Student-Centered Instruction Vs. Teacher-Directed Instruction
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS. TEACHER-DIRECTED INSTRUCTION: WHICH IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.
Crystal E. Jones
Certificate of Approval:
______Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D. Co-Thesis Chair Co-Thesis Chair Education Department Education Department STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS. DIRECT-TEACHER INSTRUCTION: WHICH IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
A working thesis submitted
by
Crystal Elaine Jones
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
5/4/2011 Student-Centered Instruction iii
Abstract
Although many studies have shown the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in a variety of educational settings, relatively few have focused on exceptional education, specifically in the area of severe emotional behavioral disorders. This study compared student-centered instruction and teacher-directed instruction using students at the secondary level within the exceptional education continuum. Comparisons between the two instructional methods assessed any differences in student achievement and socio- emotional skills. In addition, the participants completed a survey that assessed their attitude toward student-centered instruction. Although no significant differences were observed in achievement, the participants exhibited some gains in socio-emotional skills.
By the end of the study, the participants indicated a high confidence level for academic and socio-emotional improvement in all classes. Student-Centered Instruction iv
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………..………………………iii
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………...iv
List of Tables and Figures …………………………………………………………….…..v
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………...1 Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………………1 Significance of the Problem ………………………………………………………1 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ……………..………………………….2 Focus Questions …………………………………………………………………..5 Overview of Methodology ………………………………………………………..6 Human as Researcher ……………………………………………………………..7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ………………………………………………………8 Implementing Instruction …………………………………………………………9 Student Outcome ………………………………………………………………...12 Self Reflection and Student Affect ……………………………………………...14
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………...………17 Research Design ………………………………………….……………………..17 Setting ……………………………………………………………………...……18 Subjects and Participants ……………………………………….…………….....18 Procedures and Data Collection Methods ……………………………………….19 Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias Measures………………………...23 Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………………26
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………………….28
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………………………43 Analysis …………………………………………………………………………43 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….48 Implications ……………………………………………………………………...51 Impact on Student Learning ……………………………………………………..52 Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………53
References ……………………………………………………………………………….54
Appendixes …………... ………………………………………………………………...57 Student-Centered Instruction v
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1. Data Shell ………………………………………………………………..20 Table 4.1 Dependent T test Teacher-directed Instruction…………………….…….32 Table 4.2 Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity One.….………..33 Table 4.3 Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity Two……..…….34 Table 4.4 Chi-Square - Learning Implications..……………………………………37 Table 4.5 Chi-Square - Literacy Implications……………..……………………….38 Table 4.6 Chi-Square - Personal Academic and Communications Implication……39 Table 4.7 Chi-Square - Cultural Implication……………………………………….40
Figures
Figure 4.1. Instructional Plan Rubric Opened Ended Questions…………………...... 29 Figure 4.2 Instructional Plan Student Survey Rating Scale………………………....36 Student-Centered Instruction 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Today’s teachers are overwhelmed with the need to raises test scores. Whether being driven by “No Child Left Behind” or “The Race to the Top” high-stakes testing has stifled the creativity of many teachers. Many, who have made small changes to create an atmosphere with the student needs in mind, have resorted back to traditional teacher- directed instruction geared towards teaching to the test. Teacher-directed instruction tends to prevent students from making a connection between school content and real life hence the student become passive and disengaged.
This study will explore and test the effectiveness of using student-centered methodology in the secondary classroom to optimize student abilities. Student-centered classrooms are defined as “places that are responsive to the needs of a particular group of learners (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 10).” Student-centered classrooms recognize that a student transitions through stages and are designed to nurture true interests. Teachers should create an atmosphere conducive to learning and encouraging in the development of students’ personal learning experiences. McWhorter and Hudson-
Ross (1996) have found that “without new approaches to instruction that connect to the needs and learning styles of students, many will continue to fail and are likely to drop out of school.”
Significance of the Problem
Students who receive teacher-directed instruction are expected to listen to lectures, wait, take tests, and do seatwork. They are also divided according to various measures of ability which increases inequalities over time. There is no personalization Student-Centered Instruction 2 centered on the needs of the student. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab
(2001) at Brown University of Providence states that “We will not get all students to achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience for all our young adults” (p. 12). Teachers are faced with the pressures of high-stakes testing and that has become the driving force behind what students are expected to learn. Author Ron
Passman (2000) concludes that “… high-stakes assessment based on standardized scores assumes that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful. We are moving toward an era of everyone looking exactly like me, where the me consists of those who define the standards” (p. 14). We want students to embrace learning and not become passive or resistant, apathetic learners. And that will happen “as long as we make all the instructional decisions, learning remains ours and not our students” (McWhorter &
Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 15).
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study focuses on the effectiveness of using student-centered instruction to increase the achievement of students within exceptional education. Teachers must have a clear understanding how students learn and provide an environment that is conducive to learning. From a cognitive perspective, teachers must be able to make meaningful connection between content areas and everyday life.
This thesis about student-centered instruction relates to LaGrange College
Department of Education (2008) Conceptual Framework’s First Tenet of enthusiastic engagement in learning. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) believes that [teachers] want students to embrace learning and not become passive, apathetic or resistant learners.
The authors also state that when teachers establish “a need to know the information” (p. Student-Centered Instruction 3
15) students are then motivated to achieve the task set before them. Students need to be able to connect classroom learning to the outside world in which they live; therefore,
“providing students with a range of choices—in activities, reading material, and subject matter” (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 14) is the key to developing a more personally meaningful learning experience.
In addressing Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Department of Education
(2008) Conceptual Framework exemplary professional teaching practices, teachers are consciously focused on what motivates students. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) researched and found that “as long as we make all of the instructional decisions, learning remains ours—not our student (p. 14).” Educators are recognizing the importance of students taking responsibility for their learning. Many teachers are changing the way they are planning, instructing, and assessing students’ abilities. Student-centered instruction has been around since the 1960s, but it has taken until now for educators to see that students learn best when the subject matter means something to them. McWhorter and
Hudson-Ross (1996) refer to focusing on individual student learning as a way to connect cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and constructivism, all of which positions the student in the center. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross also speak of added benefits to student-centered instruction; such as, minimizing competition between the students, encouraging students to work together, and building classroom communities.
This study also supports LaGrange College Department of Education (2008)
Conceptual Framework’s Tenet Three which addresses caring and supportive classroom and learning communities. Building classroom communities offers the opportunity for Student-Centered Instruction 4 learning how to work with others who are different from you. It promotes problem- solving and decision making skills that are essential if students are to succeed in the professional workforce of today. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at
Brown University Providence, RI (2001) quoted McLeod as saying “the school is communally rather than bureaucratically organized” (p. 8). The Northeast and Islands
Regional Educational Lab at Brown University Providence, RI (2001) also state “We will not get all students to achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience of all our young adults” (p. 12).
The Five National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core
Propositions for Experienced Teachers states five propositions which affect all teachers at some time during their professional career. Proposition one states “Teachers are committed to students and learning” and proposition three states “Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning” (as cited by LaGrange
College Department of Education, 2008, p.12). This thesis aligns with both propositions.
Aligning with Proposition One demonstrates the belief that all students can learn and by researching various instructional strategies it shows dedication to making learning accessible to all students. When aligning to Proposition Three, teachers are responsible for student learning, which means they are to continuously search for what works best to increase student success. Teachers should increase their knowledge of various instructional techniques or strategies to keep students engaged, motivated, and focus.
They should also know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals. Student-Centered Instruction 5
Students perform academically and socially at various learning stages and not the same way in all subject content areas. There are many approaches teachers can utilize when deciding which instructional strategy will work best. The main focus is to get students involved and engaged in learning in order to optimize their abilities which would result in decrease behavior problems. Teachers can continue to think systematically about their practice and learn from experience, as encouraged by the LaGrange College
Education Department (2008), by trying different strategies to see what works best for optimizing abilities in all students.
Focus Questions
The overall research question for this study is “How can student-centered instruction increase achievement of students within exceptional education?” As the research literature supports, when students can see the connection between school content and real life, they are more passionate and engaged in what they are learning. Students began to set higher expectations for them and are less likely to drop out of school. As an educator, it is important to gain as much knowledge as possible about how best to optimize academic and appropriate behavioral abilities in all students.
In exploring Focus question 1) “How can teachers implement student-centered instruction in the classroom”, incorporating different activities to engage and challenge students can help teachers when implementing this type of instruction. Reading the literature to see what worked for others can let teachers know they are not alone in this journey. Also, teachers should keep a running log or journal to reflect on techniques and strategies used in their classrooms. Focus question 2) “What effects does student-centered instruction have on increasing achievement of students within exceptional education and Student-Centered Instruction 6 also in decreasing behavior problems?” Various activities can be used to see what kind of effect the activity has on a student academics and behavior. Also, time and effort are essential when changing to any new instructional method. In a research study by Michael
L. Rutledge (2008), students perceived that the student-centered approach was most effective at making the course relevant and interesting, and that it engaged the students in their own learning.
When addressing Focus question 3) “What are teacher and student attitudes about student-centered instruction in the classroom environment?” Hammerman (2008) presented research that the student-centered approach enables teachers to identify and address misconceptions students may have developed and assess the effectiveness of the instructional process. Hammerman (2008) also reported that student-centered instruction is high-quality instruction with a 21st century approach.
Overview of Methodology
This study was conducted using action research to determine the effectiveness of using student-centered methodology to optimize student abilities. This action research was completed in an exceptional education self-contained classroom setting in a high school located in rural Georgia. The students were on a seven period class schedule and the program adheres to the school system calendar and curriculum.
This research consisted of 22 subjects ranging from grades 9 through 12 in a heterogeneous grouping using both quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education classroom. Two physical science classrooms of 11 students with mixed abilities were given a pretest to measure academics standing before implementation of teaching Student-Centered Instruction 7 instruction. A posttest was given to measure improvement in academics at the end of each teaching instruction implemented. Students were taught for a period of two weeks first using the traditional teaching method. A posttest was given and then the students were taught another two weeks using the student-centered method. At the end of the research, students were given surveys to reflect their feelings about methods used for both two-week sessions. Additionally, students were observed for behavior and engagement during entire four week period.
Human as Researcher
As an educator in the field of special education for 13 years, I have experienced working with a diverse group of students. When I began my teaching career in a program for students with severe emotional behavior problems, I was introduced to students who dealt with disabilities that were emotionally-based. When their emotional needs were not meet, they had no interest or motivation to participate in classroom activities. The more that this would happen, the further behind they would become academically. They exhibited a number of behavior issues that stemmed from frustration, poor confidence, and lack of self-esteem. In completing this action research on brain-based learning, my hopes are to find that in creating an atmosphere which is conducive to learning and encouraging in the development of student’s emotions and feelings, that I will be optimizing their learning abilities and decrease discipline problems. Student-Centered Instruction 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will review the literature of scholars who have studied the connection between student-centered instruction and student achievement and provided evidence that the student-centered instructional approach is the most effective in increasing student achievement and also improving student behavior. The scholars provided background information, strategies, and techniques to help educators implement this type of instructional approach within their classrooms.
