Running Head: Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Mathematics

By:

Rachel Amadio

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Education

University of Wisconsin Superior

August 2014
 Rachel Amadio. Student, 2014
 Differentiated Instruction

iv
 Differentiated Instruction

Abstract

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework used to increase student performance by

continuously monitoring student progress and then differentiating instruction to meet

students needs (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). The Minnesota

Department of Education recommends that schools implement RtI as one method to

improve student academic success. While differentiated instruction is endorsed by the

Minnesota Department of Education, it is unknown how effective differentiated

instruction is in secondary mathematics as perceived by teachers at the secondary level in

a metropolitan school district in Minnesota. This study examined teachers perceptions

about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary

mathematics in a metropolitan school district in Minnesota. This study used a survey and

teacher interviews to build understanding of teachers perceptions. The researcher

concluded, based on the results, that secondary mathematics teachers in the metropolitan

school district in Minnesota would benefit from more time, more concise curriculum, and

more professional development to effectively implement differentiated instruction in

secondary mathematics.

v
 Differentiated Instruction

Table of Contents

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem 1

Purpose of Study 1

Research Question 2

Nature of Study 2

Significance of Study 3

Definition of Terms 4

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 5

Summary of Study 6

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction 7

Differentiated Instruction 8

Differentiated Instruction in a Classroom 10

Teacher Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction 15

Conclusion 20

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction 21

Design 22

Participants 22

Instrumentation 22

vi
 Differentiated Instruction

Procedure 23

Analysis 23

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Survey Results 25

Interview Results 27

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 31

Discussion 31

Recommendations 37

Conclusion 38

REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT 43

APPENDIX B: SURVEY 45

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 46

APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL FORM 47

vii
 Differentiated Instruction

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 26

Table 2 27

vii
 Differentiated Instruction

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 32

Figure 2 32

Figure 3 34

Figure 4 35

Figure 5 36

viii
 Differentiated Instruction

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Differentiated instruction has been studied extensively in many areas such as reading,

English language learners, and special education in elementary levels. Studies about

differentiated instruction in mathematics are very few. Most of the studies that do exist

about differentiated instruction in mathematics examine classrooms in elementary

schools. Studies are needed to examine teacher perceptions about the effectiveness or

lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction at the secondary level.

Statement of the Problem

While differentiated instruction is endorsed by the Minnesota Department of

Education (2013b), it is unknown how effective differentiated instruction is in secondary

mathematics as perceived by teachers at the secondary level in a metropolitan school

district in Minnesota. This district is (for this study) referred to as BEST. Therefore, this

study proposes to discover the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated

instruction at the secondary level in mathematics as perceived by teachers in the BEST

school district in Minnesota.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine teachers perceptions about the

effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in mathematics at the

secondary level in the BEST school district in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of

Education recommends that schools implement Response to Intervention (RtI) as one

method to improve student academic success (Minnesota Department of Education,

2013b). RtI is a framework used to increase student performance by continuously

1
 Differentiated Instruction

monitoring student progress and then differentiating instruction to meet students needs

(Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). Students are diverse in their interests,

strengths, and weaknesses. Additionally, how a student learns best varies from student to

student. Differentiated instruction is student-centered and used to reach and engage

students, based on their diverse interests, strengths, and weaknesses, and how they learn

best (Tomlinson, 2001). This study examines teachers perceptions of the effectiveness or

lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction at the secondary level in mathematics in

the BEST school district in Minnesota.

Research Questions

This study asks two questions. How do secondary mathematics teachers in the

BEST perceive differentiated instruction in the classroom? To what extent do teachers in

the BEST school district in Minnesota perceive differentiated instruction at the secondary

level in mathematics to be effective?

Nature of the Study

This research study used a mixed methods approach to build understanding about

teachers perceptions of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated

instruction. The researcher used surveys and interviews as the primary tools for collecting

data. A survey is used to record peoples opinions or attitudes, such as teachers

perceptions about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness about differentiated

instruction in secondary mathematics (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). The survey consisted of

questions with a rating scale answer. This allowed the researcher to collect data about

how often secondary mathematics teachers are using differentiated instruction, as well as

how effective or ineffective they believe it is. The qualitative method will be

2
 Differentiated Instruction

phenomenological study. A phenomenological study is used to interview participants

who have direct experience with what is being studied (Leedy & Ormrod). Participants

will have the option of being interviewed by the researcher. The interview was used to

help the researcher gain a better understanding of participants perceptions about the

effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary

mathematics.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant in two ways. First, educational intervention for

improving student learning is a federal government funded program. By supplying these

funds to schools across the nation, the government is supporting intervention in the

classroom. Differentiated instruction is one intervention that the Minnesota Department

of Education supports (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). Second, secondary

level classrooms are different than elementary level classrooms, which have already been

studied. Students at the secondary level are more mature, more aware of their learning,

and are learning more abstract concepts. This means that differentiated instruction looks

different at the secondary level. Students are better able to teach and learn from each

other. For example, a teacher at the secondary level can have a jigsaw activity where

students learn different concepts and then teach each other the concepts. Students at the

secondary level are capable of teaching each other and also being in charge of their

learning. Secondary students can be given an open-ended problem to solve using

available resources and working together.

This study will add to existing research of differentiated instruction, which until

now has focused on the elementary level. Instead, it will move the field forward by

3
 Differentiated Instruction

investigating the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction at the

secondary level in mathematics as perceived by the secondary mathematics teachers in

the BEST school district in Minnesota.

Definition of Terms

Unless otherwise noted, all definitions come from Tomlinson (2001)

Content: The terms content and learning target are used interchangeably in this

study. They both refer to what is being learned by students.

Process: Process refers to how students make sense of ideas and information.

Product: Product refers to how students demonstrate what they have learned.

Environment: Environment refers to which situation learning is taking place

such as independently, in small groups, or in whole-class.

Readiness: Readiness is how closely a task matches a students skills and

understanding of a topic.

Differentiated Instruction: The terms differentiated instruction and

differentiation are used interchangeably in this study. Differentiation recognizes that

different learners have different needs, so teachers tailor their instruction to provide a

variety of ways for students to understand the content and express learning. It is

proactively planned, so that each lesson will have an appropriate fit for many learners.

Instruction can be differentiated by content, process, product, and/or environment.

Direct Instruction: A unitary approach to teaching in which all students

experience the same content and all complete the same processing activity.

Learning profiles: Learning profile refers to way in which a student learns best.

Factors include: learning style, gender, culture, and intelligence preference.

4
 Differentiated Instruction

Learning style: Environmental or personal factors that affect how students learn

best, such as moving around or sitting still.

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): A computerized adaptive assessment

that measures growth of students from fall to spring of a school year. It changes questions

given to students based on whether the student answers the question correctly or

incorrectly. Provides a detailed breakdown by topic of student understand for each

student. (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2013)

Response to Intervention (RtI): A framework designed to improve the academic

achievement of students. Students are assessed and then instruction is modified and

differentiated to meet the needs of students. Interventions are also implemented to help

improve students academic success. (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b).

