The Effect of Differentiation on Homework: Completion and Comprehension

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.

John David Osborne

Certificate of Approval:

______

Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D. Associate Professor & Thesis Co-Chair Assistant Professor & Thesis Co-Chair Education Department Education Department The Effect of Differentiation on Homework: Completion and Comprehension

A thesis submitted

John David Osborne

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 25, 2011 Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of differentiated homework by incorporating it into a sixth grade world geography curriculum. Data collected from 65 students were analyzed using dependent t-tests to ascertain if differentiated homework increased completion and comprehension. A Chi Square was also used to analyze an attitudinal survey, to which 98 students responded. The results indicated that differentiated homework had a significantly greater impact on student learning than no homework at all. The mean score of the treatment post test was a 68 and a 51.2 for the non-treatment. Seventy-six percent of students reported that they like to choose the type of homework they do. The inclusion of differentiated homework generated positive results in the classroom. iii

Table of Contents

Abstract …………………………………………………………..……………………….iii

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………iv

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………v

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………1 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………….1 Significance of the Problem ……………………………………………………….1 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks …………………………………………..2 Focus Questions ……………………………………………………………………4 Overview of Methodology …………………………………………………………4 Human as Researcher ………………………………………………………………5

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ………………………………………………………6 Differentiating in the Curriculum …………………………………………………………………6 Homework Motivation ……………………………………………………………….8 Response to Differentiating .…………………………………………………………….11

Chapter 3: Methodology ……………………………………………………………………….16 Research Design …………………………………………………………………….16 Setting ………………………………………………………………………………17 Subjects and Participants …………………………………………………….17 Procedures and Data Collection Methods …………………………………………..18 Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias …………………………………………………21 Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………………..24

Chapter 4: Results …………………………………………………………………..26

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results ……………………………………………34 Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………34 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………….37 Implications ……………………………………………………………………….39 Impact on Student Learning ……………………………………………………….40 Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………..40

References …………………………………………………………………………………42

Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………..46 iv

List of Tables Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell……………………………………………………………18

Table 4.1 Dependent t-test for Treatment Pre/Post Assessments..…..……….. 27

Table 4.2 Dependent t-test for Non-treatment Pre/Post Assessments………….29

Table 4.3 Dependent t-test of Post/Post Assessments ..………………………..30

Table 4.4 Chi Square for Student Survey………………………………………31 Differentiating Homework 5

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

When the word homework is used in classrooms throughout the United States, it conjures different responses and expectations. When homework is assigned, students must decide how to optimally manage their time, in order to successfully complete the task. Additionally, issues of homework quality and student motivation should also be considered. Homework is used to reinforce what was taught and to introduce new concepts to be expanded upon in the class. However, some “critics led by parents argue that teachers are requiring students to spend too much of their out-of-school time completing tedious, repetitious, and boring homework assignments that have little or no impact on their ability to learn” (Simplicio, 2005, p.138). Motivation was a key factor in establishing consistent homework completion. If a person expressed interested in doing something, then logically he or she would be more likely to complete a task than not.

Homework quality had a positive effect on student motivation (Trautwein, Ludtke,

Niggli, & Schnyder, 2006). The purpose of this research was to test whether differentiated homework assignments increased completion and had a positive effect on assessment scores.

Significance of the Problem

Some of the causes related to the lack of homework completion were various distractions; such as television, cell phones, and noise from other family members. Also, after-school activities may have influenced homework motivation by putting a tight constraint on the time left in the day. The lack of clearly understanding what was Differentiating Homework 6 expected or how to complete the homework assignment were also problematic. By not completing homework, students immediately saw the negative outcome in their homework grade. This negative impact could have translated into lower motivation in the classroom and could have even led to behavioral problems. According to Trautwein and Ludtke (2007), students who tried their best with their homework have been found to have a positive relationship with student achievement. Trautwein and Ludtke also found that students who had a favorable perception of the quality of homework showed more effort in doing the homework than those who did not share the same view. It is important for educators to remain focused on keeping school relevant and engaging for the individual student. The goal should not have been to create the perfect lesson or homework assignment, but rather to have created the most fluid or flexible one. Teachers should consider planning homework assignments that could bring a sense of ownership for the student by reaching multiple learning styles through differentiation.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The following research on homework differentiation smoothly transitioned into