Student-centered instruction, by definition, is placing the student at the center of the learning process, but today education continues to function like a business operating on the efficiency model grounded in the Industrial Revolution which resembles a factory, assembly-line, and production model created back in 1892-93 used to produce functional members of society. The instructional model in which education of today implements continues to operate on a system handed down by The Committee of Ten 1892-93
(Johnson, 2003). This system operates on the teacher-centered instructional model which is designed to teach the four major curriculum subjects: math, English, science, and social studies, with no emphasis on including any involvement in the arts. The original education schedule, which is considered to be teacher-centered because it places all the emphasis on the teacher and not the student, still dominates the education scene. This teacher-centered instructional model was not designed for educating all but only a small percentage of students who adapted to it (Johnson, 2003). Is there any reason why a vast number of students continue to fail at an increasing rate? Bil Johnson considers teacher- centered education to be “thoughtlessly unphilosophical” (p. 3) and one that is dictated by bus schedules, track classes, and policy makers which lead one to believe that it is not Student-Centered Instruction 9 about the student but about the adults. Yet, according to Johnson, the main purpose of public schools is to create active, democratic citizens.
As we struggle to create twenty-first century classrooms, we are faced with the devastating reports that, as a nation, we are lagging behind and that our students are failing at an alarming rate. There is great evidence that the students we are educating lack the ability to be productive members of society because they lack critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and they have little or no knowledge of how to be responsible members of society. Evidence of this failing rate is based on the only nationally acceptable measure of student achievement, multiple-choice and five-paragraph testing, which does not truly determine whether the students have truly learned the content. Facts have shown that with multiple-choice testing; only two out of seven of Gardner’s multiple intelligences are being met so the much publicized results only reveal that students can or cannot regurgitate the information the teacher has trained them to learn.
Yet, educators are pressed to increase test scores; therefore many educators opt to teach the test and the students are pressured to pass the test which causes many students and educators to harbor negative feelings about education and its process.
Implementing Instruction
A movement to reform education was developed but was met with many changes that were not beneficial to the learner, only to the adults. Many educators say they want change, but many are afraid or are not equipped to make the change. Educators or
Administrators may implement changes, but when the change does not work out, they are ready to move on to the next method. Creditability is then lost and this affects not only the students but the society as a whole. Nobody likes change, but when you are making Student-Centered Instruction 10 change a period of time should be expected before you see the desired result. Just because it looks like it may not be working, does not mean it won’t work. Johnson (2003) said it best, “…dissonance is essential for change. Until we accept that, and put the learners at the center of the debate (not the adult and their interests), we may well see numerous changes without making any significant progress” (p. 4). As previously mentioned, student-centered instruction is such a model that places the student as the center of the learning process. Student-centered instruction allows the student to make the connection between what goes on in the classroom and their “real” life. According to McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996), a need to know the information must be established in order to motivate students to achieve.
Felder describes several methods of implementing student-centered into the classroom. These methods include active learning, in which students solve problems, answer questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during class; cooperative learning, in which students work in teams on problems and projects under conditions that assure both positive interdependence and individual accountability; and inductive teaching and learning, in which students are first presented with challenges (questions or problems) and learn the course material in the context of addressing the challenges. Inductive methods include inquiry-based learning, case-based instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching.
Johnson gives some practical steps when implementing student-centered instruction in classrooms. First, plan backwards from the outcome and the evidence.
Begin with the end in mind. Second, teachers should start small. Use graphic organizers Student-Centered Instruction 11
(mind maps/webs, T-charts, etc.) when implementing the lesson. Third, use groups, jigsaws, Socratic seminars. Fourth, the use of role-plays, simulations, and debates are very effective. And fifth, the authentic assessment should be in the form of projects and portfolios. Howard Gardner (2006) claims that based on his theory of multiple intelligences:
…that almost any topic which is worth spending time on can be approached from
at least six different “windows” into the same room: 1 Narrational: the story
mode. 2 A quantitative, logical rational way of dealing with numbers, principles,
causality. 3 A foundational way, asking basic kinds of questions such as: Why is
this important? How does it relate to what came before? How is it related to our
lives today? 4 Aesthetic: What does it look like? What does it sound like? What
appearance does it make? What patterns and configurations? How does it impress
you? 5 Hands on: What is it actually like to be this thing, to do this thing? If
you’re studying evolution, what is it like to breed Drosophila? If you’re studying
democracy, what’s it like to be in a group that decides by consensus as opposed to
one that decides by autocracy, oligarchy or some other political principle?
6 Personal: Can you integrate this topic through debate, role play, projects, jigsaw
participation and other joint interactions? (p. 142)
Scholars Schumacher and Kennedy (2008) list several pros and cons, or drawbacks to student-centered teaching. The authors conducted a study that revealed teachers who implemented student-centered found that this type of instruction involved a lot of preparation work. The teachers had questions of how to divide time between lecture and group work and what to do with at-risk student that retreated and postponed learning, Student-Centered Instruction 12 in which, the teacher suspected may or may not happen at a later time. The drawbacks are that student-centered takes a lot of classroom time and teachers felt compelled to cover all the concepts outlined in the standards. When choosing to implement student-centered instruction most teachers will find they have embarked on a journey which has life changing implications for both the teacher and the student but mainly for the students.
Student Outcome
Evidence has shown that many teachers have found with student-centered learning, students are learning the skills necessary for critical thinking, problem-solving, and becoming responsible citizens. Student-centered classrooms empower students and give them a voice, making them responsible for their work and actions (Johnson, 2001).
McWhorter et al. (1996) research shows that focusing on individual student learning connects cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and constructivism, in which, all of the concepts mentioned positions the students in the center. Johnson also contends these concepts are the inevitable product of constructivist thinking.
As cited by Rutledge (2008), Klionsky, Lawson, and Lord reported on studies that revealed the effectiveness of student-centered, active learning strategies in promoting meaningful learning, retention of content, improved student attitude and the development of critical thinking skills. The use of Howard Gardner’s six approaches appears to support the implementation of student-centered instruction by offering two advantages. One advantage is more likely to reach all students and the second advantage is gives the opportunity to model what it’s like to be an expert. With all of the positive research and evidence of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching, still very few teachers are Student-Centered Instruction 13 implementing this type of instruction within classrooms. Research has claimed many benefits to using student-centered instruction at the secondary level. According to
McWhorter and Hudson-Ross student-centered reduces competition, encourages students to work together, builds classroom communities, and allows students to become partners in the classroom in which the teacher operates as facilitator, collaborating with students on decisions that are to be made.
While these benefits serve to offer many benefits of building life-long skills necessary for students to function in the real world, Chall (2000) found that student- centered failed to produce increased academic achievement for all students. Chall found that traditional teacher-centered approach yield higher academic achievement within all social classes and race, for students with disabilities, and with at-risk students. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds were found to show greater achievement when taught with traditional methods. These students lacked the readiness skills necessary to move forward academically at a young age. As the students moved up in grade level, it became more apparent that the students were not performing at grade level. The low functioning students and students from low-income families were found to thrive better in a more traditional setting due to lack of knowledge content. Students from middle-class or higher-class distinction proved to perform at a higher achievement level with the progressive (student-centered) approach, possible due to home factors and exposures.
Chall (2000) reported on teachers’ experiences with student-centered instruction. The teachers had implemented methods that are favored by student-centered but the results lead to sleepless nights for one teacher and lower reading achievement scores. Another Student-Centered Instruction 14 teacher experienced disruptive behaviors in classes which were only managed by returning to traditional teacher-approach instruction.
Self-Reflection and Student Affect
Scholar Passman (2000) discovered that when teachers were faced with the pressure of high-stakes assessments, they felt compelled to stick with a traditional classroom setting and teacher-directed instruction. Teachers often are afraid to take risks and try something new. Teachers are afraid to do the very thing students are asked to do daily—to take a risk. On the other hand the scholar, Aaronsohn (1996), found that the problem does not always lie with the teacher feeling pressured and resorting back to traditional instruction but the main reason was the lack of support. Many teachers have reported that they have tried it and when it didn’t work out they went back to the only teaching method they were most familiar with which was traditional instruction.
Aaronsohn (1996) completed a case study to prove that with support and effort, student- centered instruction works for the both the student and the teacher. In this case study,
Aaronsohn documented her experience with a teacher who taught high school English in a teacher-centered manner felt she was not fully meeting students’ needs. The teacher in the case study began to implement methods that would allow the students to construct their own meaning.
The scholar, Aaronsohn reported on the frustrations and isolation from colleagues felt by the teacher and also on the resistance of the students when more responsibility of learning was placed onto the students. The teacher in the study reported that at times she struggle to stay back when the students complained about the responsibility given to them but she continued to try despite how hard it was. Also the teacher in the case study felt Student-Centered Instruction 15 without the support of her mentor, Aaronsohn, she would have resorted back to traditional instruction. The conclusion of the case study proved success for both the teacher and the students. The longer the teacher committed to student-centered, the less pressure she felt and she actually liked it and enjoyed her work. And more importantly the students no longer resisted but instead moved in the groups cooperatively and began working without having to be told what to do. The case-study teacher went on to supervise more student teachers and hold workshops for others who believed that student student-centered methods could work in high schools.
Chall’s (2000) research study that focused on what really works in classrooms, found that when looking at non-academic attitudes; there was little difference in how teachers and students felt when comparing traditional and student-centered instruction. In fact, Chall (2000) came across “descriptive reports of the education of low- socioeconomics-status children, from early 1900’s to the present, notes that parents of these children voiced serious objections to having their children educated in schools that followed an informal, student-centered approach” (p. 172). Chall also included facts on how the two instructional approaches affected the educational policy. During the years
1995-1996, five out of seven books on education and educational policy were reviewed and were found to all favor the greater effectiveness of the traditional approach. Scholars
Stevenson and Stigler (1992) found that Japanese children who were taught using a traditional instructional approach liked school better than U.S. children who were taught using a progressive (student-centered) instructional approach. While there were many, including parents and students, who favor the traditional teaching approach, there were many who were highly committed “that a progressive (student-centered) approach is best Student-Centered Instruction 16
—for a democracy and for the social and emotional well-being of the child, as well as for academic progress” (Chall, 2000, p. 178). As concluded in her book, Chall reported on an eight-year study of high school students, which found no significant difference between a progressive or traditional approach, but the small differences that were found seemed to favor the progressive, student-centered approach.
In conclusion, there will be new and veteran teachers opposed to student-centered instructions, there are teachers who are willing to take the risk and try something different. Student-centered instructors should know they are not alone in what they are feeling. It will take some time to undo all the years of traditional instruction taught. The key is to gradually introduce the new method and reflect on any issues that may arise.
Teachers should also seek out other teachers who feel the same way they do, who are willing to take a risk on implementing student-centered instruction, as a support system to ensure success of the transition. Evidence has shown teachers who decided to make the transition, with the help of a support system or mentor, ended successfully. Student-Centered Instruction 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This action research focused on the effectiveness of using student-centered instruction at the secondary level in a science class within the exceptional education setting. Of the four types of action research described by Cher Hendricks (2009), classroom action research is the research that was employed for the focus of this study.