Secondary education: For the purpose of this study, secondary education refers

to the education of students in grades 7-12.

Student or learner: The terms students or learners are used interchangeably

throughout this study. These terms are used to describe any child in an educational

program.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

This study was based on the three assumptions. First, this study assumed that all

participants answered questions to the best of their knowledge. Second, it assumed that

all participants would answer all questions honestly. Finally, it assumed that the teachers

participating have experience with differentiated instruction at the secondary level in

mathematics.

5
 Differentiated Instruction

This study has its limitations. The number of teachers who completed the

questionnaire and agreed to participate in this study limits the generalizability of the

study. The study focused on only one district and one field of study and may not be

similar to findings in other districts and other fields. This study was also limited by the

level of detail provided by the participants in their responses to the questions posed by

the researcher. Finally, the number of participants who volunteered to be interviewed

limits this study.

There are specific delimitations to this proposed study. The primary delimitation

is that this study was focused on differentiated instruction of secondary mathematics and

does not examine any other intervention. Additionally, this study only examined

differentiation through the perspective of secondary mathematics teachers in the BEST

school district in Minnesota and does not look at whether there is a difference in student

learning based on teacher utilization or not. It purposefully excluded other subjects and

other ages, as well as the perspectives of students, administrators, and parents/guardians

of students.

Summary of Study

This study examined the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness, according to

teacher perspectives, of differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics in the BEST

school district in Minnesota. While differentiated instruction has been studied, studies on

differentiation at the secondary mathematics level are scarce. Additionally, differentiation

has not been studied in the BEST school district in Minnesota. The literature reviewed

here suggests that differentiated instruction is effective but had not been studied before in

the manner proposed.

6
 Differentiated Instruction

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Minnesota Department of Education has implemented Response to Intervention (RtI)

as one method to promote student academic success (Minnesota Department of

Education, 2013b). RtI is a framework used to improve student performance by

constantly monitoring student progress and then modifying and differentiating instruction

to meet a students needs (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). Students are

diverse in their interests, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as how they learn best.

Differentiated instruction is student-centered and used to reach and engage students,

based on their diverse interests, strengths, weaknesses, and how they learn best

(Tomlinson, 2001). This review examines education literature and studies about

differentiated instruction: what it is, how it is used in classrooms, with a specific focus on

mathematics classroom, and how effective differentiated instruction is, according to test

scores and teacher perceptions.

This review is divided into three sections. The first section defines differentiated

instruction and why it is implemented in schools. It includes several definitions,

examples, and variations of differentiated instruction. The second section discusses what

differentiated instruction looks like in a classroom. It reviews examples from studies

about differentiated instruction to give a clearer picture of a classroom in which the

teacher is using differentiated instruction. It examines differentiation in any classroom

and then specifically reviews differentiation in a mathematics classroom. The third

section draws from studies that examine the teachers perspectives on the effectiveness,

or lack of effectiveness, of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teachers use both

7
 Differentiated Instruction

qualitative and quantitative measurements as evidence for their views on the

effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of differentiated instruction. The studies reviewed

also examine the factors to consider when implementing differentiated instruction and its

effectiveness, according to teachers and researchers.

Differentiated Instruction

This section defines what differentiation is and why it is relevant to the classroom.

Differentiation is a proactive teaching strategy (Tomlinson, 2001). It is one method that is

designed to enable teachers to reach and engage all students in their classroom.

According to the Tomlinson, students are more motivated to learn when they feel a

connection to what is being taught and when they believe they can be successful. When

students are motivated, more learning occurs and therefore students become more

successful. Additionally, there exists a reason to learn what is being taught as well as an

appropriate way to learn what is being taught. As Vygotsky discovered (Chamberlin &

Powers, 2010) there is a zone in which students can be challenged and therefore learn and

grow. However, if the tasks are too easy, then students are bored. On the other end, if

tasks are too difficult, then students become frustrated. Scigliano and Hipsky (2010)

argue that with differentiated instruction, ideally, each student is given the appropriate

level of challenge based on his or her current understanding of the concept. Furthermore,

differentiated instruction allows students multiple options for learning and understanding

information, an asset Pham (2012) discussed. One student might learn visually whereas

another student learns by manipulatives. Because students have a variety of methods to

grasp a concept, they are more likely to achieve a higher level of understanding.

Differentiated instruction is an example of teaching in which the teacher identifies

8
 Differentiated Instruction

student's needs and then designs his or her instruction to ensure students maximize their

academic achievement (Pham). Some students might need remediation before they are

ready for the learning target, whereas other students do not. In a differentiated lesson, the

teacher provides remediation for the students who need it.

Differentiated instruction helps to address the needs of the changing population

being educated in the United States. According to Minnesota 2010 census, the African

American population has increased by 59.8%, the Asian population has increased by

50.9%, and people identifying with two or more races has increased by 51.2% over the

past ten years (Minnesota Department of Administration, 2010). The U.S. Census

Bureau Projections predict that the Hispanic and Asian populations will double within

our lifetime and minority populations are expected to reach 57% by 2060 (United States

Census Bureau, 2012). During the 2011-2012 school year, Minnesota had a student

population in which 15.2% are receiving services for special education, 7.3% are English

Language Learners, and 37.9% are eligible for free and reduced lunch (Minnesota

Department of Education, 2013a). Ten years prior during the 2001-2002 school year in

Minnesota, 12% of students received special education services, 5.8% students were

English Language Learners, and 26.7% were eligible for free and reduced lunch

(Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, 2001). In summary, over the course of ten

years, students receiving special education services increased by 3.2%, students who are

English Language Learners increased by 1.5%, and students who are eligible for free and

reduced lunch increased by 11.2%. As evidenced by the statistics, the population of

students being educated in Minnesota, as well as the general population of the United

States, has been changing and will continue to become more diverse. The growing

9
 Differentiated Instruction

diversity of students means that teachers need to consider changes to their instruction to

meet the needs of students and improve student success and academic achievement.

Differentiated instruction is a strategy to meet the needs of a constantly changing student

population according to the Minnesota Department of Education (2013b). This strategy is

expected to increase student achievement and academic success but there is little

supportive research at the secondary level. As it is a new program, it is unknown how

effective it is in the BEST school district in Minnesota.

Differentiation also provides students multiple options for learning content and

demonstrating their knowledge. It is student driven, so content being taught is made

relevant to all students, according to Tomlinson (2001). Each student should have a

personal connection to the content in order to engage with the learning and to remember

it for the future. Little, Hauser, and Corbishley (2009) defined differentiated instruction

as varied instruction that appeals to students interests, responds to their personal learning

styles, and appropriately challenges the students based on what they know and

understand.

Differentiated Instruction in a Classroom

According to Tomlinson (2001), every student has different ways of learning and

different background knowledge. A teacher who differentiates his or her instruction

recognizes this and uses a variety of strategies to reach and engage all learners.