LaGrange College Education Department’s [LCED] (2008) Conceptual Framework tenet number 1 on creating learning that “is both enjoyable and rigorous” (p.3). The main focus of this research was to motivate students by actively engaging them whereby they had a stake or choice in the matter of their homework assignment. The predicted outcome was that a higher quality of homework would manifest in the class and that the students would parlay this in the effort they demonstrated. Domain 3 of Georgia’s

Framework for Teaching was also adhered to by creating learning environments that encouraged self-motivation, as well as NBPTS proposition number 1 that stated teachers Differentiating Homework 7 are committed to the students and learning (LCED, 2008). LCED’s tenet number 2 further supported the study by stating that “while constructivism is not a prescriptive theory for curriculum, there are certain strategies that promote the creation of active learning environments. What seems to work best are methods that are cooperative and collaborative in nature and that are characterized by differentiated instruction…” (LCED,

2008, p.5). The process of homework differentiation was also supported by Georgia’s framework domain number 2, which proclaimed that it was important to support the intellectual development of all students (LCED, 2008). By differentiating homework instruction, the teacher provided the students with multiple ways of taking their prior knowledge and injecting it with their new experiences from the classroom.

Constructivism’s view suggested that students build upon their knowledge by utilizing their own experiences in correlation with the newer experiences taught in the classroom.

In preparing differentiated instruction, careful planning on the part of the teacher was necessary in order to maximize the effectiveness for the student. As further exemplified by LCED (2008), “solid preparation by candidates before instruction not only increases student achievement, but it also reduces inappropriate classroom behaviors” ( p.7). Also, the second tenet suggested that “one must think, first, like an assessor and, then, like a curriculum planner” in designing compelling lessons (LCED,

2008, p. 6). Domain number 5 of Georgia’s framework coincided with this by promoting teachers to create instructional experiences based on the curriculum, students, and teacher’s knowledge (LCED, 2008). In addition to vigilant planning, the teacher analyzed the significance of the return and adjusted the homework assignment so that it maximized educational fulfillment for the student. This corresponded with tenet three Differentiating Homework 8 that “candidates reflect on the effects of choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals) to improve their own practices” (LCED, 2008, p.9). NBPTS proposition number 4 followed this tenet by instructing teachers to think in a methodical way about their profession and to learn from one’s own experience (LCED, 2008).

Focus Questions

The implementation of this research was guided by three focus questions. The first question sought to answer (1) how is differentiation in homework incorporated into the curriculum. How student outcomes were measured was centered on the question (2) how does differentiated homework assignments increase completion and comprehension?

In what ways was this approach beneficial was addressed with the question (3) how did students respond to differentiated homework assignments?

Overview of Methodology

The quantitative aspect of the action research in how differentiation affected homework completion and comprehension was centered on collecting interval data from pre/post assessments with and without the treatment of differentiated homework from one group of students. The data were analyzed using dependent t-tests and collected over a period of several weeks. The exact numbers came from homework grades that gauged the completion and quizzes (announced) that reflected retention of the material that the homework reinforced or introduced. The qualitative data were collected from a reflective and observational journal, and an instructional plan with rubric were analyzed by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes that were used in looking for patterns of behaviors. Also, a Chi Square was used in analyzing the attitudinal survey. Interviews by Differentiating Homework 9 highly qualified colleagues were also used in assessing and re-evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional plan. The setting of the action research was in Coweta

County, Georgia at a middle school. The research consisted of approximately 111 student subjects and covered 5 separate 6th grade world geography classes. One of the classes was a co-taught class and one was a collaborative class. The students being studied had a wide range of learning abilities.

Human as Researcher

I had seven years full time teaching experience in a public middle school and had also spent time in numerous schools as a full time and part time substitute teacher. Being fully certified in the social sciences (6th-12th) I had experiences in understanding that people are unique and can offer many different perspectives on a subject given the chance and inclination that a student friendly environment fosters. Over the years, I have witnessed an oral and visual disdain for homework by many different students. I tried to relate the purpose and need for homework and communicate that it was not a punishment.