Hendricks defines classroom action research as “a form of action research that is conducted by teachers in their classrooms with the purpose of improving practice. It values the interpretations that teachers make based on data collected with their students
(p. 10).” Hendricks elaborates on the systematic process which involves ongoing reflection and a series of steps that continuous spiral beginning with reflect, act, evaluate, reflect, act, evaluate. According to Hendricks, action research uses both data collecting methods, quantitative and qualitative, to identify and study a problem being tested by an investigator.
Eileen Ferrance (2000) defines action research as a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systemically and carefully, using the techniques of research. Ferrance describes the steps in the action research process as identify the problem, gather data, interpret data, act on evidence, evaluate results, and next steps (p.
9) which involves identifying additional questions raised by the data and plan and plan for additional improvements, revision, and next steps (p. 13). Ferrance lists the benefits to action research as a 1) focus on school issue, problem, or area of collective interest, 2) form of teacher professional development, 3) collegial interactions, 4) potential to impact school change, 5) reflect on own practice, and 6) improved communication (pp.13-15). Student-Centered Instruction 18
Setting
This action research took place in a Georgia high school located in Troup County.
At the time of the study, I taught in Exceptional Education working with students who have Severe Emotional Behavior Disorders. I chose to complete my study within my science classroom to improve my educational practice. A request for permission to complete this action research was submitted to the coordinator of the program and to the superintendent of the school system. Both parties approved the action research study.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects were students enrolled in behavior modification program which services students with severe emotional behaviors disorders located in a rural county in
Georgia. The behavior modification program services students from grades P-12, enrolled in the public school system in surrounding counties. All subjects meet and qualify for exceptional education with severe emotional behavior disorder eligibility. The population within the program is majority African American and Caucasian boys ranging in age from fifteen through twenty-two. All subjects in the program were scheduled for classes based on the classes needed to satisfy graduation requirements, available space, and preferential scheduling. The subjects who are participating in this action research were registered for the class I teach by the program’s lead teacher.
The participants in this action research consisted of one mixed-race girl age fifteen, one African-American girl age sixteen, and two Caucasian girls one age nineteen, the other sixteen. The remaining eighteen participants are five African-American males— three age fifteen and the remaining two age sixteen, twelve Caucasian males one age Student-Centered Instruction 19 fifteen, four age sixteen, three age seventeen, two age eighteen, and one age twenty, and one mixed-race male age seventeen.
All participants currently function below grade in reading and math with the exception of one sixteen year old male student who is functioning near grade level in math and above grade level in reading. Although participants scored in the low to low average range on administered achievement tests, they are able to function successfully on various classroom assignments with and with accommodations and modifications. The participants will be divided into subgroups based on mixed-ability grouping based on teacher observation, teacher-made tests, and achievement test scores from most currently achievement testing.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) express that a need to know the information must be established before students become motivated to learning the material taught. So, choosing concepts that are relevant to students’ real life would seem the logical first step in implementing the focus of this research—student-centered instruction or any type of instruction. When students can answer the questions: “What does this have to do with me?” or “How can I apply this to my real life?” only then will they become highly interested in what they are doing. A sense of purpose is then created. Once the appropriate motivating activities are chosen, the investigator can began to concentrate on the method needed to carry out the instruction of choice, which in this action research will be student-centered instruction.
After choosing the research topic and researching the literature, a method of organizing the data should be created. A data shell (see Table 3.1 below), allows the Student-Centered Instruction 20 researcher to list any data to be used to support research findings. The data shell also serves as a graphic organizer categorizing the collected data to its key focus question.
Table 3.1 Data Shell Focus Question Literature Type of How these Rationale Sources Method, Data, data are Validity analyzed How can teachers McWhorter Type of Qualitative: Qualitative: Looking implement student- & Hudson- Method: Coded for for categorical and centered instruction Ross Instructional themes aligned repeating data that in a secondary (1996), plan, Rubric, with focus form patterns of exceptional education Johnson, B. and interview questions behaviors classroom? (2003), Felder, Type of Data: R.M.(n.d.) qualitative
Type of Validity: Content, What effects does Rutledge, Type of Quantitative: Quantitative: To student-centered M. (2008), Method: Descriptive determine if there are instruction have on Chall, Behavior chart, and inferential significant differences students’ learning Jeanne S. Teacher –made Statistics, between means from within exceptional (2000), tests independent t- two independent education classroom? Hargrove, (pre/posttest), test groups. T.Y. and science Nesbit, C. notebook (2003) Type of Data: interval
Type of Validity: Content, What are teacher and Passman, Type of Quantitative: Quantitative: To student attitudes R. (2000)., Method: Chi Square determine if there are about student- Chall, Surveys, significant differences centered instruction Jeanne S. Reflective between means from in the secondary (2000), Journal, focus Qualitative: two independent exceptional education Aaronsohn, group journal Coded for groups. classroom E. (1996), questions themes aligned environment? with focus Desire to find what Data: questions questions (items) are Nominal significant (and which ones are not). Type of Validity: Qualitative: Looking Construct for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors Student-Centered Instruction 21
An instructional plan (see Appendix A) was then created which includes everything that is relevant to the activities which will be implementing during the action research. After the completion of the instructional plan, an experienced colleague evaluated the content of the instructional plan for validity using a rubric (see Appendix
B) and offered written feedback. The initial feedback received was not as in-depth and did not offer specific information which could be important to the success of the research.
Hence, I sought another colleague experienced in the field of the content I chose to implement. I used the same instructional plan and rubric and completed a taped interview which provided specific key information and ideas which validated that the chosen activities were good activities that apply real-world concepts.
Richard Felder (n.d.) describes three methods used to implement student-centered instruction. The three methods are active learning, cooperative learning, and inductive teaching and learning which is also known as inquiry-based learning, case-based instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery learning, and just- in-time teaching. Cooperative learning is the method chosen to implement student- centered instruction for this action research. The practical steps provided by Johnson
(2003) corroborate the method of implementation of student-centered instruction described by Felder. Johnson informs investigators that implementation should begin with planning with the end in mind (plan backwards). Next, he suggests starting small and using groups. Assessment should be authentic and carried out in the form of projects and portfolios. Cooperative learning is also discussed by McWhorter and Hudson-Ross
(1996) as being an effective method for connecting the focus on individual students’ learning. As mentioned by the previously mentioned authors, cooperative learning will be Student-Centered Instruction 22 used and the participants will be assessed on their final projects, which fall into the category of inquiry-based and discovery learning (project-based learning). The students will also science notebooks as communicative devices related to final assessment on the cooperative learning project.
The action research was implemented by first administering a pretest (see
Appendix C) to set a basal level of performance for each participant. The pretest was designed based on the state standards for the coverage of the curriculum unit. The control group was administered traditional instruction. The traditional lesson was administered for approximately seven days followed by the same posttest (see Appendix C). As conducted with the control group, a pretest for Activity One (see Appendix D) was administered based on state standards for the curriculum unit. Also on day one, an overview of the research was given along with instructions on the use of the science notebooks (Hargrove & Nesbit, 2003) (see Appendix E). Day two, students were given a copy of cooperative learning assignment and instructions. The assignment and instructions were reviewed before placing students in their pre-assigned cooperative groups. The cooperative groups were facilitated from that point on. This initial part of the action research lasted for approximately three days. On the fifth day, students were administered the same Activity One post test on the coverage of the curriculum implemented.
The second week of the research, participants will be introduced to another cooperative learning project which will follow the same implementation pattern as the previous week. Students were given a pretest for Activity Two followed by the same posttest (see Appendix F). Rutledge describes research studies in which student-centered Student-Centered Instruction 23 instruction was very effective in improving student attitudes along with developing critical-thinking skills. Johnson (2000) describes student-centered instruction as an effective tool for empowering students and making them responsible for their work and actions; therefore, a chart documenting cooperative and participatory behaviors (see
Appendix G) was used to determine whether the instruction had any effect on student behavior. This chart was used throughout the research.
The final day of research, participants were administered a survey (see Appendix
H) to assess participants attitudes about the student-centered instructional method implemented. Scholar Chall describes research in which students and parents favored the progressive instructional method over traditional instruction. Hence, additional data were gathered using focus group journal questions (Morton, 2008) (see Appendix I) to determine level of engagement of participants. I also completed a daily reflective journal
(see Appendix J) to assess attitude about instructional methods implemented. Aaronsohn
(1996) found that reflecting on daily experiences gave her insight on the effectiveness of her practice.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias
When determining the effectiveness of any instruction, W. James Popham (2008) states that we must first have a clear understanding to what the terms mean even if we do not apply them on a day to day basis. Validity is defined as meaningfulness and trustworthiness of your data influenced by design and methods of research (three measures –content, construct, criterion). Validity, stressed by Popham (2008), “is the most significant concept in assessment” (p. 48). Popham reiterates that “the more evidence of validity we have, the better we’ll know how much confidence to place in our Student-Centered Instruction 24 score-based inferences” (p. 53). Reliability is when research can be repeated with consistency. The goal is to minimize errors and biases so that study (not results) can be replicated. Reliability influences validity. Dependability is closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency. Assessment bias refers to qualities of an assessment instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students because of students’ gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such group-defining characteristics (Popham, 2008, p. 73). Although no one can be fully objective, research should be free of unfair, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias.
This study, using participants selected to control for confounding variables, shows dependability in the researcher’s ability to maintain well organized data. It establishes a chain of evidence which connects the research question to theory to all focus questions to conclusions. The study also provides complete and accurate supporting data.
Dependability was also shown in writing a detailed method section located in this section of the thesis. The first focus of this action research was to test how to implement student- centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education classroom. Therefore, an instructional plan was developed to ensure that all instructional components were included that would cover both aspects of meeting the needs of students with disabilities and as well as incorporating student-centered instruction. A rubric was designed to assess the instructional plan which was analyzed by a colleague to ensure content validity was present. Qualitative data were gathered through an in-depth recorded interview based on the answers constructed on the instructional plan rubric.
The second focus question was to look at student outcome. Teacher-made pretest and posttest, science notebooks, and behavior charts to were used to collect data. The Student-Centered Instruction 25 teacher-made pretest and posttest were analyzed for reliability using a dependent t-test to determine if there were significant differences between the groups tested. I analyzed this at a significant level of p<.05. Popham (2008) refers to the use of test-retest as a way to show reliable consistency of test results over time. When constructing assessments,
Popham also points out that “all classroom teachers routinely need to use absence-of-bias as one of the three evaluative criteria by which they judge their own assessments and those educational assessments developed by others” (p. 92). The interval data collected from the pretest and posttest supports the dependability of the procedures and assessments implemented during the study. The science notebooks and behavior charts were used also used to establish a chain of evidence connecting the research question to the focus question and to provide complete and accurate supporting data which helped to determine absence of unfair, offensive, or disparate impact bias.