Differentiated instruction takes a variety of forms in the classroom. Tomlinson also

noted instruction can be differentiated according to what is learned (content), how it is

learned (process), how learning is demonstrated (product), or what environment it is

learned in.

10
 Differentiated Instruction

One differentiation strategy is varying content. Using different levels of difficulty

for the same activity is one example of differentiating content (Christenson, 2012). For

example, if the learning goal is to predict events in a story, then each student is reading a

book that matched their current reading level. Students may be reading different stories,

but they all learn how to predict events in a story based on the book they are reading at

their appropriate level. Mathematics can have activities or worksheets with varying

degrees of difficulty, so that all students can be challenged at an appropriate level. For

example, when practicing adding numbers, one practice worksheet can be positive and

negative integers, another set can have decimal numbers included, and a third set can also

include fractions.

Open-ended tasks, as described by Kobelin (2009), are one method of

differentiating process. Kobelin wrote, Open-ended tasks are those that have no single

answer and/or no single method to determine an answer (p. 13). This allows students to

use approaches that make sense to them, while still challenging all students to answer the

question. Additionally, students can see a variety of answers and/or methods from their

peers and use other methods when appropriate. It is assumed that students will remember

more efficient methods their peers used and use those methods in the future.

Scaffolding is another way of differentiating instruction based on process

(Scigliano & Hipsky, 2010). When a teacher scaffolds an activity, it means that he or she

designs it with multiple entry points for students. This ensures that all students can access

the lesson so that they may learn the desired content for the lesson. Students can be

paired to help scaffold a task, the teacher can model the correct process, or challenging

tasks can be split into smaller tasks.

11
 Differentiated Instruction

Portfolios are an example of differentiated product (Tomlinson, 2001). Portfolios

can contain successful completion of each learning target or more in-depth studies about

the applications of content in the real world. Students can demonstrate their knowledge

and academic achievement through the portfolio.

Gordon (2013) discussed multiple-centres is another option for differentiated

instruction in the mathematics classroom. It raises a problem that students and teachers

work together to make sense of that problem. The example used in the study done by

Gordon has students looking at parabolic equations. The students studied water fountains

to calculate the horizontal distance the water traveled as well as the height of the water

fountain. Next students and teachers establish new problems that are extensions of the

initial problem. Gordon argued that this provides students opportunities to look at aspects

that are interesting to them or to a group of students. It also places the learning in the

hands of the student. They must figure out how to solve the initial problem and the

extension problems; the teacher is merely a resource. From here, students were able to

differentiate the content by choosing a variety of options for further exploration. A few

options for further study, noted by Gordon, were drawing and creating their own

fountain, studying the history of fountains, or exploring the flow rate of the water. The

multiple-centres approach argues that students have the most academic achievement in

mathematics when students are problem solving and exploring with minimal teacher

guidance.

Small grouping of students is a strategy in which the environment is differentiated

(Ensign, 2012). In order to be most effective, these groupings must be constantly

changing based on student understanding. One teacher described by Tomlinson (2001)

12
 Differentiated Instruction

uses groups of five or six for a Civil War project in which students investigate a topic.

The teacher must continually assess student knowledge in order to make the most

effective groups. Tomlinson writes that grouping size is also flexible, as some students

work best in pairs and other students learn best in groups of three or more. The study

done by Ensign reports that one teacher has trays that contain math activities. Students

are allowed to work on the math trays with a partner or individually.

Allowing students to choose their environment is another way to differentiate

instruction. Kobelin (2009) discusses how she taught a mini-lesson to the entire group

and then allowed students to stay, meaning they wanted more practice with the teacher in

a small group, or go, meaning that they felt ready to practice independently. Once all

students felt comfortable working independently, then the teacher could give advanced

students more challenging work. According to Kobelin, this guarantees that students are

mastering the learning target and being appropriately challenged. Additionally, because

students are appropriately challenged based on their mastery of the learning target,

students are able to reach their highest potential and maximize their academic

achievement.

Furthermore, within each differentiation of content, process, product, and

environment, classroom instruction can also be differentiated by students readiness,

interests, or learning profiles (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010; Patterson, Connolly, &

Ritter, 2009). Differentiation focuses on the students strengths and interests, and uses

that knowledge to teach and engage the student (Tomlinson, 2001). By differentiating

instruction, teachers expect to increase student understanding and academic achievement.

13
 Differentiated Instruction

Ensign (2012) discusses how one teacher grouped students into three ability

groups: readiness, at level, and enrichment. This teacher met with students in the

readiness level, while the other students worked in pairs with one student from each of

the at level and enrichment groups. Then the teacher would switch groups, so that she

met with all students.

Differentiated instruction enables teachers to present curriculum in new ways

based on students personal interests (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010). In their 2010 study,

Chamberlin and Powers grouped students by similar personal interests and then

instructed them to write a word problem using their similar interest as the context for the

story problem. When working on a unit about colonial life, students could dress in

costumes, learn a dance from the time period, or cook a dish that was popular (Scigliano

& Hipsky, 2010). These students were building a personal connection to content by using

it within the context of their interests.

Learning profiles are another way to differentiate instruction. According to

Tomlinson (2001), students learning profile is made up of four categories: learning style,

intelligence preference, gender, and culture. Learning style refers to the environment in

which a student learns best (Tomlinson, 2001). For example, some students prefer to

move around when working, while other students like to sit down. Intelligence preference

refers to Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (as cited in Tomlinson, 2001).

Students can be strong musically, logical reasoning, or verbally, to name three of the

eight possible intelligences. A learning contract is one example of differentiating

according to types of intelligence (Scigliano & Hipsky, 2010). A learning contract offers

multiple options for assessment based on learning targets. For example, a student who is

14
 Differentiated Instruction

strong verbally could write a poem about a main character in the story, while a student

who is visually intelligent could create a diorama about a scene in the story. Gender can

also play a role in how one learns. For example, more males than females may prefer

competitive learning (Tomlinson). Finally, culture can influence how we learn. For

example, culture can shape whether a student is more likely to create or conform.

Tomlinson does write that it is important to keep in mind the great variance in gender and

culture.

Teacher Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction

According to the literature reviewed, teacher perceptions of differentiated

instruction are mostly positive although the reasoning varies. Some teachers notice

quantitative evidence, such as improved grades or test scores. Other teachers notice

qualitative evidence, such as student engagement or attitudes toward mathematics.

One perception that teachers noticed in several studies was significant

improvements in grades and testing. In a study conducted by Patterson et al., (2009)

researchers who studied the effects of differentiated instruction noticed that one student

went from failing to earning Bs and Cs in mathematics. Beecher and Sweeny (2008)

noticed several improvements made by students on standardized tests during their

research. On one state assessment, this particular school studied by Beecher and Sweeny

started with a 30% gap in achievement between students with free or reduced lunch and

their non-free or reduced lunch peers. After differentiated instruction was implemented,

the achievement gap narrowed to 10%. Furthermore, on this same state assessment,

Beecher and Sweeny reported all ethnic groups improved their test scores, with Asian

students making a 60% gain.