Typically, when people have a bad experience with something then they have a natural tendency to avoid it in the future. My assumption was that carefully constructed homework designs that were user friendly would help to stem the tide of frustrations for those students. Differentiating Homework 10

CHAPTER 2-REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Differentiating in the Curriculum

Teachers have differentiated instruction in many ways; sometimes without even realizing it. For example, a student may have been given more time to take a test, or may have received an option on his or her homework assignment. Differentiation has been observed in every classroom. Differentiations are strategies that have helped diverse students meet and exceed their goals by building upon their prior knowledge. The same curriculum could have been taught to each student; however the content that was taught could have been “quantitatively or qualitatively different” (Levy, 2008, p.162). Each student was unique in his or her capabilities and knowledge base. One student’s aptitude for science may have overshadowed his or her understanding in social studies. Some students performed way below grade level while others performed way above.

Differentiation in instruction and assessments aided the teacher in varying lesson plan strategies that allowed for flexibility in the content and maintained the focus of the curriculum. The goal was not to limit any student’s achievement potential. Some students had stronger foundations than their peers; however a well planned differentiated assignment helped facilitate each student’s understanding (Levy, 2008). Differentiation was widely acknowledged as a compelling means of restructuring the classroom to meet the “diverse abilities, interests and learning profiles” of its students (Subban, 2006, p.

936). Current trends suggested significant changes in student populations. The makeup of the classroom was very diverse in regards to learning styles and multiple intelligences.

Therefore, it was imperative for teachers to re-evaluate their practices. Russian psychologist, Vygotsky (1896-1934), stated that there is a zone of proximal development. Differentiating Homework 11

This zone described the level of development attained when students were actively engaged in social behavior. The zone was defined “as the distance between the actual development level and the level of potential development” (Subban, 2006, p. 936).

According to Subban, the job of the teacher was to construct meaningful instruction and activities that allowed the students to find their zone of proximal development.

The purpose of homework varied from practicing a skill in class to preparing for the next lesson. Overall, the main goal was to support learning. In order to illicit prior knowledge, homework has been utilized in classrooms throughout the world. The creation of quality homework required careful planning. Homework assignments needed to be challenging but not overwhelming. If the assignment simply required students to recall or recite information, the authentic engagement was missed. However, challenging assignments promoted synthesis of ideas (Dettmers, Trautwein, Ludtke, Kunter, &

Baumert, 2010). A study by Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder, and Ludtke (2009) asked teachers about behaviors and attitudes of homework assignments. There was a low focus on practice and drill tasks with a high focus on motivation, which led to inclinations toward effort and achievement. Homework quality was important when determining how to enhance the students understanding of the curriculum. In order for merit to be achieved, it was imperative that the homework was functionally integrated into the lessons (Dettmers et al., 2010). Through differentiation, the teacher acknowledged student’s differences and increased their motivation to learn (Subban, 2006). The effects of high quality homework on student effort contributed to higher homework motivation.

Students who were in classes where there was strict teacher control over homework were more likely to complete it due to teacher control; however the students were also more Differentiating Homework 12 likely to copy from their peers. Homework control had positive and negative effects on motivating students to complete their assignments. For example, environments that promoted learning positively affected student motivation. Homework quality enhanced a student’s expectancy of success (Trautwein et al., 2006).

Homework Motivation

In Dettmers' et al. (2010) study of 3,483 high school students, the focus was determining whether homework quality was a predictor for motivation and behavior. This study demonstrated that homework selection had a positive connection with homework value, effort, time, and expectancy. Homework quality was determined by measuring perceived quality of task selection and perceived challenge. They further suggested that a high student rating and class rating of the quality of homework selection was positively tied with expectancy beliefs. Also, homework challenge was positively linked with time spent on it. Thus, students who thought their homework was cognitively challenging spent more time on it. In addition, this study showed that homework motivation positively predicted homework effort. Homework motivation and behavior were found to be strongly related to selection and challenge (Dettmers et al.).

Trautwein et al. (2006) tested a domain-specific, multilevel homework model with eighth graders in two separate subjects. The study observed 414 students in English and mathematics. The mathematics data resulted in finding that homework quality had a positive effect on student motivation and effort at both the individual and class level.

Also, discussion included the temptation of teachers to increase their level of homework control to combat the incompleteness of assignments as well as parent’s inclination to Differentiating Homework 13 increase homework assistance. Trautwein et al. indicated that this may not have been the best approach. Homework control by teachers had a weak relation with effort. It showed no effect on homework effort and a negative effect on expectancy at the class level.