The last focus of the research was to assess how the students felt about the instructions used. Construct validity was determined through the journal prompts that were answered daily by the researcher and through a Likert scale and open-ended focus group journal questions answered by the participants. The qualitative data from the reflective journal, focus group journal questions, and surveys show that data collection and treatment are kept consistent and the control of the data collecting setting. The open- ended focus group journal questions will provide a way for interviewee’s transcripts to be checked for accuracy. The use of open-ended focus group journal questions also shows evidence of the participants selected to control for confounding variables. The qualitative data gathered were used when determining the absence of unfair, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias. Student-Centered Instruction 26
Analysis of Data
The first focus of this research was to find out how student-centered instruction could be implemented or taught in a secondary exceptional education classroom. A qualitative analysis was conducted for this part of the study. An instructional plan, instructional plan rubric, and an interview were designed to evaluate this focus. In looking for categorical and repeating data that forms patterns of behaviors, the rubric produces qualitative data coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. The instructional plan produced qualitative data which reveal if the length of time for data collection is persistent and prolonged.
A quantitative analysis to determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice was conducted for the second focus question of the research when looking at student outcome using a dependent t- test. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. The results of the pretest to posttest were analyzed using an effect size R calculation. The decision for effect size was set at small effect size, r=0.1-0.23; medium effect size, r=0.24-0.36; and large effect size, r=0.37 or larger.
The third question focused on self reflection and student affect. A qualitative analysis was conducted in order to determine categorical and repeating data that forms patterns of behaviors. At the end of the study, the students were given a Likert scale survey to reveal the attitudes of the instructional methods used. A Chi Square was used to find what questions (items) were significant (and which ones were not). Reflective journals and open-ended focus group journal questions were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. As a part of the cooperative learning project, students recorded their findings in a science notebook. Also, a behavior chart was used to Student-Centered Instruction 27 document behaviors seen throughout the study which will be used to determine if the particular instruction had any effect on students’ behavior.
Looking at the study holistically, validation was reach by consensual validation of the study provided upon approval by the faculty advisor. Epistemological validation was shown in the comparison of the results to the literature viewed. Credibility was shown through structural corroboration through the use of various methods was used within the study. Fairness was determined by representing opposing point of view. Rightness of Fit was established in showing that great care was taken to provide precision and accuracy to ensure presentation of a tight argument, coherent case, and strong evidence to assert judgments. Transferability of this study shows referential adequacy and can be duplicated by others and easily used for future research. This study also proves it is transformational through catalytic validity in that it causes a positive change or transformation for researchers and others. Student-Centered Instruction 28
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This study explored Student-centered Instruction or Direct-teacher Instruction:
Which is most effective? The qualitative data were expressed through the results of an instructional plan rubric, science notebooks, student survey, teacher reflection journal, and focus group journal questions. A Chi-Square and Cronbach’s Alpha were used to analyze the results of the student survey. The results were examined for thematic occurrences associated with students’ academic achievement, engagement, attitudes, and behaviors in reference to student performance in relation to student-centered instruction.
The quantitative data were expressed through the results of pretests and posttest scores and behavior charts. The results were examined to identify patterns in student performance and level of engagement when the variable of instructional method was introduced. A dependent t-test was used to analyze the results of the pretest and posttest administered. The results are organized according to the three focus research questions addressed in this study: implementation of student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education science classroom; affects of student-centered instruction on students’ learning within exceptional education classroom; teacher and student attitudes about student-centered instruction in the secondary exceptional education classroom environment.
Focus question one: How can teachers implement student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education science classroom? An instructional plan and instructional plan rubric was used to gather data. Emerging themes of standards coverage, student relevance, appropriateness of activities for all students was coded for the student-centered instructional experience identifying the effectiveness of the Student-Centered Instruction 29
instruction. To begin the study, an instructional plan was developed in backward design
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) which included the activities, enduring understandings and
standards of my collaborative learning activities. A rubric was also created which was
used to assess the instructional plan. Qualitative data was obtained from an interview
with Teacher One with more than 15 years experience in exceptional education and
Teacher Two with more than 15 years experience in regular education. Each teacher was
asked the same set of open-ended questions (see Figure 1) to address the criteria listed
within the rubric.
Figure 4.1 Instructional Plan Rubric Open-ended questions
Instructional Plan Rubric: Open-ended Questions
Does the essential question address the enduring understanding?
In what ways can the use of instructional technology be improved?
Are there other materials that would be appropriate?
To what degree are the needs of special learners being met?
Do the assessments align with the standards stated?
Are there other assessments that would yield better data?
Does the concept yield relevance to student’s learning?
When answering the first open ended questions about the instructional plan,
Teacher One stated “the essential question(s) appropriately addresses the enduring
understanding” Teacher One suggested the use of the promethean board as a way to
improve technology. When asked “Are there other materials that would be appropriate?”
Teacher One answered, “The material list appears to be complete and appropriate.” Student-Centered Instruction 30
Additional qualitative data were sought to address focus question one; hence, a second interview was conducted. During the interview, Teacher Two was asked “Does the essential questions for the student-centered activities addressed the enduring understanding”. The interviewer responded, “Yes, they do.” Teacher Two asked, “Could you tell me about the applying the knowledge of constructing a fast roller coaster. What materials are you using there?” The interviewer recited the list of materials that would be used to construct a fast roller coaster. Teacher Two suggested, “You could use an accelerometer to measure the acceleration of the roller coaster and have the students graph the data.” Teacher Two was also asked “Are these good activities for student- centered instruction and if not could you suggest some activities? Teacher Two responded, “Yes, these are good activities which students can apply to their everyday life.”
Focus question two: What affects does student-centered instruction have on students’ learning within exceptional education classroom? Behavior charts and teacher– made tests (pre/posttest) were used to gather quantitative data when addressing this focus question. Science notebooks were used to gather qualitative data as well. The first method used for obtaining quantitative data is the behavior charts. Students were observed for the emergence of three specific behaviors: engaging in positive peer interactions, engaging in on-task behavior with another student, and active participation.
The students were observed in 10 minute intervals which began after the tardy bell rung which signifies that class has started. At the end of each 10 minute period students were observed for the three behaviors listed above. If the behavior was present, the students were given a 1 and if the behavior was not displayed, students were given a 0. At the end Student-Centered Instruction 31 of the study, the number of 1 and 0 were totaled together, then each behavior category was counted to gain a percentage of the behavior displayed or not display overall.
The overall finding for teacher-centered (traditional) instruction was 82 percent of the time students were actively participating with the lesson while 8 percent of the time students were non-participants. When students’ attention moved away from the teacher, 3 percent of the time the student was engaging in off-task behavior with another student which did not pertain to the lesson while 1 percent of the time students engaged in on- task behavior with another student. Also when students completed work earlier than others, 5 percent of the time the student was engaging in positive peer interaction with another student while 1 percent of time students were engaging in behavior that was not positive. The overall finding for student-centered instruction was 80 percent of the time students actively participating and 10 percent were not actively participating. When students’ attention moved away from the teacher, 9 percent of the time the student was engaging in off-task behavior with another student which did not pertain to the lesson.
When students’ interacted with one another, 1 percent of the time students were engaging in interaction with peers that was not positive.
The second data gathering method used to gain quantitative data for focus question two was a teacher- made pretest and posttest. To determine if there were significant differences between means from the pretest and posttest, a dependent t- test was used to analyze the results. Emerging themes of student engagement and academic retention level was coded for student achievement. The first instructional variable used was teacher-direct instruction. Students were taught in traditional style in which they were seated individually, given lecture and notes, used a textbook, and provided a study Student-Centered Instruction 32 guide. Students were tested at the beginning of the lesson and retested on the same information at the end of the lesson.
According to the dependent t-test (refer to Table 4.1) used to analyze the data, the test of significance for the pretests and posttest was t (13) = 2.96, p<.05. This means that the obtained value of the test, 2.96, was greater than the critical value of 1.77; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. There was significant difference between the pretest and posttest administered. The effect size (magnitude) of the difference was at .39, which falls within the medium range, showing there was less in common with the pretest and posttest test groups in terms of gains and losses.
Table 4.1 – Dependent t-test for Teacher-directed Instruction
Dependent t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Pretest Posttest Mean 32.85714286 46.42857143 Variance 152.7472527 374.7252747 Observations 14 14 Pearson Correlation 0.488027561 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 13 t Stat -2.961749925 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.005510095 t Critical one-tail 1.770933383 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.011020191 t Critical two-tail 2.160368652
*t (13) = 2.96, p<.05
The reliability statistic between the two test groups, r = .48, showed a moderate relationship between direct-teacher instruction and student academic achievement.
When looking at the statistical significance of student-centered pretest and posttest, the results of the dependent t-test revealed t(13)= 1.59, p>.05 for Activity One
(see Table 4.2). The obtained value, 1.59, was less than the critical value, 1.77, which Student-Centered Instruction 33 shows no significant difference between what occurred on the tests and what would occur by chance; therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The reliability statistic, r=.43, showed moderate relationship between student-centered instruction and academic achievement. The effect size of the test scores was medium, .34, showing that there was moderate magnitude in the difference in the means of the two tests in terms of the instruction administered and test score gains or losses.
Table 4.2 – Dependent t-test for Student-centered Instruction Activity One
Dependent t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Activity One Pretest Posttest Mean 22.35714286 29.35714 Variance 118.5549451 71.63187 Observations 14 14 Pearson Correlation -0.431374205 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 13 t Stat -1.594879141 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.06737618 t Critical one-tail 1.770933383 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.13475236 t Critical two-tail 2.160368652
*t(13)= 1.59, p>.05
The test of significance for the pretest and posttest for Activity Two is t(12)= 2.45, p<.05, as shown in Table 4.3. The obtained value, 2.42, was higher than the critical value,
1.77; therefore; the null hypothesis was accepted. There was significant difference between the pretest and posttest for activity two. The reliability statistic, r = .67, interprets a strong relationship between this student-centered activity and student achievement. The effect size of the test scores was medium, .25, and showed moderate Student-Centered Instruction 34 magnitude in the difference in the means of the two tests in terms of the instruction administered and test score gains or losses.
Table 4.3 – Dependent t-test for Student-centered Instruction Activity Two
Dependent t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Activity Two Pretest Posttest Mean 33.71428571 26.35714 Variance 186.6813187 207.9396 Observations 14 14 Pearson Correlation 0.673260084 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 13 t Stat 2.420657511 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.015433531 t Critical one-tail 1.770933383 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.030867061 t Critical two-tail 2.160368652
*t(13)= 2.42, p<.05
The last data gathering method for focus question two was used to gain qualitative data. The students were provided the use of science notebooks during the student- centered implementation of this study. The students were very reluctant to use the science notebooks and had to be directed often to use them. The data reflected from the notebooks were very minimal and only revealed basic knowledge of what the students were doing at that moment. One student wrote, “It took me a while to get into it. It was all right.” Another student wrote, in response to activity one, “Oh!! I liked this activity.
Thanks Ms. Jones.”