15
 Differentiated Instruction

In another classroom studied by Patterson et al. (2009), 67% of students who had

differentiated instruction in mathematics improved on the Measures of Academic

Progress (MAP) from winter to spring (2009). When differentiated instruction was

implemented in the classroom, one study done by Ernest, Thompson, Heckaman, Hull, &

Yates (2011) observed that students improved by 30% from pretest to posttest scores.

This study indicated that differentiated instruction greatly improved student

understanding.

Within the multiple-centres approach discussed by Gordon (2013), there are many

academic benefits. The author explained that each student is able to explore what he or

she is interested in and then deepen his or her understanding, as well as the understanding

of others, during the presentation to the class. Additionally, the open-ended problem

promotes critical thinking and problem solving skills, since students must figure out the

solution to the problem largely on their own. It also increased the students ability to

work together and independently to solve the problems presented to them. Students in

Gordons study also used mathematical habits of mind such as reasoning, logic, and

problem solving, because they are not given formulas or example problems to use.

Phelps (2012) discovered that differentiated instruction helps students construct

meaning. Phelps wrote that students developed their own understanding of the content

instead of just memorizing a rule. In that study, students used differentiated problem sets

to develop understanding on how to add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators.

When the teacher came back to the topic later on in the year, students did not need

remediation, as done in previous years, because their own understanding was deep

enough that the students remembered the concept according to Phelps. Therefore, the

16
 Differentiated Instruction

study conducted by Phelps may indicate that because of differentiated instruction,

students' understanding of adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators was

deeper than with the traditional teaching the teacher used in years past.

These studies seem to suggest that with differentiated instruction, every student is

challenged at his or her own level. This would allow students to achieve their highest

potential within their zone of proximal development and therefore increase their

understanding and knowledge to the fullest extent possible. Students are then expected to

maximize their academic growth and potential.

In the literature, teachers have also noticed an improvement in students attitude

towards mathematics when differentiated instruction is used (Chamberlin & Powers,

2010; Patterson, et al. 2009). One student in the study by Patterson et al. (2009) was

described as starting with low skills, a negative attitude, and crying daily at school. After

beginning differentiated instruction, this student started volunteering, participating,

socializing, and was excited about school. This student demonstrated improved academic

success potentially due to differentiated instruction. The results of this teacher using

differentiated instruction also are reported as having a positive impact on the rest of the

class. After a year in a classroom that started with traditional instruction and changed to

differentiated instruction in mathematics, the authors report that responses to a survey

given to students by the teacher were as follows:

Eighty-seven of the students said they preferred the current class structure when

compared to how things had been done at the beginning of the year. Furthermore,

87% also reported they felt they were learning more, 87% felt more confident to

17
 Differentiated Instruction

speak up in class, 95% felt more comfortable in class, and 92% felt they received

more individualized attention. (Patterson et al., 2009, p. 51)

These students had very positive views on the changes to instruction. While students had

positive perspective, the study is unclear about the academic achievement made by

students during the course of the school year.

The benefits of using differentiated instruction extend beyond the classroom.

Beecher and Sweeny (2008) noticed that students became interested in afterschool

classes. The school studied by Beecher and Sweeny had, on average, 200 students

participating in afterschool classes. The authors propose that students wanted to spend

extra time studying and learning because they felt it was valuable and related to their

lives, which increased their academic achievement.

In one study conducted by Ernest et al, (2011), participants varied across all four

of Tomlinsons (2001) domains: content, product, process, and environment. Over the

course of five weeks, these participants gave pre-tests, implemented differentiated

instruction, and then gave post-tests. For example, the study reported that if using 60% as

a cutoff for passing, only eight teachers of the thirty-five participants had average student

pre-test scores of passing. However, on the post-test, thirty-four of the thirty-five had

average scores of passing. This led teachers to report that they perceived students had

learned more than in years past.

Teachers also have negative perceptions about differentiated instruction. Kobelin

(2009) reports that teachers felt overwhelmed by the amount of curriculum they were

required to teach, without even considering further differentiating instruction. As stated

by Scigliano and Hipsky (2010), it can be daunting to differentiate instruction (p.

18
 Differentiated Instruction

83). Gordon (2013) acknowledged that with the multiple-centres approach, it does take

quite a bit of effort to create a problem that is workable for all students. Patterson et al.

(2009) noted that teachers must take time, or have time set aside for them, to create the

problems for multiple-centres or to differentiate instruction in general. Teachers must

also spend time figuring out grouping. Further, Chamberlin and Powers (2010) found

student understanding must be constantly monitored, so that instruction can be adjusted

to fit their needs. This often means that teachers must be constantly grouping students

and then re-grouping them, as their understanding grows and changes. Teachers must

have the time to make productive groups, as well as time to re-group students as needed,

in order for grouping to an effective way to build student understanding.

Additionally, studies suggest that differentiated instruction requires student take

responsibility. While the teacher is working with a group of students, the other students

are working independently, with a partner, or with a small group (Christenson, 2012;

Ensign, 2012). These researchers point out that students are expected to work without a

teacher directly telling them what to do. If students are off-task, then their learning

drastically decreases and differentiated instruction is not effective. Kobelin (2009) found

that teachers worry about how to keep all the students busy. If the teacher is working with

one group, then he or she cannot help other students without interrupting the group that is

working with the teacher. When students are not getting the extra help they need, the

students can become disruptive (Kobelin). This makes all the more important that

students be given tasks or activities which they can complete independently while the

teacher works with a group of students.

19
 Differentiated Instruction

Finally, another factor to consider is time and resources. Beecher and Sweeny

(2008) spent eight years working with an elementary school on differentiated instruction.

This would seem to indict that the school district and/or school must make differentiated

instruction a priority and set aside the time and resources to effectively implement it.

What these various studies underscore is that differentiated instruction must be done in

such a way that teachers do not feel overwhelmed by effort and lack of time.

Conclusion

In summary, the literature reviewed here noticed significant improvements in

academic achievement of students when differentiated instruction was implemented.

While differentiation requires increased time to prepare lessons, increased student

responsibility, and more district resources, the literature argued that academic

improvements made by students can outweigh the drawbacks. Teachers can

differentiation instruction by varying what is learned, how it is learned, or how the

learning is demonstrated, as well as by readiness, interests, and/or learning profile. The

literature appears to argue that when instruction is differentiated, teachers report that

students were more engaged and performed better in the classroom and on standardized

tests. While this literature also found areas of concern it also argued that with careful

planning by districts and with sufficient time for support and training this approach could

be beneficial.

20
 Differentiated Instruction

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

The Minnesota Department of Education recommends that schools implement Response

to Intervention, a framework used to increase student performance by continuously

monitoring student progress and then differentiating instruction to meet students needs

(Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). Students are diverse in their interests,

strengths, and weaknesses, as well as how they learn best. Differentiated instruction is

described as student-centered and can be used to reach and engage students, based on

their diverse interests, strengths, weaknesses, and how they learn best (Tomlinson, 2001).