Teachers often encouraged parental involvement with homework. However, this involvement did not always yield the desired outcome. Trautwein et al. showed that parental homework control was only loosely tied to effort. Also, students who perceived parental involvement as intrusive resulted in low homework expectancy. Trautwein et al. continued to point out that teachers and parents should be cognizant of the consequences their behavior may have had on motivating students in both the short and long term.

Strict control of homework by teachers and parents could have negatively impacted student motivation. The domain-specific, multilevel homework model emphasized that high quality homework had an overall positive effect on student motivation and effort.

High quality homework was considered by the researchers as “well prepared, cognitively engaging tasks of varying difficulty and careful class discussion of homework assignments” (Trautwein, et al., 2006, p.453).

Trautwein and Ludtke (2007) completed a study of 511 students from grades 8 and 9 which focused on self reported effort and time on homework in six different subjects. Trautwein and Ludtke’s hypotheses predicted that both expectancy and value could “significantly predict homework effort” (p. 438). The results found that students reported higher effort for subjects they had a high expectancy and value beliefs. Also, the perceived homework quality on homework effort was mediated by expectancy and value. In addition, self reported effort and homework time had a very loose association.

Trautwein and Ludtke suggested that teachers and parents needed to be cognizant of the Differentiating Homework 14 mechanisms that attributed to low homework effort. Their research also suggested that a student’s conscientiousness influenced his or her effort on homework. Overall, students differed in their homework effort. Trautwein and Ludtke suggested that effort was predicted by motivation, which was perceived with quality and control. Trautwein and

Ludtke's results concluded “that teachers are likely to affect students’ homework behaviors via their practices of assigning homework and controlling its completion” (p.

442). In controlling homework completion, the first step was to determine why it was not being completed. The reasons were categorized as academic, organizational, motivational, situational, and personal (Vatterott, 2009). For example, the homework assignment may have been too difficult or too time consuming for the student.

Additionally, another issue could have been just getting the work back from home.

Furthermore, the student may have felt burned out or frustrated with the assignment or may not have had the materials available at home to complete it. Other possible reasons could have been anxiety, depression, or family problems. Having a consistent routine benefited all students. Issuing homework on the same day of the week was one way of building a consistent homework routine. There were many students who needed help with organizational skills. Taking the time in class to teach organizational skills and for sorting through notebooks and lockers resulted in increased homework completion

(Vatterott, 2009). Another factor that may have contributed to homework completion was the context in which it was completed. It was important to know if students perceived their homework as a significant activity or as a nuisance (Shumow, Schmidt, &

Kackar, 2008). Differentiating Homework 15

Many critics argued that homework was not being utilized properly by the teacher. Some of the issues included the amount of time taken outside of class, the lack of meaning, and the boredom that students endured. In addition, the attitude of the parent concerning his or her past experiences with homework may have influenced the child’s experience. Consistency was also a problem with homework. Some teachers assigned no homework and others assigned it daily. Simplicio (2005) stated that children ages 6 to 8 received more homework than 11th and 12th graders. If a student did not understand the fundamentals of a problem, then simply assigning more problems to work on was pointless. It was not about the quantity of homework but the quality. When too much homework was assigned, parents often completed it or students did it in haste and teachers often only graded completion not comprehension (Simplicio, 2005).

Responses to Differentiating

Homework either served as a positive influential force in contributing to the advancement of education, or it impeded the developmental process. The outcome was contingent on the quality of its implementation. Properly utilized homework “may be the most effective and cost-efficient way to solve some of the most difficult educational problems” (Hong, Milgram, & Rowell, 2004, p.203). There were many factors that determined the effectiveness of homework. The purpose of homework was to reinforce what was taught in the class. Personal responsibility was a common shared belief among parents and teachers. Some students did homework to “please significant others or to comply with their expectations” (Xu, 2010, p.172). Students also stated that they were more likely to do their homework if their parents were helping them rather than another student. Xu deduced that there was a significant difference between extrinsic and Differentiating Homework 16 intrinsic factors. Students reported that they were more inclined to do homework for intrinsic factors. Teacher monitoring was found to be a significant predictor of student effort concerning homework. Also, girls’ intrinsic purposes were not affected by family help. In contrast, boys were more likely to state they did homework for intrinsic purposes when helped by a parent. Middle school students were more inclined to state they did homework for extrinsic purposes more so than high school students. Also, those who received parent or family help more likely said they did it for extrinsic purposes.