The third focus question: What are teacher and student attitudes about student- centered instruction in the secondary exceptional education classroom environment? The data gathering methods used was the teachers’ reflective journal, student survey on student-centered instruction, and focus group journal questions. To obtain qualitative Student-Centered Instruction 35 data, a set of questions were construct to guide teacher daily reflections. The reoccurring theme appeared to be lack of teacher preparation, the students relying heavily on the teacher for guidance, more behavior disruptions due to less structure, and more engagement and desire to participate. On day one of teacher-directed instruction I wrote in the teacher’s journal reflection, “Everything was covered today. A lot of students were off task”. The students put no real effort into focusing on the lesson for academic success; they only completed the work because it was required. During the student-centered instruction I wrote, “…was not prepared with set up—classroom serves as a lab room, classroom is small and I teach other subjects.” When working in exceptional education in the area of severe behavior disorders, the teacher to student ratio is 12:2 (one teacher, one assistant); therefore, since we are self-contained and have to teach multiple subject areas.
On the day the second student-centered activity began, I wrote, “The students enjoyed working together. Students who started off somewhat off task became more interested...
Students did not want to do the writing part of the project.” The students became more engaged with the hands-on activities. I also recorded, “A couple of students were off task.”
For both types of instructional methods used, students showed off-task behavior which is often undetermined as to when certain behaviors may or may not occur with students who are diagnosed with characteristics of severe emotional behavior disorders.
An entry in the teacher’s reflection journal states that “The students really enjoyed the lesson and wanted to explore more. They knew more than I expected.” The students were more engaged and eager to participate appropriately in the hands-on activities. Student-Centered Instruction 36
A student survey was created to rate students’ attitudes about student-centered instruction. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about student-centered in the classroom and what they gained academically from becoming a member of the inquiry and cooperative learning community. An example of the rating scale used can be seen below in Figure 2.
Figure 4.2 – Student Survey Rating Scale
The Rating Scale: 4 ☝☝ I strongly agree with this statement.
3 ☝ I agree with this statement.
2 ☟ I disagree with this statement.
1 ☟☟ I strongly disagree with this statement.
A Chi Square was used to analyze the data obtain from the study. The first set of statements is viewed in Table 4.4 below. The alpha level was set at p<.05 (95%), 5 % chance of being wrong; p<.01 (99%), 1% chance of being wrong; p<.001 (99.9), 1 in
1000 chance of being wrong. Student-Centered Instruction 37
Table 4.4 – Chi-Square-Learning Implications of Student-Centered Instruction
LEARNING IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING. n = 38 χ2 Item 1. I have learned to form ideas with more confidence. 8.42 * Item 2. I have learned to participate regularly. 14.35** Item 3. I am more motivated to learn. 12.87** Item 4. I have learned to enjoy this subject matter more. 14.35** Item 5. I have gained self-confidence as a student. 10.65* Item 6. I remember information better. 6.94 Item 7. I can link information together better. 14.35** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
When answering questions about learning implications of student-centered and inquiry/cooperative learning, the trend of significance showed that a high percentage of the students answered in a closely related manner on this set of survey questions with most students choosing strongly agree or agree for the items stated. Item one, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students learning to form ideas with more confidence. Item two, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students participating regularly, meaning there was a 1% chance of being wrong about whether or not students would participate when student-centered instruction was implemented. Item three, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ motivation to learn. Item four, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students learning to enjoy the subject matter more. Item five, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between student- centered instruction and students gaining self-confidence; there was a greater chance of being wrong about whether or not student-centered instruction contributed to this feeling. Student-Centered Instruction 38
Item six showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and remembering information better. Item seven, p<.01, show there was also a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students being able to link information together better. Questions 2, 3, 4, and 7 showed the greatest significant trends when p < .05, .01, and .001, meaning that there was a high percentage of students that strongly agreed or agreed with the impact that student-centered learning made on how they learn.
The trend seemed to follow the same pattern when students were asked to apply their experience to literacy implications of student-centered classroom and inquiry/cooperative learning. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about speaking, writing, and listening in class following the practice of classroom questioning and multiple intelligences. Table 4.5 shows the results of these findings.
Table 4.5 Literacy Implications of Student-centered Instruction
LITERACY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING. n = 38 χ2 Item 1. I communicate more clearly. 15.83*** Item 2. I can debate more confidently. 8.42* Item 3. I can form opinions more confidently. 10.65* Item 4. I can make predictions more confidently. 4.72 Item 5. I am more motivated to listen, learn, and participate. 12.87** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Survey item one, where p<.001, showed there was a very significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students communicating more clearly. As student-centered instruction increases, students are more likely to improve their communication skills overall. Item two, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ ability to debate more confidently. Item three, p<.05, showed that there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and Student-Centered Instruction 39 students being able to form opinions more confidently. Item four showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and students being able to make predictions more confidently. Students appeared to remain less confident in their prediction skills. Item five, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered and students’ willingness to listen, learn, and participate. The data continued to trend at the top of the scale with more participants choosing strongly agree or agree when reflecting on how student-centered impacted the literacy aspect of their learning.
Participants were asked to rate their overall confidence and motivation in their academic life to address the personal academic and communication implications of student-centered classroom and inquiry/cooperative learning (see Table 4.6 ). Item one, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and confidence level overall as a student. Item two, p<.001, showed there was a very significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ participation level overall in all classes. More participants are more likely to increase participation in all classes. Item three showed there was no relationship between student-centered instruction and students asking more questions overall in all classes. Item four, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and student motivation overall in classes. Item five, p<.05, also showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students feeling they have more investment in the discovery of new information in classes. The data trended with the greatest amount of participants choosing strongly agree and agree when student-centered instruction impacted their personal academic and communication aspects of learning. Student-Centered Instruction 40
Table 4.6 Personal Academic and Communication Implications
PERSONAL ACADEMIC AND COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING. n=38 χ2 Item 1. I feel more confident overall as a student. 12.87** Item 2. I participate more often overall in my classes. 20.28*** Item 3. I ask more questions overall in my classes. 2.5 Item 4. I am more motivated overall in my classes. 9.91* Item 5. I have more investment in the discovery of new information in my classes. 10.65* *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Lastly, the participants were asked to rate their self-confidence when interacting with their academic peers, family and friends as well as their motivation to share their knowledge to address the cultural implications of student-centered classroom and inquiry/cooperative learning. Table 4.7 showed there was significance with Item one when p<.05, there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ self-confidence to communicate clearly about classroom discoveries with their academic peers, family, and friends. Item two showed a very significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ having the motivation to teach their academic peers, friends, and family the material they learned when p<.001. Item three, p>.05, showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and if students will think about what they will communicate and how they will communicate outside of school.
Item four, p>.05, also showed there was no relationship between student-centered instruction and students’ self-confidence and motivation to be an active citizen in a democracy of informed citizens. When looking at the data trend for cultural implications, at times there was a high amount of students who strongly agreed but there was also a Student-Centered Instruction 41 high amount of students who disagreed on several of the implications when student- centered instruction impacted the cultural aspects of their life.
Table 4.7 Cultural Implications of Student-centered Instruction
CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY /COOPERATIVE LEARNING. n = 38 χ2 Item 1. I have the self-confidence to communicate clearly about classroom discoveries with my academic peers, family, and friends. 9.17 * Item 2. I have the motivation to teach my academic peers, friends, and family the material I have learned. 15.83*** Item 3. I think about what I will communicate and how I will communicate outside of school. 7.68 Item 4. I feel self-confident and motivated to be an active citizen in a democracy of informed citizens. 5.46 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Also, to determine internal consistency reliability of the student-centered survey given to students, a Cronbach’s Alpha was used. The Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine whether the test items were consistent with one another in that they represent one, and only one, dimension, construct, or area of interest (Salkind, 2010). The
Cronbach’s Alpha was α = 0.91, therefore, the survey showed a high level of reliability.
The focus group journal questions was not applied for this project because of the destabilizing of this group dynamics of low frustration level and cohesiveness; however this may be a technique that may prove beneficial of future research on student-centered instruction within an exceptional behavior disorder class.
Overall, the quantitative data discussed in this chapter, as a result of the action research study, did not produce significant results from implementing cooperative learning activities as a form of student-centered instruction. On the other hand, the qualitative data showed a positive effect from using cooperative learning activities with students with severe emotional behavior disorders. Further analysis of this study is Student-Centered Instruction 42 provided in Chapter Five providing discussion on the inconsistencies observed, along with the implications of the study, the impact on student learning, and recommendations for future research. Student-Centered Instruction 43
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Analysis
This section analyzes the results of each focus question in detail as it relates to the main research question of this study. Focus question one was stated as follows: How can teachers implement student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education science classroom? The data gathering methods for this focus question one were an instructional plan, an instructional plan rubric, and an interview. All data gathering methods for this focus question were analyzed for qualitative data and coded for themes aligned with the focus question. Overall, based on the collection of data from the instructional plan, instructional plan rubric, and the interview from Teacher 1 with more than 15 years experience special education and Teacher 2 with more than 15 years experience in regular education of the instructional plan, I found that the implementation of student-centered instruction in an exceptional education classroom was not as successful as hoped in increasing student achievement academically; although, findings did lead to more engagement and cooperative learning among the participants. The literature suggests that students are more involved in taking responsibility for their own learning when they can establish what the concepts have to do with them. Once the students established relevance, they became more engaged in learning.
The second focus question was stated as follows: What affects does student- centered instruction have on students’ learning within exceptional education classroom?
The data gathering methods were pretest and posttest, behavior charts, and science notebooks. Quantitative data were analyzed by dependent t tests and calculated percentages of tally marks on the behavior chart. Qualitative data from entries in the science notebooks was also analyzed. Based on the data gathered from the pretest and Student-Centered Instruction 44 posttest, behavior charts, and science notebooks, student understandings of the concepts showed no significant difference between student-centered instruction and teacher- directed instruction, but there was significance in student engagement and confidence level. Overall, the effectiveness of student-centered instruction on increasing student achievement academically and behaviorally was somewhat positive and negative.
When researching the effectiveness of student-centered instruction, the same process was used for implementing both the control method and the experimental method of the action research. A pretest was given, then the treatment, followed by a posttest.
The participants were grouped heterogeneously according to ability. In the beginning, the participants were not happy with the grouping but as they continued with the activities new friendships formed. The students showed more engagement in what they were doing and were willing to problem solve on their own. Many students showed an increase in positive peer interaction. Although there were positive aspects of student-centered instruction, there were also negative aspects. Some of the negative aspects of student- centered instruction were that there were arguments with peers taking over another student’s role and students not actively participating.
When looking at behavior, three aspects were considered. Students were observed for engaging in positive peer interaction, engaging in on-task behavior with another student, and active participation. Student’s behaviors were recorded on a behavior chart and were recorded in intervals every ten minutes. Overall students showed they were actively participating at least 90 percent of the time for both instructional methods which shows that the students did not favor one method over the other. The students also participated in using a science notebook (see Appendix F) to record information during Student-Centered Instruction 45 the student-centered instruction of the action research. The science notebooks revealed that the students only had minimal knowledge of content area. During the course of the research, students had to be encouraged to record information in science notebooks and it was stressed that the science notebooks were a requirement of their project.