Differentiated instruction is endorsed by the Minnesota Department of Education as one

method to improve students academic success (Minnesota Department of Education,

2013b).

Many studies have been done on differentiated instruction in areas including

special education classrooms, English language learners in the general elementary

education classrooms, and reading for all learners in the elementary education

classrooms. However, differentiated instruction in the secondary mathematics classroom

has been studied very little. Additionally, the few studies on differentiated instruction in

the mathematics are in elementary classrooms. Since the expectation is that this approach

will be utilized with secondary students, this thesis argues that studies need to be done on

differentiated instruction in the secondary mathematics classrooms. This study examined

secondary mathematics teachers perceptions about the effectiveness or lack of

effectiveness of differentiated instruction in mathematics at the secondary level in the

BEST school district in Minnesota.

Design

21
 Differentiated Instruction

This study utilized a mixed methods approach. It is part descriptive quantitative

research and part qualitative research. A survey was conducted for the descriptive

quantitative data and was used to record peoples opinions or attitudes, such as teachers

perceptions about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness about differentiated

instruction in secondary mathematics (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). The qualitative method

consisted of teacher interviews. The researcher interviewed participants who have

experience with differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics. These two

approaches allowed the researcher to study teachers opinions and perceptions, both

quantitatively and qualitatively, about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of

differentiated instruction in mathematics at the secondary level in the BEST school

district in Minnesota.

Participants

Participants in this study consisted of secondary mathematics teachers in the

BEST school district in Minnesota. There were a total of thirty-five secondary

mathematics teachers in the BEST school district in Minnesota. All teachers had, at

minimum, completed a degree in education, with an emphasis in mathematics, and had a

current Minnesota teaching license.

Instrumentation

This study used two instruments to conduct research. Before beginning,

participants consented to their participation (Appendix A). After they consented,

participants answered questions in a survey (Appendix B). The participants used a rating

scale to report their opinions on the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated

instruction in mathematics based on varying qualities such as student participation,

22
 Differentiated Instruction

learning desired outcome, or student engagement of activity. Participants also had the

option of participating in an interview with the researcher. If participants choose to be

interviewed, then the researcher interviewed willing participants at a later date (Appendix

C).

Procedure

The researcher first submitted the proposal to the Institutional Review Board for

approval (Appendix D). Second, the researcher submitted the study to the BEST school

district for approval. The researcher e-mailed all potential participants the link to the

survey with the consent form. Participants had the option to consent and complete the

survey. Afterwards, participants were e-mailed the option to continue their participation

by volunteering to be interviewed by the researcher. The researcher then interviewed the

participants who volunteered. The interview consisted of open-ended questions. These

questions were meant to allow participants to elaborate in more detail on their perception

of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction. Participants also

discussed the positives and negatives of differentiated instruction, which gave the

researcher more insight into teachers perceptions surrounding differentiated instruction.

Analysis

Responses to these two instruments were analyzed separately. The survey was

analyzed to assess the percentage of teachers with specific opinions, from strongly

disagree to strong agree, about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated

instruction in the mathematics classroom. Based on the array of responses, it was possible

to regroup into one of three groups: Agree; Neutral; Disagree and assign percentages to

each group. For example, sixty-percent of teachers surveyed found the differentiated

23
 Differentiated Instruction

instruction strongly increased student engagement in the secondary mathematics

classroom in BEST school district in Minnesota. These percentages were used to discuss

the perceived effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in

secondary mathematics as perceived by secondary mathematics teachers in the BEST

school district in Minnesota. The interview was used to investigate how teachers

developed their conclusions about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of

differentiated instruction in the mathematics classroom. These responses were also

categorized and percentages given on how many fell into a category. Qualitatively the

responses allowed for a better appreciation of the complexity of differentiated instruction

and the participants perceptions. For example, a teacher noticed that all students were

participating in the differentiated activity and therefore believed that differentiated

instruction was very effective in the secondary mathematics classroom in BEST school

district in Minnesota. The findings are used by the researcher to draw inferences about

the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary

mathematics as presently perceived by secondary mathematics teachers in the BEST

school district who took part in the survey.

24
 Differentiated Instruction

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

This study proposes to gain better understanding about the perceived effectiveness or lack

of effectiveness of differentiated instruction at the secondary level in mathematics as

perceived by teachers in the BEST school district in Minnesota. While differentiated

instruction is endorsed by the Minnesota Department of Education, it is unknown how

effective differentiated instruction is in secondary mathematics as perceived by teachers

at the secondary level in a metropolitan school district, referred to as BEST, in

Minnesota. This research study used a mixed methods approach to build understanding

about teachers perceptions of the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated

instruction. The researcher used surveys and interviews as the primary tools for collecting

data.

This chapter presents the data gathered by survey on the effectiveness or lack of

effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics as perceived by

secondary mathematics teachers in the BEST school district in Minnesota. The data was

collected through a survey and an interview.

Survey Results

The results of the survey are presented first. The survey was designed for this

study and looked at teachers perceptions about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness

of differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics. (See Appendix B) Before sending

it out, permission to carry out the study was gained from the BEST school district and the

Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin Superior. (See Appendix D)

The link to the survey was e-mailed out to all secondary mathematics teachers in the

BEST school district in Minnesota. The survey had the consent form at the beginning

25
 Differentiated Instruction

(See Appendix A) and then the survey questions following. When answering, participants

were not required to provide any identifying information. Of the 35 potential participants

for the survey, 26 responded, which equates to 74% response rate. Table 1 represents

how often participants use differentiated instruction in their classroom, which gave the

researcher an understanding of how valid the participants responses would be and what

participants based their responses on.

Table 1

Frequency of Differentiated Instruction

Frequency of
Differentiated Instruction Number of Responses

0-2 times per month 11

3-5 times per month 14
0-2 times per semester 0
3-5 times per semester 0
0-2 times per year 0
Other 1

The other response filled in the blank that they use differentiated instruction 1-2 times per

week.

Table 2 represents how the range of the participants agreement with the

statements on the left. They rated their belief on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being strongly

disagree, 2 being disagree, 3 being neutral, 4 being agree, and 5 being strongly agree. The

number of each response is recorded in the boxes below the scale. A total of 26

secondary mathematics teachers participated in the survey, out of the 35 total secondary

mathematics teachers in the BEST school district in Minnesota.