One study stated that students in grades 6-12th largely agreed that they did not feel positive about homework. Teachers positively impacted homework motivation by designing meaningful assignments and providing frequent feedback (Xu, 2010).

Understanding how homework impacts the student served as an important step in increasing the teacher’s effectiveness. Effective homework “benefits students by taking into account their individual differences, while offering teachers greater control in their planning” (Sallee & Rigler, 2008, p.51). The essence of homework asked the question of what teachers intended for their students to walk away experiencing and knowing from their lessons. The purpose of homework was to help the student master a set of skills and to enhance his or her abilities to listen, think, and reason (Sallee & Rigler, 2008).

Unfortunately, over the past twenty years, homework has not increased in middle or high school where it could be the most beneficial; even though evidence greatly suggested that parents have supported homework for the past 100 years. Gill and Schlossman (2004) supported a moderate quantity of homework that increased as the student matured.

However, the present trends have shown resistance. Sallee and Rigler (2008) studied 180 random high school students that were given a survey about homework. Students Differentiating Homework 17 reported that 47% did their homework all of the time while 39% said they did it most of the time. When asked what factors affected the amount of homework they did, 65% of students reported that it depended on the amount or how much other homework they had.

The due date elicited 55% of the student responses, while only 24% stated that interest motivated them. When asked about attitude, 43% of students said they did homework because it was asked of them. Also, 21% of students responded that they did homework because it was valuable preparation for class discussions and because it was busy work that had no meaning (Sallee & Rigler, 2008). In a separate study done by Shumow,

Schmidt, and Kackar (2008), middle and high school students reported that when homework was viewed as a primary activity they had more stress and anger. However, the study also showed that greater levels of cognitive engagement, such as control and effort, were present rather than when homework was viewed as a secondary activity. The results also indicated that students put forth greater effort when alone rather than with friends (Shumow et al., 2008). Homework had positive and negative influences on students. For example, students gained confidence as they completed assignments independently. In contrast, homework may have diminished student enthusiasm for those who could not work at home and it could have led to frustration (Vatterott, 2009). Gill and Schlossmann (2004) suggested that there was a need for a dialogue among stakeholders on how to make homework an integral and important endeavor that raised high academic standards for all.

Summary

The view of homework, as reported by research journals and popular press, highlights common complaints of many students and families. As stated by teachers, the Differentiating Homework 18 purposes of homework often included preparation, participation, practice, and personal development. Teachers had the power to construct powerfully enriching homework assignments (Van Voorhis, 2004). It was difficult to ascertain the actual achievement gained from homework when trying to separate the effect of homework from the effect of classroom teaching and the prior knowledge of each student. Research into the realm of homework was very cumbersome when one tried to study its effects while they happened out of sight and control. It was not possible for a teacher to know whether each student did his or her work alone or with the help of others. Furthermore, it was not possible for a teacher to know if a student consulted the Internet for homework assistance. The complex nature of homework even had scholars drawing opposite conclusions from the same research. Homework research had its merit. Its value “is in the broad strokes it paints, not the minutiae” (Vatterott, 2009, p.71). One needed to reflect on the findings or conclusions of research studies in order to deem the logic and how it applies to a population of students. Educators should remember that it is still unknown as to exactly how learning takes place among different students and how vast the differences are among the learning needs of the individual (Vatterott, 2009).

A large majority of teachers have never received any type of training in applying effective homework strategies. Many teachers assigned the same homework for each student despite the knowledge that one method did not work for all. Quality differentiated homework tasks should have been designed and utilized. The differentiated homework tasks should have been tethered to the lesson plans and class discussions. Essentially, homework “is to support classroom learning through practice, prelearning, processing, or checking for understanding” (Vatterott, 2009, p.124). Homework and classroom learning Differentiating Homework 19 were similar to pieces of a puzzle, which fit perfectly when properly planned. Homework should have functioned as formative feedback. Incomplete homework should have been viewed as a symptom of a learning problem and not simply punished with a failing grade

(Vatterott, 2009). Homework was an integral section of school curriculum which impacted the entire learning community. Unfortunately, the spotlight was not given to the design of homework assignments (Van Voorhis, 2004). Differentiating Homework 20

CHAPTER 3-METHODOLOGY

Research Design

For the past 15 years, the use of action research in schools has been widely observed in its complexities (Gilles, Wilson, & Elias, 2010). The purpose of this classroom action research was to improve teaching practices by conducting research in the classroom whereby I identified and studied a problem. I taught two consecutive sections from one geography unit about Latin America to all of my sixth grade students.