The third focus question was stated as follows: What are teacher and student attitudes about student-centered instruction in the secondary exceptional education classroom environment? The data gathering method used for focus question three was student surveys, teacher journal reflection, and focus group journal reflection. A Chi
Square was used to obtain quantitative data to determine if there was a significant difference between means from two independent groups. Overall the participants seemed to trend with a high number of students strongly agreeing and agreeing with the how they felt about student-centered instruction.
Qualitative data was obtained from daily teacher reflection journal to look for categorical and repeating data that forms patterns. Overall, I found out that the attitudes of the students on student-centered instruction in increasing student achievement academically and behaviorally was positive; although the attitude of the teacher met with some disappointment. Based on the data gathered from the teacher’s daily reflection journal and student’s surveys student highly favor student-centered instruction in regards to overall implications to their learning, literacy, personal academic and communication, and cultural aspects. The focus group journal questions was not applied for this project because of the destabilizing of this group dynamics of low frustration level and cohesiveness; however this may be a technique that may prove beneficial of future research on student-centered instruction within an exceptional behavior disorder class. Student-Centered Instruction 46
At the end of the study, one female participant stated, “I’m glad you didn’t let me change my group, I got to know James and he’s pretty cool. So thank you, Ms. Jones.”
That newly forged relationship continues today, weeks after the research project has ended. James who usually does not interact with his peers has made a new friend and appears to be more self-confident. He also talks about his days of when he talked to no one and how long it took him to talk to anyone. Another participant stated, “This was a good activity. When are we going to do some more projects?”
The action research implemented somewhat proved and disproved what the current literature states. The research also modified what the current literature states when taking into account the severe disabilities of students within the exceptional education spectrum of the education continuum. Scholar Felder (n.d) described several methods that could be used to implement student-centered instruction in the classroom.
The method chosen for this action research was cooperative learning, which proved to be similar to what the scholars stated this method would provide. Felder described cooperative learning as students working in teams on problems or projects under conditions that assure both positive interdependence and individual accountability. This method provided a sense of interdependence and accountability with the participants.
Scholar Bil Johnson (2001) also stated student-centered classrooms empower students and gives them a voice, making them responsible for their work and actions. The participants felt a sense of self-confidence and motivation with performances within school and outside of school as a result of the student-centered instruction implemented.
Bil Johnson listed steps to take when implementing student-centered instruction which included beginning with the end in mind and using authentic assessments in the form of Student-Centered Instruction 47 projects and portfolios, which was mentioned by Felder and McWhorter & Hudson-Ross.
The use of backward design instructional plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) proved to give an overview of the lessons to be used.
From an educator aspect, this action research proved similar to the literature by
Schumacher and Kennedy (2008) and Chall (2008) who state that teachers who implemented student-centered instruction found it to involve a lot of preparation work, physically and mentally. Such teachers resorted back to direct-teacher (traditional) instruction. As recorded on one of my teacher reflection days, I recall saying that the research period would have easier if I was better prepared. Although the scholars mentioned that the teachers had question of what to do with at-risk students, my study was completely comprised of students who were all at-risk. This is where I feel my study modified or disproved the scholars’ claim. The student-centered instruction should incorporate activities that relevant to all students and students should be strategically grouped to encourage the highest level of motivation possible.
A similarity, in this action research, was found with the literature by Chall when reviewing the results of the pretests and posttests. Student-centered instruction approach did not yield higher academic achievement as expected for students with disabilities, at- risk students, or student from low socio-economic backgrounds which I taught. Chall found that direct-teacher (traditional teacher-centered) approach yield higher academic achievement with students of that nature. Also similarly, Rutledge (2008), who cited
Klionsky, Lawson, and Lord reported on studies that revealed the effectiveness of student-centered instruction in promoting improved student attitude which is what I found with the participants in my action research. Student-Centered Instruction 48
A difference I encountered compared to the literature of Passman (2000) is that when teachers are faced with high-stakes testing pressures, teachers resorted back to traditional teaching instructions. Although there are a lot of pressures involved with this type of instructional practice, Aaronsohn (1996) found in a study that proved with support and effort, student-centered instruction works for both the student and the teacher. I feel students should be given every opportunity to increase personal academic success on all levels; therefore, incorporating both types of instructional practices may yield better results for special needs students. When concluding this action research, I found similar evidence as Chall (2008), that there was no significant difference between a student-centered (often called progressive) instructional approach and teacher-directed
(traditional) instructional approach.
Discussion
The purpose of this action research was to find a way to help students within the exceptional education classroom increase academic achievement. I focused on the students who have severe emotional-behavior problems; therefore, my study included the aspects of students’ behaviors. The finding from the interviews about the instructional plan was positive. Teacher One assessed the instructional plan more from an exceptional educator point of view and found that the activities addressed the standards and a connection of relevance was made to the students. Teacher One also stated that appropriate accommodations were addressed to assist students within exceptional education. Teacher Two, who is a general education teacher whose content area is science, responded the same as Teacher One in respect to whether the activities were relevant to the students and if they addressed the standards and accommodations of Student-Centered Instruction 49 special needs students. Teacher Two went a step further by giving tools that could refine the activities chosen. Hence, the unit of study and activities chosen contributed greatly to guide the action research process on student-centered instruction.
The action research was implemented and began with instruction in direct-teacher instruction (the control method). The students were given a pretest followed by the treatment then a posttest. The results from the pretest and posttest showed small gains.
Upon the completion of the implementation of teacher-directed instruction, student- centered instruction was implemented. The students were given a pretest and posttest based on one cooperative learning activity followed by another cooperative learning activity which began and ended with a pretest and posttest. Both cooperative learning pretest were followed by the treatment and concluded with a posttest. The results from the pretest of Activity One showed small gains but the results of Activity Two showed a decline in score from the pretest to the posttest. Some students’ scores on the pretest were lower than their posttest scores.
The subjects participating in this action research are all in exceptional education and have severe emotional behavior disorders. Not all the students in this program are functioning on a below average grade equivalence but the major of the students are. So the students who are already functioning below average grade equivalence may experience difficulty with any form of instruction, which showed to be the case with my study. Although the subjects in this action research function on various grade levels, all have disabilities that affects the emotional and behavioral aspects of their life which strongly interferes with their ability to be successful within the learning environment. The inconsistencies of these students’ emotionalities also affected the outcome of the Student-Centered Instruction 50 students’ behaviors. There were many days during the research time frame students were not present during the research time due to in-school or out-of-school suspension or just unable to attend the class due to trouble in other classes which put them in a bad mood.
Due to severe emotional disabilities of the students, many of the students’ performances were greatly affected which produced lower test scores.
Even though my assessment was not what I expected, I had to reflect back on the literature on implementing student-centered in the classroom, I found this study to be very beneficial. Aaronsohn (1996) completed a detailed case study that proved with support and effort, student centered instruction works for both the student and the teacher. The students have to be taught how to rely on constructing their own meaning and rely less on the teacher to give them all the answers. The literature stated how difficult this is starting out and how many teachers see student-centered as being too much work and many teachers often give up. At the end of this action research, I concluded that a combination of both student-centered and teacher-directed instruction works best for the subjects who have severe emotional behavior disorders. The students needed the stability and structure of teacher-directed instruction due to the emotional and behavioral disabilities, and the students also needed the connections made through the use of hands-on cooperative group activities which could optimize students’ abilities within the classroom environment.
This study provided structural corroboration by ensuring credibility through the use of the instructional plan rubric and interviews to assess the instructional plan that would be implemented to address focus question one. When addressing focus question two, credibility was achieved by using behavior charts, teacher-made pretests and Student-Centered Instruction 51 posttests, and science notebooks. And lastly, credibility was achieved when addressing focus question three by using student surveys and daily teacher reflection journals.
Fairness was presented with scholars who opposed the thesis focus of student-centered instruction of being most effective when increasing student achievement academically and behaviorally. Scholars Passman (2000) and Chall (2008) both reported similarly that either student-centered fail or teachers resorted by to traditional instruction or that there was no difference in students’ achievement when taught in student-centered approach or teacher-direct approach. The purpose of this paper was to determine which instructional approach was more effective in increasing student achievement academically and behaviorally. I created and implemented an action research study which resulted in an answer to the study. The data gathered through the use of various methods from the study offered valuable insight to both instructional approaches implemented; therefore, I made a coherent case. The evidence provided in this study also proves sufficiently strong to assert a judgment which shows that Rightness of Fit was established.
Implications
The quantitative findings showed there was no significant difference between teaching students in student-centered instruction or teacher-directed instruction when it comes to increasing academic achievement within an exceptional education classroom of students with severe emotional behavior disorders. Some of the major themes uncovered were more overall self-confidence in personal areas and school subjects, increased interest in the content area, new friendships or positive connections formed, and a desire to learn. Student-Centered Instruction 52
This study was important in finding what works well for students within the exceptional education programs especially students who have severe emotional behavioral disorders. There are many students who suffer from similar disabilities which affect the learning environment. Educators who come in contact with students with disabilities will find this action research useful when beginning to implement student- centered instruction within the classroom environment.
This study will help educators see how focusing on the students can lead to increasing self-confidence, connectedness to others and their lives, cooperative participation, critical thinking skills, and overall better school performance. This study help the subjects to make connections with others whom they would not have otherwise, to want to participate in the activities, to share their knowledge and listen to others, to be excited about their class assignments, and to be eager to take responsibility for their own learning. The study also helped me to see the balance that is needed for the student to remain motivated. I’m looking at ways of implementing small lectures and pairing it with a hands-on activity to be implemented as often as possible.
Impact on Student Learning
This action research made a small impact on my students’ learning academically and behaviorally. The students in the study experienced both types of instruction and were able to see what works best for them. For some students the impact was greater and for others, there was no impact at all. The quality of student’s learning was improved by providing hands-on cooperative learning activities in which they could make connections to their everyday lives. The students were able to construct an understanding for the concept they needed to learn with the help of their peers and critical thinking skills. Student-Centered Instruction 53
Although the tests showed no significant difference, there were inconsistencies with the small improvements or gains that were made.
Some students in the study also made improvements behaviorally through increasing self-confidence and making positive connections and working well with peers, while others showed inconsistency with behavior issues prior to and during the research time period. Many students found they gained more interest in the subject area and the class and stated that they felt comfortable discussing what they learned with their peers, friends, and family.
Recommendations for Future Research
My recommendations for future research would be to combine both instructional practices for daily implementation. A balance of teacher-directed instruction in the form of a small lecture in whole group and student-centered instruction using a hands-on method could possible yield better results for special needs students within exceptional education. Given more time to implement the study, students could use more time in learning how to use the science notebooks. Although some situations within my field of work could not be avoided, making kits of the materials needed to be close at hand and aid in fast clean-up would also be helpful in reducing the stress of the educator allowing more focus to be on facilitating and monitoring students’ learning. Student-Centered Instruction 54
References
Aaronsohn, E. (1996). Going against the grain. Supporting the student-centered teacher.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Chall, J. S. (2008). The academic achievement challenge. What really works in the
classroom. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Felder, R.M. (n.d.). Student-centered teaching and learning. Retrieved from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/RMF.html
Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education. Action research. Providence, RI: Brown
University.
Gardner, H. (2006). The development education of the mind: the selected works of
Howard Gardner. Retrieved from http://www.netlibrary.com.relay.lagrange.edu/
Hammerman, E. (2008, May). Science for real life. Principal Leadership, 8(9), 35-39.
Retrieved from Research Library. (Document ID: 1501074371).
Hargrove, T.Y. and Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: tools for increasing
achievement across the curriculum. ERIC digest. Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-4/notebooks.htm. (ED482720)
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research. A comprehensive
guide for educators. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Johnson, B. (2003). The student-centered classroom handbook: A guide to
implementation. (1). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College. Student-Centered Instruction 55
McWhorter, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (1996). Student-centered literacy instruction in high
school: I want to, but how? Instructional Resource No. 29. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (Accession No. ED398556)
Morton, B. (2008). Engaging students in technology: using student-centered and
interactive video instruction. Retrieved from http://www.waukee.k12.
ia.us/easonelementary/computers/Portolio/artifacts/actionresearchpaper.pdf
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at Brown Univ. (2001). Student-
centered high schools: Helping schools adapt to the learning needs of
adolescents. Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(Accession No. ED463588)
Passman, R. (2000). Pressure cooker: Experiences with student-centered teaching and
learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(Accession No. ED440146)
Popham, James W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th Ed).
Boston: Pearson.
Rutledge, M. (2008). Effectiveness of elements of a diversified instructional approach in
an introductory biology course. Bioscience: Journal of College Biology Teaching,
34(1), 24-29. Retrieved from ERIC database. (Accession No. EJ859821)
Salkind, N.J. (2010). Statisitics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Student-Centered Instruction 56
Schumacher, P., & Kennedy, K. T. (2008). Lessons learned concerning a student centered
teaching style by university mathematics professors from secondary school
educators. Education, 129(1), 102-109. Retrieved from Eric database. (Accession
No. EJ816975)
Stevenson, R. and Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Expanded 2nd Edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ/Alexandria, VA: Pearson Education Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development. Student-Centered Instruction 57
Appendix A
INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN STAGE 1—IDENTIFYING DESIRED RESULTS
Unit Title: Density & Buoyancy Course Title: Physical Science Forces and Motion, Reflection
GPS Standards: SPS8b, c, d; SCSh3.c, e; SCSh4.c; Date/Length of Unit: 4 Weeks SPS9.d; SCSh3.e Established Goals: Build and calibrate a hydrometer that will help determine how much cargo a model ship can carry without sinking in fresh water. Apply knowledge of forces and motion to design and construct a fast roller coaster. Learn how images reflect in a mirror, and apply this understanding to construct a periscope. Understandings: Essential Questions: Students will understand… Salinity is a measure of the dissolved solutes in a How can the salinity of a body of water predict the liquid. buoyancy and density of an object? A liquid’s density is affected by its salinity. How does today’s increased population and industrial use The buoyancy of a solution increases as its impact the oceans? salinity increases. How can forces be used to make objects move, change The greater the salinity of a solution is, the direction, or stop? higher the hydrometer will float. How is the motion of an object related to the size of the The concepts of acceleration and velocity. object and the amount of force that is applied to the The forces that act on an object, such as gravity, object? friction, and centripetal force. What is gravity and how does it affect things on the earth? How do simple machines make work easier for people? Energy and energy conversions and how the How does the light reflect? conversions affect the motion of the ball bearing. Can reflection help us see around corners? How reflection works and how angles play a role in how reflection works. Reflective properties. Students will know… Students will be able to… Density SPS8.b. Apply Newton’s three laws to everyday situations Salinity by explaining the following: inertia, relationship between Buoyancy force, mass, and acceleration, and equal and opposite Forces and motion forces. Gravity SPS8.c. Relate falling objects to gravitational force. Friction SPS8.d. Explain the difference in mass and weight. Centripetal force SPS9.d. Investigate the phenomena of reflection, Energy and energy conversions refraction, interference, and diffraction. Reflective properties SCSh3.e. Develop reasonable conclusions based on data Graphs and charts collected. SCSh4.c. Use technology to develop, test, and revise experimental or mathematical models. Student-Centered Instruction 58 Appendix B
Rubric for Evaluating Instructional Plan Criteria Describe & State Open-ended Questions Essential How can the salinity of a body of water predict the buoyancy and density of an object? Does the essential question address the Question (s) How does today’s increased population and industrial use impact the oceans? enduring understanding? How can forces be used to make objects move, change direction, or stop? How is the motion of an object related to the size of the object and the amount of force that is applied to the object? What is gravity and how does it affect things on the earth? How do simple machines make work easier for people? How does the light reflect? Can reflection help us see around corners? Instructional Computer, science notebooks, hands-on projects In what ways can the use of instructional Technology technology be improved? Materials Plastic drinking straws, modeling clay, scissors, pencils, thumbtacks, test tubes, permanent marker, Are there other materials that would be plastic/paper cup, triple-beam balance, pennies, paper towels, support stands and clamps, ball bearing, appropriate? stack of books, meterstick, stopwatch, pocket-sized mirror, graph paper, masking tape, and protractor. Accommodations Student will be arranged in heterogeneous, small groups based on ability level. To what degree are the needs of special for special needs Directions will be read aloud. learners being met? Extend time will be given. Standards SPS8.b. Apply Newton’s three laws to everyday situations by explaining the following: inertia, Do the assessments align with the covered relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, and equal and opposite forces. standards stated? SPS8.c. Relate falling objects to gravitational force. SPS8.d. Explain the difference in mass and weight. SPS9.d. Investigate the phenomena of reflection, refraction, interference, and diffraction. SCSh3.e. Develop reasonable conclusions based on data collected. SCSh4.c. Use technology to develop, test, and revise experimental or mathematical models. Assessment Each group member should write a research and design report in his or her own science Are there other assessments that would (formative) notebook. yield better data? Each group member should be able to explain how a hydrometer works and how the group arrived at a solution. A contest between other roller coaster designs in the class. Each group member should be able to discuss what was successful and what was unsuccessful in the research, design, and performance stages of this project. Constructed periscope Each group member should be able to explain the connection between angles and what is seen in a mirror. Relevancy to A liquid’s density is affected by its salinity. Does the concept yield relevance to children The greater the salinity of a solution is, the higher the hydrometer will float. student’s learning? The forces that act on an object, such as gravity, friction, and centripetal force. How reflection works and how angles play a role in how reflection works. Student-Centered Instruction 59
Appendix C
Pretest/Posttest- Ch. 21 Magnetism
Name ______Date______Period ______1. A device that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy is a(an) a. electric motor b. generator c. transformer d. solenoid
2. Which of the following measures small amounts of current? a. solenoid b. electromagnet c. galvanometer d. electric motor
3. The force a magnet exerts on another magnet is called a. magnetic force. b. magnetic field. c. magnetization. d. repulsion.
4. Which property would you want to increase in transmitting electrical energy as efficiently as possible over long distances? a. current b. voltage c. resistance d. all of the above
5. What property of an alternating current does a transformer change? a. power b. energy c. voltage d. force
6. A ferromagnetic material is best defined as any material that a. has unpaired electrons. b. is always a magnet. c. contains iron. d. can be magnetized.
7. Which of the following statements about magnetic fields is FALSE? a. The magnetic field is strongest near the center of the magnet. b. Field lines begin at a magnet’s north pole and extend toward its south pole. c. The arrows on field lines indicate what direction a compass needle would point. Student-Centered Instruction 60
d. Field lines close to one another indicate a strong magnetic field.
8. Electric force is caused by charged particles, and magnetic force is caused by a. charged particles b. the repulsion between objects. c. the spin of electrons. d. the movement of charged particles.
9. A charged particle is moving across a page from left to right as it enters a magnetic field that runs from top to bottom. How will the motion of the particle be changed as it enters the magnetic field? a. It will accelerate. b. It will deflect either up or down. c. It will deflect either into or away from the paper. d. Its motion will not be affected.
10. Where is the field of a magnet strongest? a. near the north pole b. near the south pole c. near both poles d. near the middle
11. If you cut a magnet in half, you have a. no magnets. b. two half magnets. c. one magnet. d. two magnets.
12. A magnet’s field lines always start near the magnet’s a. middle b. south pole. c. north pole. d. side.
13. An iron bar is placed in a solenoid to a. decrease the voltage. b. increase the voltage. c. increase the magnetic field strength. d. decrease the magnetic field strength.
14. Which of these cannot increase the strength of an electromagnet? a. making the loops smaller in the coil b. placing an iron bar in the coil c. winding more loops in the coil Student-Centered Instruction 61
d. increasing the current in the coil
15. A transformer increases or decreases a. energy. b. resistance. c. voltage. d. direct current.
16. The Earth has a magnetic field most likely because: a. the atmosphere contains oxygen b. charged particles in the core move in circular paths c. it is so close to the Sun d. it orbits the Sun
17. In which direction will the free moving magnet on the left move as a result of the one on the right being brought close?
S N N S
a. left b. right c. up d. down
18. A straight current-carrying wire produces a. an electric field b. a magnetic field c. beams of white light d. matter
19. An electric generator is a device that converts a. nuclear energy to electric energy b. wind energy to electrical energy c. energy from burning coal to electric energy d. All of the above
20. The part of a magnet where the magnetic field and forces are strongest is called a a. magnetic field b. magnetic pole c. magnetic attraction d. magnetic repulsion Student-Centered Instruction 62
Appendix D
Pretest/Posttest--Density and Buoyancy
Name Class Date
1. A resting object exerts pressure equal to a. its mass times its contact area. b. its weight times its contact area. c. its mass divided by its contact area. d. its weight divided by its contact area.
2. Compared to the pressure exerted by a brick standing on its end, the pressure exerted by a brick resting on its side is a. the same. b. less c. more. d. twice as much.
3. The amount of water pressure you experience while swimming in a pool depends on a. your buoyancy. b. the area of the pool. c. the volume of water in the pool. d. how deep you are in the water.
4. Which of the following is NOT true about the SI unit of pressure? a. It is used for fluids only. b. It is called a pascal. c. It is equal to one Newton per square meter. d. It represents force per unit area.
5. Blaise Pascal discovered that changes in pressure a. are transmitted equally throughout a fluid. b. increase with depth of fluid. c. decrease with depth of fluid. d. depend on area.
6. In a hydraulic lift system, the output force is greater than the input force because a. a larger pressure acts on the output piston. b. a larger pressure acts on the input piston. c. the fluid pressure acts on areas of different sizes. d. of Bernoulli’s principle. Student-Centered Instruction 63
7. Which of the following is NOT true about Bernoulli’s principle? a. The pressure within a moving fluid is greater than the pressure within a nonmoving fluid. b. As a fluid’s speed increases, the pressure within it decreases. c. When a moving fluid slows, the pressure within it increases. d. It helps explain the lift of an airplane.
8. The buoyant force acting on a submerged object is equal to a. the object’s mass. b. the object’s volume. c. the mass of the fluid displaced by the object. d. the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.
9. A partially submerged object floats when a. the object’s weight is equal to the buoyant force. b. the object’s mass is equal to the buoyant force. c. the object’s weight is greater than the buoyant force. d. the buoyant force is downward.
10. A submarine changes depth by altering its a. speed. b. density. c. total area. d. shape.
11. Tow identical beakers are both half-filled with a liquid. Beaker A contains water and Beaker B contains a liquid that is denser than water. Which of the following is FLASE? a. The pressure at the bottom of Beaker B is greater than that at the bottom of Beaker A. b. The pressure within each fluid is exerted equally in all directions. c. The mass of fluid in Beaker B is greater than the mass of fluid in Beaker A. d. The mass of fluid in Beaker A is greater than the mass of fluid in Beaker B. e. The volume of fluid in Beaker B is equal to the volume of fluid in Beaker A.
12. When air is blown between two balls suspended from strings, the balls come together and touch. This is explained by a. Archimedes’ principle. b. Pascal’s principle. c. The Pauli exclusion principle. d. Bernoulli’s principle. e. the hydraulic principle.
Short Answers Student-Centered Instruction 64
13. What is the formula for finding density?
14. How does buoyancy affect the apparent weight of an object in a fluid?
15. What determines if an object will float or sink in a fluid? Student-Centered Instruction 65
Appendix E
WHAT ARE SCIENCE NOTEBOOKS?
Shavelson (2001, p. 2) defines a science notebook as "a compilation of entries that provide a partial record of the instructional experiences a student had in her or his classroom for a certain period of time". Not only do science notebooks provide information about classroom experiences, they imitate the journals that actual scientists use as they explore the world. Through writing in science notebooks, students engage in authentic scientific thinking as they carry out their own investigations. Science Notebooks include a question to explore, predictions, a description of what was done, and what students learned. In addition, they may incorporate narrative statements and drawings about the student's observations, data sets, diagrams, graphs and tables.
While there is a need to conduct additional research on this topic, the following characteristics seem to make the implementation of an active science program using science notebooks a viable way to collect assessment data from multiple areas of the curriculum:
* Most of the work done in the notebook is descriptive or narrative. The qualitative nature of the notebook provides the teacher with insightful information about what students truly understand.
* The notebook is centered around authentic tasks such as collaborating, researching, analyzing and evaluating.
* The work done in the notebook is purposeful. Students are investigating their own questions in which they are genuinely interested.
* There is seldom one right answer or conclusion. In fact, it is not uncommon for the teacher to "discover" alongside the student.
* Other stakeholders are involved, primarily the student. Assessment of the science notebook is used to provide insight to students about how they learn and to inform the teacher of what the student needs next. Notebooks also serve as an excellent resource to demonstrate growth to parents-growth not only in science, but in multiple areas of the curriculum.
With the implementation of science notebooks, students become actively involved in their own learning. Students are afforded the opportunity to investigate content in which they are naturally interested and to wrestle with authentic problems. It only makes sense that achievement is enhanced in all areas of the curriculum. Student-Centered Instruction 66
Source: Hargrove, T.Y. & Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: Tools for increasing achievement across the curriculum. ERIC digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-4/notebooks.htm. (ED482720) Student-Centered Instruction 67
Appendix F
Pretest/Posttest--Forces and motions
Name______Date ______Period______1. Which is not a force? a. friction b. gravity c. momentum d. weight
2. You push on a box and are unable to move it. What force opposes your push? a. static friction b. rolling friction c. sliding friction d. air resistance
3. Air resistance depends on a. the velocity of a moving object. b. the weight of a moving object. c. the mass of a moving object. d. the inertia of a moving object.
4. What force besides gravity acts on a projectile? a. weak nuclear b. electrical c. magnetic d. air resistance
5. Newton’s first law of motion is sometimes called the law of a. inertia. b. conservation. c. momentum. d. resistance.
6. A change in which of the following affects the weight of an object? a. momentum b. velocity c. acceleration due to gravity d. friction
7. Which represents Newton’s second law? a. v = d b. a = F t m
c. F = mv d. F = 0
8. For every action force there is a a. reaction force. b. net force. c. friction force. d. unbalanced force.
9. Momentum depends upon a. force only. b. velocity and friction. Student-Centered Instruction 68
c. weight and mass. d. mass and velocity.
10. What force holds the nucleus together? a. magnetic b. strong nuclear c. gravitational d. centripetal
11. If an object is at rest, which of the following statements MUST be true? a. There are no friction acting on the object b. There is no friction acting on the object c. The forces acting on the object are unbalanced d. The net force acting on the object is zero
12. How would your mass and weight change if you were on the moon’s surface? a. They wouldn’t change. b. Your mass would remain constant and your weight would increase. c. Your mass and weight would decrease. d. Your mass would remain constant and your weight would decrease.
13. A force that continuously changes the direction of an object to make it move in a circle is a a. centripetal force. b. magnetic force. c. static force. d. radial force.
14. What is inertia? a. the force of gravity acting on an object b. forces of friction slowing an object’s motion c. the mass of an object d. the tendency of an object to resist change in its motion
15. A red Velcro ball is rolling towards a stationary blue Velcro ball of the same mass. The balls will stick together upon contact. How will the red ball’s velocity after contact compare to its initial velocity? (In this collision the law of conservation of momentum is obeyed.) a. The red ball’s velocity is the same as before. b. The red ball’s velocity is the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction. c. The red ball’s velocity is half its initial velocity and in the same direction. d. The red ball’s velocity is double its initial velocity and in the opposite direction.
16. A 3,600-N force causes a car to accelerate at a rate of 4 m/s2. What is the mass of the car? a. 600 kg Student-Centered Instruction 69
b. 900 kg c. 14,400 kg d. 1,200 kg
17. Which of the following is NOT a type of friction? a. static friction b. sliding friction c. fluid friction d. pull friction
18. Momentum is a. the rate at which an object’s acceleration changes. b. the reaction force that accompanies every action force. c. an object’s mass multiplied by its acceleration. d. an object’s mass multiplied by its velocity.
19. A stationary figure skater pushes off the boards around an ice skating ring an begins gliding backwards away from the boards. Which law explains why the figure skater moves backwards? a. the law of conservation of energy b. the law of inertia c. Newton’s second law d. Newton’s third law
20. Which of the following statements about gravitational forces is FALSE? a. They are the weakest universal force. b. They act between any two objects. c. They become stronger as the distance between two objects increases. d. They become weaker as the mass of either of the two objects decreases.
21. In which direction does Earth’s gravitational force act? a. opposite the direction of motion b. downward toward the center of Earth c. upward away from the center of Earth d. in the direction of motion
22. What are the only forces that can both attract and repel? a. electromagnetic forces b. centripetal forces c. strong nuclear forces d. gravitational forces Student-Centered Instruction 70
Appendix G
Behavior Chart Group ______Date ______(Give a 1 for displaying behavior and 0 for not displaying behavior)
Behavior Engaging in Engaging in on- Active T T
positive peer task behavior Participation a o l t l a y Student interaction with another l student
Total Tally for behavior
***Behavior checked every 10 mins. with preset timer not noticeable to students Student-Centered Instruction 71
Appendix H
STUDENT SURVEY
On these pages you will be asked to rate how you feel about student-centered in the classroom and what you have gained academically from becoming a member of the inquiry and cooperative learning community.
The Rating Scale: 4 ☝☝ I strongly agree with this statement.
3 ☝ I agree with this statement.
2 ☟ I disagree with this statement.
1 ☟☟ I strongly disagree with this statement.
Select ONE of the following for each prompt in each category.
A.LEARNING IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
1. I have learned to form ideas with more confidence. 4 3 2 1
2. I have learned to participate regularly. 4 3 2 1
3. I am more motivated to learn. 4 3 2 1
4. I have learned to enjoy this subject matter more. 4 3 2 1
5. I have gained self-confidence as a student. 4 3 2 1
6. I remember information better. 4 3 2 1
7. I can link information together better. 4 3 2 1
B. LITERACY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
On this page you will be asked to rate on how you feel about speaking, writing, and listening in class following the practice of classroom questioning and multiple intelligences.
1. I communicate more clearly. 4 3 2 1 Student-Centered Instruction 72
2. I can debate more confidently. 4 3 2 1
3. I can form opinions more confidently. 4 3 2 1
4. I can make predictions more confidently. 4 3 2 1
5. I am more motivated to listen, learn, and participate. 4 3 2 1
C. PERSONAL ACADEMIC AND COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
On this page you will be asked to rate your overall confidence and motivation in your academic life.
1. I feel more confident overall as a student. 4 3 2 1
2. I participate more often overall in my classes. 4 3 2 1
3. I ask more questions overall in my classes. 4 3 2 1
4. I am more motivated overall in my classes. 4 3 2 1
5. I have more investment in the discovery of new 4 3 2 1 information in my classes.
D. CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY /COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
And finally, in this section you will be asked to rate your self-confidence when you interact with your academic peers, family and friends as well as your motivation to share your knowledge.
1. I have the self-confidence to communicate clearly about classroom discoveries with my academic peers, family, and friends. 4 3 2 1 2. I have the motivation to teach my academic peers, friends, and family the material I have learned. 4 3 2 1 3. I think about what I will communicate and how I will communicate outside of school. 4 3 2 1 4. I feel self-confident and motivated to be an active citizen in a democracy of informed citizens. 4 3 2 1
Appendix I Student-Centered Instruction 73
Focus Group Journal Questions – Student –centered Instruction-Engaged Students
Student comprehension of science concepts while being taught using student-centered methods of teaching and learning. 1. Why was learning on your own your choice for learning science concepts?
2. Explain some benefits with constructing learning on your own?
3. Explain some challenges with constructing learning on your own?
4. How did learning on your own help you effectively learn science concepts?
5. What did learning on your own provide to better help you learn science concepts?
6. What additional help, if any, did you need after learning science concepts on your own?
7. Anything else to add in regards to learning science concepts on your own to better understand science concepts?
Focus Group Journal Questions – Student –centered Instruction-Disengaged Students Student comprehension of science concepts while being taught using student-centered methods of teaching and learning.
1. Why was learning on your own not your choice for learning science concepts?
2. Explain some benefits with learning science concepts using student-centered instruction?
3. Explain some challenges with learning science concepts on your own?
4. How did learning on your own not help you effectively learn science concepts?
5. What did learning on your own not provide to better help you learn science concepts?
6. What additional help, if any, did you need after learning science concepts on your own?
7. Anything else to add in regards to learning science concepts on your own to better understand science?
Source: Morton, B. (2008). Engaging students in technology: Using student-centered and interactive video instruction. Retrieved fromhttp://www.waukee.k12.ia.us/eason ia.us/easonelementary/computers/portfolio/artifacts/actionresearchpaper.pdf Student-Centered Instruction 74
Appendix J
Reflective Journal Questions
Class Date Strategy 1. What were three main things I learned from this session? 2. What did we not cover that I expected we should? 3. What was new or surprising to me? 4. What have I changed my mind about, as a result of this session? 5. One thing I learned in this session that I may be able to use in the future is... 6. I am still unsure about... 7. Ideas for action, based on this session...
8. What I most liked about this session was... 9. What I most disliked about this session was... 10. Miscellaneous interesting facts I learned in this session...