26
 Differentiated Instruction

Table 2

Survey Responses

strongly strongly
disagree disagree neutral agree agree
1 2 3 4 5
1) I believe differentiated
instruction engages students in
their learning. 0 2 6 14 4
2) I believe students learn more
with direct instruction than with
differentiated instruction. 1 7 13 3 2
3) I believe differentiated
instruction helps students learn the
intended learning target of the
lesson 0 0 7 19 0
4) I believe students learn as much
with direct instruction as they do
with differentiated instruction. 1 3 14 7 1
5) I believe differentiated
instruction is meaningful to
students. 0 4 4 12 6
6) I believe that differentiated
instruction is an ineffective
method of instruction. 5 13 3 4 1
7) I believe that all teachers should
differentiate their instruction in
secondary mathematics. 2 7 5 7 5
8) In my personal practice, I have
seen that differentiated instruction
improves student learning. 0 4 8 11 3
9) In my personal practice, I have
seen that differentiated instruction
does not improve student learning. 3 11 10 2 0
10) I believe that differentiated
instruction is an effective method
of teaching. 0 2 7 14 3

27
 Differentiated Instruction

Interview Results

After the survey closed, an e-mail request was sent out asking for volunteers to

participate in a 15-30minute interview about their opinions on differentiated instruction

in secondary mathematics. Of the 35 possible participants and 26 actual participants, 10

volunteered to be interviewed. Questions in the interview were developed specifically for

this study and were designed to further explore teachers perceptions about differentiated

instruction, such as effectiveness, positives, negatives, and current use in the classroom.

(See Appendix C) All participants in the interview had to sign a consent form. (See

Appendix A) The interviews lasted about fifteen to twenty minutes and took place at

various locations designed to provide most convenience to participants. Once the

interviews had taken place, participants answers were typed and e-mailed back to

participants for their verification. The answers below are the participants verified

responses. Responses were grouped together based on similar themes and phrasing. All

ten responses for each question are provided in brief to maintain anonymity.

The first interview question was Do you believe differentiated instruction in

secondary mathematics to be effective or ineffective? Why? Six of the ten participants

responded that differentiated instruction is effective. Four of the six went on to say that it

is best or effective to meet the needs of individual students. Two of the six added that it is

effective if given enough time to plan. Two participants said that it is both effective and

ineffective. Both said it is ineffective in big classrooms and there are too many students

for differentiated instruction to be effective. One participant said that it can be effective.

Another participant said that he/she has not done a lot of it, but sees how it could be

effective if done well.

28
 Differentiated Instruction

The second interview question was What are some specific examples that you

can provide to support your opinion? Nine of the ten interviewees mentioned doing

ability based grouping of students, such as multiple leveled assignments and/or

assessments, grouping by what they were struggling with, or having one group work with

a teacher and the other do an activity independently. However, teachers mentioned that

one must be careful when grouping by ability for two reasons. First, when the teacher is

working with one group, some students are not able to work independently due to

maturity or motivation. The teacher must be monitoring all groups. Second, students may

notice the ability grouping and may feel uncomfortable. One teacher mentioned that he or

she feels it is not the material holding students back; it is other factors such as motivation,

perseverance, and attendance.

What are some positives about differentiated instruction? was the third

interview question. Six teachers mentioned that it allows the teachers to meet the needs of

different students or types of learners. Two teachers mentioned that it builds students

confidence, because they are working at their level. One teacher mentioned that it allows

each student to be appropriately challenged, while another teacher mentioned that it

alleviates boredom for some students.

Interview question four asked participants to discuss the negatives of

differentiated instruction. Nine of the ten participants said that it was time consuming;

with the tenth saying it is more work for the teacher. Interviewees mentioned a variety of

aspects that were time consuming. Four teachers talked about the amount of curriculum

to cover, with three mentioning that there is too much to cover and differentiate and one

discussed that all students still have to get to the same end goal. Three teachers

29
 Differentiated Instruction

mentioned that it takes time to figure out where each student is at and therefore

appropriately differentiated for him or her. Three teachers talked about ability grouping

singling out students or groups of students and that may not being good for students. Two

teachers mentioned that the class sizes are too big to adequately differentiate.

The final interview question asked teachers if they used differentiated instruction

in their classroom and why or why not. Seven of the ten teachers said that they did use it.

Five of the seven said they use differentiated instruction from time to time or

occasionally. Two said they used it minimally. One teacher said he or she did not use it.

Five of the participants mentioned not having enough time to differentiate instruction.

One teacher mentioned that he or she feels the professional development has been okay,

but not great. Therefore, this teacher did not think he or she understood differentiated

instruction and would use it more if he or she had the resources.

30
 Differentiated Instruction

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

Differentiated instruction is one intervention endorsed by Minnesota Department of

Education (2013b) that is used to help students be successful in the classroom. This study

aims to contribute information about teachers perceptions about the effectiveness or lack

of effectiveness of differentiated instruction at the secondary level, specifically in

mathematics. The study took place at a metropolitan school district in Minnesota, referred

to in this research as BEST school district. Due to the limited nature of this study in the

number of participants, the specific discipline and location of the study, and frequency in

which teachers used differentiated instruction, this study should not be generalizable to

other disciplines or other districts. Both a survey and interviews were used to gather

information about teacher perceptions of effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of

differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics in the BEST school district in

Minnesota.

Discussion of the Survey

The survey was designed for this study and looked at teachers perceptions about

the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary

mathematics in the BEST school district in Minnesota. (See Appendix B for the survey.)

Twenty-six out of 35 eligible staff completed the survey for a 74% participation rate. The

results reported below are the opinions of the twenty-six participants and are not

necessary representative of the entire district. Fifteen of the 26 participants use

differentiated instruction 3-5 times per month or more, while the other eleven use it 0-2

times per month. (See Table 1) In the survey participants were given a statements on the

left and then they rated their agreement or disagreement with the statement on a scale of

31
 Differentiated Instruction

1-5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. In the charts below,

responses of agree (response of 4 on scale) and strongly agree (response of 5) are

grouped together in the category of agree and responses of disagree (response of 2) and

strongly disagree (response of 1) are grouped together in the category of disagree. A

response of 3 is considered neutral on the scale. The percentages are based on the twenty-

six respondents. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and therefore

charts may or may not total to be 100%.

Figure 1

Believe that differentiated instruction engages students

Engages Students

Disagree
8%

Neutral
23%

Agree
69%

Figure 2

Learn more with differentiated instruction than with direct instruction

32
 Differentiated Instruction

Learn More

Agree
19%
Disagree
31%

Neutral
50%

As shown in Figure 1, it is clear that the majority of teachers perceive that

differentiated instruction engages students. However, even though the majority of

teachers believe differentiated instruction engages students, only 19% agree that students

learn more with differentiated instruction. According to Figure 2, half of participants are

neutral on which method is more effective and 31% disagree that students learn more

with differentiated instruction than with direct instruction. This is contrary to several

studies already published. The research conducted by Patterson et al., (2009) noticed that

one student went from failing to earning Bs and Cs in mathematics. In that same

classroom studied by Patterson et al. 67% of students who had differentiated instruction

in mathematics improved on the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) from winter to

spring. Beecher and Sweeny (2008) noticed on one state assessment, this particular

school started with a 30% gap in achievement between students with free or reduced

lunch and their non-free or reduced lunch peers, but after differentiated instruction was

implemented, the achievement gap narrowed to 10%. When differentiated instruction was

implemented in the classroom, one study done by Ernest et al. (2011) observed that

33
 Differentiated Instruction

students improved by 30% from pretest to posttest scores and the study also reported that

if using 60% as a cutoff for passing, only eight teachers of the thirty-five participants had

average student pre-test scores of passing, but on the post-test, thirty-four of the thirty-

five had average scores of passing. While some studies are showing students are learning

more with differentiated instruction, secondary mathematics teachers at BEST school

district in Minnesota does not perceive the same results. In fact, only 19% of teachers at

BEST school district in Minnesota perceive that students learn more with differentiated

instruction.