During the first section, I did not provide the students with the opportunity for differentiated homework. I administered a pre test at the beginning of the unit and a post test upon completion of the unit. During the second section, I provided opportunity for differentiated homework assignments, administered a pre and post test as well as collected data through journaling and surveys. I interpreted the data collected from the students and drew conclusions on the validity of the problem. The data collected came from both quantitative and qualitative sources (Hendricks, 2009). Blair (2010) recommended following a constructivist approach, which I did in my methodology of action research. Furthermore in Blair's study, homework was researched to ascertain how it could be more applicable for student learning. Homework assessments were differentiated to elicit a high completion rate as well as to further students’ comprehension of the lesson. The quantitative data were analyzed using dependent t- tests. An observational journal on classroom responses to the differentiated homework assessments and a reflective journal based from the lesson plans were utilized for the qualitative data along with an attitudinal survey. Differentiating Homework 21

Setting

This action research took place at Arnall Middle School (6-8), which is located approximately 30 miles south west of Atlanta in Coweta County, Georgia. The school enrollment on October 5, 2010 numbered 886 students (Georgia Department of

Education, 2010). I was going on my eighth year of teaching at this school, which is why the study was conducted there. The students in my 6th grade world geography class were used as the subjects of the research. Written permission was granted by the county to conduct the action research as well as approval received from the LaGrange College

Institutional Review Board.

Subjects and Participants

According to the State of Georgia report card for the 2008-09 school year, the enrollment for Arnall Middle School was 879 students. Of those students, 3.6% were in

ESOL (English to speakers of other languages) and 11.8% in special education. The race demographics were as follows: Asian 4%, Black 24%, Hispanic 9%, White 58%, and

Multi-racial 5%. Also, students with disabilities made up 12% and limited English proficient 5% of the total population. The students who were eligible for free or reduced meals composed 36% of the student body. Students who met or exceeded state standards on the CRCT in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for grades 6 thru 8 were

67%, 70.4%, and 59.1% respectively (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2009).

The school was seeking to file documentation for full Title I status. The subjects consisted of five 6th grade world geography classes, which numbered approximately 111 students. One of the classes was a co-taught class and one was a collaborative class. I Differentiating Homework 22

was the primary teacher which is why these students were selected for this research. The

participants interviewed for the instructional plan were highly qualified colleagues who

held certification in the content area for which the instructional plan was created.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

The following data shell was used as a constant guide in order to keep the study

on a proper course. Along with the focus questions and primary literature reviews, the

data shell also reflected the validity and rationale on how the data method was analyzed.

Table 3.1 Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Type: Method, How are data Rationale sources Data, Validity analyzed

How is Trautwein, Type of Coded for Looking for differentiation Ludtke, Method: themes categorical and in homework Schnyder, & repeating data incorporated Niggli, (2006); Instructional Recurring that form into the Levy, (2008); Plan rubric and patterns of Dominant curriculum? Subban (2006) interview, behaviors reflective Emerging journal Type of Data: Qualitative Type of Validity: Content Construct Differentiating Homework 23

How does Trautwein & Type of Dependent T To determine if differentiated Ludtke, (2007); Method: there are homework Dettmers, significant assignments Trautwein, Teacher made – differences increase Ludtke, Kunter, Differentiated between means completion and & Baumert, homework from one group comprehension? (2010); tested twice Teacher’s Trautwein, supplement Ludtke, guide— Schnyder, & Pre/post Niggli, (2006) assessment Type of data: Interval Type of Validity: Criterion Content

How did Hong, Type of Coded for Looking for students Milgram, & Method: themes categorical and respond to Rowell, (2004); Observational repeating data differentiated Xu, (2010) Journal, Recurring that form homework Attitudinal patterns of Dominant assignments? survey behaviors Emerging Type of Data: Chi Square Qualitative Desire to find what questions Nominal (items) are significant (and Type of which ones are Validity: not) Content Construct

A pre formative assessment was given prior to any instruction to find out what

each student already knew about the content to be studied. Afterwards, a differentiated Differentiating Homework 24 homework assignment was issued and discussed. A post formative assessment was given and the results were compared with the pre formative assessment data. Also, pre and post formative assessments were given without the treatment of homework and the results were compared with the homework treatment data. The incorporation of formative assessments into the lesson plan aided in determining “the effectiveness of an intervention continuously throughout the study” (Hendricks, 2009, p. 82). If the intervention or assessment was not working, then careful restructuring occurred when appropriate. This process helped to view the changes in student learning. In order to help narrow as many variables as possible, the time frame between pre and post formative assessment was one instructional day. An instructional plan with rubric was used to ascertain the effectiveness of the lesson plans in supporting differentiated homework. Highly qualified colleagues were interviewed in regards to the instructional plan, which was used to judge and influence how differentiated homework was used in the curriculum. Lessons included, but were not limited to, essential questions, formative assessments, and differentiated instruction (see Appendix A). A reflective journal was kept to record my personal thoughts along with any personal conversations that referred to the study. Writing the information down in context as soon as possible was helpful when reflecting back on what happened. Prompts (see Appendix B) were also utilized to aid in remembering important occurrences. The journal was frequently reviewed for themes and patterns. Also, actions were recorded along with possible foreseeable outcomes. For the purpose of acquiring observational data, an observational journal was kept and an attitudinal survey was given. Observational data are a valuable source of information for any action research. As a participant observer, it was important for me to Differentiating Homework 25 take notes about events that happened in order to describe the different aspects of the research. When I recorded the observational data, it was helpful to think about how it related to the primary research question. Also, the surveys were specifically aligned with research in order to maintain clarity and brevity (Hendricks, 2009).

Some of the instruments used in this action research were specifically designed by me. I designed the differentiated homework assessment, which was connected with the use of the classroom text. The assessment included four different tasks for the students to choose from. The tasks ranged from analyzing and drawing pictures to creating graphic organizers. The attitudinal survey (see Appendix C) was also generated by me. The pre and post formative assessments were obtained from my teachers supplement to the classroom text. The research coincided with the beginning of the unit on Latin America.

Some of the topics included the physical geography of Latin America, and the impact of

Europeans on the Aztec, Inca, and Maya empires. The collection of data came from the results of the differentiated homework assessment, attitudinal survey, reflective and observational journals, and the pre and post formative assessments.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

To provide qualitative data for Focus Question One, how is differentiation in homework incorporated into the curriculum, a reflective journal and an instructional plan with rubric were used to ascertain the effectiveness of the lesson plans in supporting differentiated homework. Also, interviews by highly qualified colleagues in regards to the instructional plan were used to judge and influence how differentiated homework was utilized in the curriculum. Content validity of the lesson plans were supported by the Differentiating Homework 26 evidence that they were guided by Georgia’s content standards for 6th grade world geography. Popham (2011) mentioned that content validity was more than just “factual knowledge.” The curricular aims for most classrooms included the “teacher’s intended outcomes for a certain instructional period…Construct validity supported the instructional plan rubric and interview by confirming “that a given assessment procedure is measuring the inferred construct accurately” (p.89). The dependability of the qualitative data was supported by consistent data collection. Reflective prompts were used in recalling events that transpired in each instructional period. The data collection setting was controlled by utilizing the same classroom for each class. Also, the selection of subjects was adequate for the research. As a researcher, there was a personal bias in wanting the data to significantly support my thesis. However, my goal was to have a positive impact on all students and if the data did not corroborate as such then the treatment of differentiated homework would have ended. The lesson and instructional plans were checked for unfairness, offensiveness, and disparate impact. An example of offensiveness would have been to mention ethnic or religious slurs when writing in a reflective journal (Popham, p. 113).

To provide interval data for Focus Question Two, how does differentiated homework assignments increase completion and comprehension, data were collected from pre/post assessments and differentiated homework to gauge the effectiveness of the homework. The pre/post assessments came from the teacher’s supplement guide to the class text, which increased the validity of these data. The differentiated homework was designed by me based on the literature. Content validity supported the pre/post assessments with regard to how well they sampled the material taught. Also, criterion Differentiating Homework 27 validity supported how the differentiated homework served as a predictive indicator for the post assessment (Salkin, 2010). The pre/post assessment data was reliable in the context of stability reliability, which “is often referred to as test-retest reliability”

(Popham, 2011, p. 63). The pre/post and differentiated homework assessments were checked for unfairness, offensiveness, and disparate impact. One way I checked for unfairness was to judgmentally scrutinize the assessment. Each item was reviewed to see if any items offended or unfairly penalized subgroups (Popham, 2011).

To provide qualitative data for Focus Question Three, how do students respond to differentiated homework assignments, data were collected from an observational journal.

Also, nominal data were gathered with an attitudinal survey. Construct validity supported the attitudinal survey by figuring if the treatment “measures some underlying psychological construct” (Salkind, 2010, p.152). The observational data were assessed using content validity by coding for themes and looking for repeating forms of behaviors.

Content validity assessed how adequately a procedure represented my curriculum aim

(Popham, 2011). Cronbach’s Alpha was used to gauge the internal consistency of the attitudinal survey, which supported the reliability of its use. The dependability of the qualitative data was supported by the number of the subjects and the control of the setting. The observational journal and attitudinal survey were checked for unfairness, offensiveness, and disparate impact. If a subgroup of students scored lower than another subgroup, it did not mean that it was bias by default. Popham (2011) qualified this distinction when he said, “disparate impact does not equal assessment bias” (p. 115). Differentiating Homework 28

Analysis of Data

The data collected for Focus Question One regarding how differentiated homework was incorporated into the curriculum were analyzed qualitatively by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes in the reflective journal and instructional plan. The rationale of the analysis was to look for categorical and repeating data that formed patterns.

The data collected for Focus Question Two referring to how differentiated homework assignments increased completion and comprehension were analyzed quantitatively using a dependent t-test. The rationale of the analysis was to determine if there were significant differences between means from one group tested twice. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference between treatment with and without differentiated homework. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. Also, the effect size was calculated by using the Effect Size r. The rationale was to determine the magnitude of the treatment effect.

The data collected for Focus Question Three, which centered on how students responded to differentiated homework, were analyzed qualitatively by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes in the observational journal. The rationale of the analysis was to look for categorical and repeating data that formed patterns of behaviors. Focus Question Three was also analyzed by using a Chi Square and

Cronbach’s Alpha on the attitudinal survey. The rationale for using a Chi Square was to find which survey questions were significant and which ones were not. The significance level was reported at the p<.05, p<.01, and the p<.001 levels. The rationale of using Differentiating Homework 29

Cronbach’s Alpha was to determine the reliability of the survey questions by examining internal consistency.

The validation of this study was strengthened by consensual validity since it was approved by the faculty of LaGrange College. Epistemological validation was supported by the guidance of peer reviewed scholarly literature. Structural corroboration was evidenced through the use of multiple data sources. Fairness was represented through the use of opposing views in the literature review. Rightness of Fit was made apparent due to the great care that was taken to ensure precision and accuracy so that a tight argument, coherent case, and strong evidence were given to assert judgments in a presentation.

Referential adequacy supported the transferability of the study since it could be easily replicated by others and used for future research. Catalytic validity was proven by the transformational or positive change that the study had on the researcher and others. Differentiating Homework 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

To provide qualitative data for Focus Question One, a reflective journal and an instructional plan with rubric were used to ascertain the effectiveness of the lesson plans in supporting differentiated homework. Also, interviews by highly qualified colleagues in regards to the instructional plan were used to judge and influence how differentiated homework was utilized in the curriculum. The data collected for Focus Question One were analyzed qualitatively by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes in the reflective journal and instructional plan. The rationale of the analysis was to look for categorical and repeating data that formed patterns. From the reflective journal, it was observed that several of the essential questions used in the instructional plan could have been worded better for student comprehension. Teacher 1 with six years of experience stated, “It would be a good idea to condense the essential questions.” Teacher 1 also stated “it would be helpful to use terms already covered in class.” Concerning the vocabulary words used in the lesson plan template Teacher 1 suggested that instead of using them only in the template it would be helpful to have a word wall that reflected the daily terms. “The word wall then could be used in study groups to help in preparing for quizzes or to use to guide discussions in class.” Teacher 2 with eight years of experience stated that the terms are too random. Teacher 2 suggested breaking them down into sections such as geography terms, people, and environment. Furthermore, