________________

Which students stood out today?

What captured my attention?

What worked well in class today?

What did not work or could work better?

What can be revised or added?

Other thoughts:

Figure B2. Teacher’s Research Journal.

25
 26

Figure B3. Student’s Post-Lesson Self-Reflection.

 27

APPENDIX C
Recruitment Statement

Hello students, I want to invite you to participate in my research study. As you know, I am
your 12 grade Pre-Calculus teacher but I am also a graduate student at the University of
th

Hawai’i at Mānoa (UHM), in the Department of Learning Design and Technology. One
requirement for earning my Master's degree is to do a research project. The purpose of my
research project will be to explore the use of online differentiated math skill lessons. I have
created different lessons online for you to work on to improve your math skills at your level
and at your own pace. If you chose to be part of this student, I will observe your work in
class and analyze it for my project. Everyone in the class will be working on the same thing
and there will be no extra work for you if you participate in this study. The only different is
that I will make observations of you and collect data from your work to use in my project.
This project is voluntary. You can choose freely to participate or not to participate. At any
point during this project, you can withdraw your permission and stop participating without
any loss of benefits. I recognize that I am the researcher in this project and, at the same time,
your teacher. I will ensure that your participation or non-participation in my research
project does not impact your grades, class standing, relationship with me, or relationship
with San Francisco International High School.

Take some time to read over the assent form.

[Let students read.]

Do you have any questions for me?

[Answer questions.]

Also, please bring the consent form home and talk with your parents about whether you
would like to participate. If both you and your parents would like for you to participate
please return the signed portion of the consent form and the assent form to me before
January 10, 2018.

Thank you.
Figure C1. Recruitment Statement Script that Teacher will follow.
 28

APPENDIX D
Consent and Assent Forms
 29

Figure D1. English Consent Form

30
 31

Figure D2. English Assent Form

32
 33

Figure D3. Arabic Consent Form

34
 35

Figure D4. Arabic Assent Form

36
 37

Figure D5. Chinese Consent Form

38
 39

Figure D6. Chinese Assent Form

40
 41

Figure D7. Spanish Consent Form

42
 43

Figure D8. Spanish Assent Form

 44

APPENDIX E
Data from Observation Tools

Table E1

Engagement Data from Teacher Observation Tool

First 5 Minutes At 30 Minutes Last 5 Minutes

Week 1 Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both

Total Students 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 19

Tally 16 2 1 16 1 3 17 1 1

Percentage 84.21 10.53 5.26 80 5 15 89.47 5.26 5.26

Week 2 Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both

Total Students 24 24 24 24 24 24 15 15 15

Tally 19 1 4 15 3 6 11 3 1

Percentage 79.17 4.17 16.67 62.5 12.5 25 73.33 20 6.67

Week 3 Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both

Total Students 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Tally 18 0 5 18 2 4 18 2 3

Percentage 78.26 0 21.74 78.26 8.7 17.39 78.26 8.7 13.04

Week 4 Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both

Total Students 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Tally 16 2 4 16 2 4 11 4 6

Percentage 72.73 9.09 18.18 72.73 9.09 18.18 50 18.18 27.27

All Weeks Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both Engaged Disengaged Both

Total Students 88 88 88 89 89 89 79 79 79

Tally 69 5 14 65 8 17 57 10 11

Percentage 78.41 5.68 15.91 73.03 8.99 19.10 72.15 12.66 13.92

All Combined Data Engagement Disengagement Both

Total Students 256 256 256

Tally 191 23 42

Percentage 74.61 8.98 16.41

 45

Table E2

Confidence Data from Teacher Observation Tool

First 5 Minutes At 30 minutes Last 5 minutes

Week 1 Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 19

Tally 1 4 1 9 3 3 6 4 1

Percentage 5.26 21.05 5.26 45 15 15 31.58 21.05 5.26

Week 2 Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 24 24 24 24 24 24 15 15 15

Tally 4 0 0 9 5 0 1 0 0

Percentage 16.67 0 0 37.5 20.83 0 6.67 0 0

Week 3 Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Tally 4 0 0 6 1 1 1 6 0

Percentage 17.39 0 0 26.09 4.35 4.35 4.35 26.09 0

Week 4 Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Tally 2 2 0 4 2 1 4 1 0

Percentage 9.09 9.09 0 18.18 9.09 4.55 18.18 4.55 0

All Weeks Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 88 88 88 89 89 89 79 79 79

Tally 11 6 1 28 11 5 12 11 1

Percentage 12.5 6.82 1.14 31.46 12.36 5.62 15.19 13.92 1.27

All Combined Data Confident Unconfident Both

Total Students 86 86 86

Tally 51 28 7

Percentage 59.3 32.56 8.14

 46

APPENDIX F
Data from Student Self-Reflections

What needs to change to help you be more Do you have any other questions or
Timestamp successful? comments?
1/24/2018
10:20 more practice none
1/24/2018
10:26 more time to take notes no

Students need more time to practice. I

2/12/2018 I think we should start to do the canvas suggest that students start to learn the
10:18 lesson earlier. lesson earlier.
2/13/2018
8:29 More practices Your class was great for me
2/13/2018 I don't think there is anything important to I might come back to learn something or
8:30 change, everything is good. finish the lesson in the future.
I think we should spend more time on those
2/13/2018 I think we should include more questions to lessons, like starting early or extend the
8:31 the lessons in order to get more practices. time for practice the lessons.
2/13/2018 I think we should have more time one on
10:25 one, and maybe review the base of math.
Figure F1. Student Comments about Needing More Time.
 47

APPENDIX G
Data from Canvas Quiz Scores

Table G1

Averaged Pre-Quiz and Post-Quiz Scores

Average Quiz Scores

All Pre-Quiz Scores All Final Post-Quiz Scores All Post-Quiz Attempts

3.25 4.711538462 3.678571

Table G2

Lower and Higher Post-Quiz Scores than Pre-Quiz Scores

Post-Quiz Score Compared to Pre-Quiz

Total Post Quiz Taken
Lower Post Quiz Scores Higher Post Quiz Score
Total 15 222 237
Percent 6.33 93.67 60.61

Table G3

Student Pre-Quiz Scores

Lessons Completed Lessons Viewed

All Exclude Pre-Quiz All Not Yet Passed
Total 5.54 3.13 6.67 1.13
SD 3.4 1.3 3.48 0.65
Range 11 5 11 2
 48

Table G4

Grouped Number of Lessons Students Passed or Attempted

Number of Students
Passed Attempted
Number of Lessons or Quizzes Lessons Pre-Quiz Post-Quiz Lessons
From 1 to 2 6 15 8 1
From 3 to 5 7 5 16 10
More than 6 11 4 0 13
Note. The number of post-quiz passed does not include students who passed the pre-quiz and retook the
post-quiz. Attempted means that students started that lesson but did not or did not have time to pass the
quiz.

Figure G1. Attempts Students needed to pass Lesson [1-1].

 49

APPENDIX H
Data from Teacher Journal

Week 1: Observations Modifications

Set-Up Set up took a long time. It was difficult If I were to do it again maybe have
for students to create accounts and login students login using google rather than
creating an account.

Students Overall students were engaged No change.

Lesson Some students were finished with all 3 I might need to add an additional lesson
lessons or almost finished with all 3 for each week.
lessons. The timing worked out okay but
since so much time was spent on logging
in, in the following week when they don’t
need to create an account and log in they
will have extra time left over.

Student Self-reflections were hard to do because Add an option for student who did not
Reflections some students did not finish a lesson. complete a lesson.

Canvas 1. There were different Canvas specific I can change it so that students can still
Module features that students needed to adjust to view their quiz and incorrect answer but
and learn just not see the correct answer.
2. Many students wanted to be able to
review their quizzes. I originally set
Canvas to only let student see their quiz
responses once so that they won’t just
copy the question/answer and pass out b/c
they say the answer. However, it does
seem like a good way for students to learn
from seeing and correcting their mistakes.

Week 2: Observations Modifications

Set-Up There were still a lot of login issues. Remind students to write down their
Many student forgot their passwords username and passwords or email it to
since it was a week ago. Also, for certain themselves. I can also tell students about
students the login used a “username” Canvas’ “lost Password?” option. It was
rather than their email, which was pretty easy for most students to use.
confusing.
 50

Students Students see this as an individual activity I’ll need to remind students to sit in their
and rather than sitting with their regular seats or sit in an individual location
group members decided on their own to where they can better focus.
sit wherever they wanted. This was
mainly from 4th period, this caused a lot
more students to be distracted and the
class environment to be louder.

Lesson 1. The lesson timing worked pretty well 1. No change.

this week for the higher skilled students. 2. Might need to consider this when
I had created an extra lesson for them but viewing pre-quiz scores. Students might
maybe because the week 2 lessons were have higher pre-quiz scores than if they
already slightly more difficult than week did not google.
1’s lessons, there weren’t any students
that had nothing to do at the end of the
class.
2. The “pass quiz” desire is strong for
some students and rather than learning the
lesson certain students want to pass the
pre-quiz so badly they google how to do a
topic, learn it, and then try the pre-quiz.
This caused them to not even view the
lessons.

Student Fewer response than the previous week. No change yet. This might be due to
Reflections Most responses from students who lesson difficulty being increased so less
completed level 1 or level 2 lessons. students are finishing lessons to be able to
do a reflection.

Week 3: Observations Modifications

Set-Up There were less login issues. Still had If I were to do it again maybe have
some students struggle but much easier to students login using google rather than
manage. creating an account.

Students Lot more students working together and Had to remind students to not help during
helping each other this week. quizzes.

Lesson The fractions lesson did not include any I thought about adding a page on
teaching on simplifying fractions. simplifying fractions but that could not
Though not required for the lesson, have been done on the spot. I decided to
because some practice questions included personally explain simplifying fractions
it, it made it hard for some students to to students who struggled. Less than a
understand. handful of students needed this support.

Student Even fewer comments. Either students I will need to remind students to do
Reflections don’t have enough time to finish a lesson reflections.
to do the reflection or they’re skipping
the reflections.
 51

Timing Placement test coming up, 45 minutes per Revise day of lesson the following week.
week does not seem to be enough for Will still do 45 minutes of action research
students. Many students did not have but will give additional days for students
enough time to complete lessons. to work on the module.

Week 4: Observations Reflection & Considerations for

Future Lesson & Prototype
Designs

Set-Up Students know how to use Canvas much It takes four weeks for all my students to
better and things are running much be able to use Canvas. I wonder if this is
smoother. the case for most new technology tools or
if Canvas is harder to use.

Students Some student did not want to work on It might be nice to include more
the program. They said they wanted to interactive online group math games into
play a game instead. the lessons. There were some during the
There was a lot more daydreaming and first week but progressively less as the
unfocused students. Students mentioned lessons difficulty increased.
that it was too hot today.

Lesson Some students are a bit overwhelmed not Having lessons locked and unlocked when
that there are so many lessons that are they passed was very helpful for students
opened. Since each week 3 lessons are to be guided. If not they probably would
added if students worked on only a few have had a harder time self-selecting
lessons or were absent previously, there which lesson to complete.
seems to be a lot that they did not Now that the data collection is over, it
complete. might be nice to have answered revealed
to students, that way they can better learn.
Also, if I were to do it again, I might only
have one quiz rather than a pre and a post
quiz. However, for data collection to
measure growth, it seems necessary to
have both.

Student When I reminded students to complete Since so little student reflection data was
Reflections the self-reflections, they said they just collected for each module, I will add a
want to skip it and move on to another course reflection using the same google
lesson. Only one student did a reflection form for the class to complete.
this week.

Timing Due to the placement test approaching at This might have contributed to the lack of
the end of the week, I changed the day motivation and increase in frustration this
we did the action research to an earlier week than the previous weeks. With a
day in the week. It was also done during 100 minute class, this was very different
the end of a 100 minute class rather than from the micro learning approach I used
a 45 minute class. to design this course. Also, I’m finding
that this course might work better as
something students do at home rather than
something done in class. Part of the
 52

benefit of micro learning is the flexibility

for learners to access the content when
and where they want it rather than during
a set time frame.

Figure H1. Summary of Observations and Modification from Teacher’s Journal.