Figure 3

All secondary mathematics teachers should differentiate instruction

Should Differentiate

Disagree
Agree 35%
46%

Neutral
19%

According to Figure 3, 46% of teachers believe that all secondary mathematics

teachers should differentiate their instruction, 19% are neutral and 35% disagree with the

statement. However, the Minnesota Department of Education has implemented Response

to Intervention (RtI) as one method to improve student performance by constantly

monitoring student progress and then modifying and differentiating instruction to meet a

34
 Differentiated Instruction

students needs (Minnesota Department of Education, 2013b). Even though differentiated

instruction is endorsed by the Minnesota Department of Education, secondary

mathematics teachers in the BEST school district do not think that all teachers should

differentiate their instruction. According to the results of this survey, only 46% of

secondary mathematics teachers surveyed believe all secondary mathematics teachers

should differentiate instruction and 54% of participants surveyed are neutral or disagree

that all secondary mathematics teachers should differentiate their instruction. Over half of

participants do not agree that all secondary mathematics teachers should differentiate

their instruction.

Figure 4

Differentiating instruction improves learning

Improves Learning

Disagree
15%

Agree Neutral
54% 31%

Fifty-four percent of secondary mathematics teachers surveyed do believe that

differentiated instruction improves learning, as shown in Figure 4. As previously

mentioned, the research conducted by Patterson et al., (2009), and by Beecher and

Sweeny (2008), and by Ernest et al. (2011), supports teacher perceptions at BEST school

35
 Differentiated Instruction

district that differentiated instruction improves student learning. However, when

comparing responses to Figure 3, even though the majority of participants believe that

differentiating instruction improves learning, the majority do not believe that all

secondary mathematics teachers should differentiate their instruction. This leads to the

possible interpretation that even though teachers believe differentiating instruction

improves learning, teachers are not confident enough with this belief to require all

teachers to differentiate their instruction. This is further confirmed in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5

Students learn as much with direct instruction as they do with differentiated instruction

Learn as much

Disagree
Agree 15%
31%

Neutral
54%

Fifty-four percent of secondary mathematics teachers are neutral on whether

students learn as much with direct instruction as they do with differentiated instruction.

While secondary mathematics teachers believe differentiated instruction improves

learning, they are unsure whether or not students learn as much with direct instruction.

36
 Differentiated Instruction

Therefore, it appears that secondary mathematics teachers at BEST school district are not

confident; they disagree that direct instruction is as effective as differentiated instruction.

Discussion of Interviews

According to the interviews conducted, nine out of ten participants said that

differentiated instruction is time consuming. The study conducted by Beecher and

Sweeny (2008) found similar perceptions. In that study researchers spent eight years

working with teachers in an elementary school on differentiated instruction. Patterson et

al. (2009) noted that teachers must take time, or have time set aside for them, to create the

problems for multiple-centres or to differentiate instruction in general. Five out of ten

participants in the interview stated they do not have enough time to differentiate

instruction.

Additionally, four participants that were interviewed mentioned that the amount

of curriculum they are required to cover is another hindrance to differentiated instruction.

Kobelin (2009) also reported that teachers feel overwhelmed by the amount of curriculum

they are required to teach, without even considering further differentiating instruction.

Research conducted by Scigliano and Hipsky (2010) stated, ...it can be daunting to

differentiate instruction (p. 83). One teacher in the BEST school district specifically

mentioned that he or she felt the professional development has been okay, but not great.

Therefore, this teacher did not think he or she understood differentiated instruction and

would use it more if he or she had the resources.

Recommendations

Based on the survey results and the interviews this study seems to point to three

possible recommendations:

37
 Differentiated Instruction

1. For differentiated instruction to occur more and be effective, the BEST school

district creates the necessary time for staff to effectively develop and implement

differentiated lessons.

2. The BEST School district takes the time to assess and to eliminate unnecessary

curriculum, so as to allow teachers to focus on what is important for students to

know and then differentiate instruction on these topics. This could strengthen

student success on the crucial learning targets of the course.

3. The BEST school district provides professional development and follow-up over

time to facilitate the implementation of differentiated instruction.

Conclusion

This study set out to examine teachers perceptions about the effectiveness or lack

of effectiveness of differentiated instruction in mathematics at the secondary level in a

metropolitan school district, referred to as BEST school district, in Minnesota. A mixed

methods approach was used to build understanding about teachers perceptions of the

effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of differentiated instruction. The researcher used

surveys and interviews as the primary tools for collecting data. The survey consisted of

questions with a rating scale answer. This allowed the researcher to collect data about

how often secondary mathematics teachers are using differentiated instruction, as well as

perceptions of how effective or ineffective they believe it is. Participants had the option

of being interviewed by the researcher. The interview was used to help the researcher

gain a better understanding of participants perceptions about the effectiveness or lack of

effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics.

38
 Differentiated Instruction

This study contributes to existing research in two ways. First, educational

intervention for improving student learning is a federal government funded program

endorsed by the state of Minnesota. While differentiated instruction is one intervention

that the Minnesota Department of Education supports (Minnesota Department of

Education, 2013b) it is not broadly adopted in the secondary mathematics in the BEST

school district. Second, secondary level classrooms are different than elementary level

classrooms, which have been studied more extensively. This study indicates that

differentiated instruction, while it is perceived somewhat positively by the teachers

surveyed, is employed in a limited fashion at the secondary level.

This study aimed to help the BEST school district in Minnesota improve their

differentiated instruction by exploring teachers perceptions about differentiated

instruction in secondary mathematics. While most secondary mathematics teachers in the

BEST school district who participated in this study believe differentiated instruction can

be effective, teachers feel limited by time and curriculum. Therefore, this study

recommends that the BEST school district give teachers time and additional professional

development to assist teachers in implementing effective and successful differentiated

instruction. To do this effectively there may also need to be a review of the curriculum

with the intention of eliminating unnecessary curriculum that may be interfering with

broader application of differentiated instruction.

39
 Differentiated Instruction

References

Beecher, M. & Sweeny, S.M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum

enrichment and differentiation: One schools story. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 19 (3), 502-530. Retrieved from

http://journals.prufrock.com/IJP/b/journal-of-advanced-academics.

Chamberlin, M. & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for

enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching

Mathematics and Its Applications, 29, 113-139, doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrq006

Christenson, B. (2012). Increasing participation through differentiation. Teaching

children mathematics, 19 (3), 194-200.

Ensign, J. (2012). Teacher-initiated differentiation. Teaching children mathematics,

19 (3), 158-163.

Ernest, J.M., Thompson, S.E., Heckaman, K.A., Hull, K. & Yates, J. (2011). Effects and

social validity of differentiated instruction on student outcomes for special

education. The Journal of International Association of Special Education, 12

(1), 33-41.

Gordon, M. (2013). The mathematics of fountain design: a multiple-centres activity.

Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications. 32, 19-27, doi:

10.1093/teamat/hrs013

Kobelin, M. (2009). Multi-age made me do it: A teacher tackles differentiation in

math instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6 (1), 10-22. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/597653

40
 Differentiated Instruction

Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2013). Practical research planning and design. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Little, C.A., Hauser, S., Corbishley, J. (2009). Constructing complexity for

differentiated learning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15 (1), 35-

42.

Minnesota Department of Administration (2010). Minnesota State Demographic

Center. Retrieved from http://www.demography.state.mn.us/Census2010/

Minnesota Department of Education (2013a). Minnesota Education Statistics

Summary. Retrieved from

http://w20.education.state.mn.us/MDEAnalytics/Summary.jsp

Minnesota Department of Education (2013b). Response to Intervention. Retrieved

from

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/BestPrac/RespInterv/index.html

Minnesota Legislative Reference Library (2001). Minnesota Edocs: State Government

Publications. Retrieved from

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/edocs/edocs.aspx?oclcnumber=159937649

Northwest Evaluation Association (2013).MAP. Retrieved from

http://www.nwea.org/products-services/assessments/map

Patterson, J.L., Conolly, M.C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion of

classroom to facilitate differentiated instruction. Middle School Journal, 41

(1), 46-52. Retrieved from

http://www.mnsa.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal/Articles/Septemb

er2009/tabid/2011/Default.aspx

41
 Differentiated Instruction

Pham, H.L. (2012). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and

practice. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9 (1), 13-20.

Phelps, K.A.G. (2012). The power of problem choice. Teaching children mathematics,

19 (3), 152-157.

Scigliano, D. & Hipsky, S. (2010). 3 Ring circus of differentiated instruction. Kappa

Delta Pi Record, 46 (2), 82-86.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

United States Census Bureau (2012). Newsroom Press Releases. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-

243.html

42
 Differentiated Instruction

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Mathematics

Researcher: Rachel Amadio (952) 707-2865 [email protected]

Description: The purpose of this experiment is to examine the effectiveness or lack of

effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics as perceived by
secondary mathematics teachers in the BEST school district in Minnesota. If you
volunteer for this research study, you will be asked to participate in a survey and will
have the option of participating in an interview. The topics are neither embarrassing nor
intended to be upsetting. You will first be asked to complete a survey. After the survey,
you will have the option of providing your contact information to be interviewed. The
total time for your participation will be fifteen minutes for the survey and an additional
one-hour if you volunteer to be interviewed.

The results of each individual's participation will be strictly confidential. An

identification number will be used to record the results of your participation. No names or
individual identifying information will be maintained. With the exception of the
researchers involved in running this study, nobody will be allowed to see or discuss any
of the individual responses. Your responses will be combined with many others and
reported by identification number in a professional journal article.

It is not anticipated that this study will present any risk to you other than the
inconvenience of the time taken to participate.

The overall nature of the study will be explained as soon as you have completed your
session. A summary report and explanation of the results will be made available to you
when the study is completed if you so request.

Authorization: I have read the above and understand the nature of this study and
voluntarily agree to participate. I understand that by agreeing to participate in this study I
have not waived any legal or human rights. I also understand that I have the right to
refuse to participate and that my right to withdraw from participation at any time
during the study will be respected with no coercion or prejudice.

43
 Differentiated Instruction

If you have any concerns about your treatment as a subject in this study, please call
or write:

Eleni Pinnow, IRB Chair

Telephone: (715) 394-8312
Email: [email protected]

This research project has been approved by the UW-Superior Institutional Review Board
for the Protection of Human Subjects, protocol #__1031_____

_________________________________________________ ________________

Subject signature Date

Identification number: _________

44
 Differentiated Instruction

APPENDIX B: SURVEY

Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Mathematics Survey

For the purposes of this study, differentiated instruction is defined as: teachers tailoring
their instruction to provide a variety of ways for students to understand the content and
express learning. It is proactively planned, so that each lesson will have an appropriate fit
for many learners. Instruction can be differentiated by content, process, product, and/or
environment (Tomlinson, 2001).

Please rate your opinion on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree, 3 being
neutral, and 5 being strongly agree.

1) I believe differentiated instruction engages students in their 1 2 3 4 5

learning.

2) I believe students learn more with direct instruction than 1 2 3 4 5

with differentiated instruction.

3) I believe differentiated instruction helps students learn the 1 2 3 4 5

intended learning target of the lesson

4) I believe students learn as much with direct instruction as 1 2 3 4 5

they do with differentiated instruction.

5) I believe differentiated instruction is meaningful to students. 1 2 3 4 5

6) I believe that differentiated instruction is an ineffective 1 2 3 4 5

method of instruction.

7) I believe that all teachers should differentiate their 1 2 3 4 5

instruction in secondary mathematics.

8) In my personal practice, I have seen that differentiated 1 2 3 4 5

instruction improves student learning.

9) In my personal practice, I have seen that differentiated 1 2 3 4 5

instruction does not improve student learning.

10) I believe that differentiated instruction is an effective 1 2 3 4 5

method of teaching.

45
 Differentiated Instruction

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Do you believe differentiated instruction in secondary mathematics to be effective

or ineffective? Why?

2) What are some specific examples that you can provide to support your opinion?

3) What are some positives about differentiated instruction?

4) What are some negatives about differentiated instruction?

5) Do you use differentiated instruction in your classroom? Why or why not?

46
 Differentiated Instruction

APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL LETTER

March 12, 2014

TO: Rachel Amadio

Student Researcher

FROM: Eleni Pinnow

Chair, Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Expedited Status Determination for Research

Involving Human Subjects: Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Mathematics.

Your research proposal, IRB protocol #1031 has been determined to meet the
guidelines for expedited status. The reader was George Wright. Data collection is
approved for one year from yesterday. Should collection need to extend beyond that
date, you will need to resubmit your protocol to the IRB for an extension.

The purpose of the Institutional Review Board is to review research projects

conducted by UW-Superior students, faculty, and staff to ensure that ethical
practices and protocols with regards to use of human subjects are followed. Retain
this memorandum with your research protocols. Please note that you must follow
the proposal submitted to and agreed upon by this committee. If you change
protocols or practices, or if data collection is expected to extend beyond the
approved date, you must return to the committee for review of the modifications or
extension.

Good luck in your research endeavor.

Cc: Dean of Faculties

Suzanne Griffith
IRB Committee members
Eleni Pinnow
Andrew Breckenridge
Peter Cook
James Geidner
George Wright

47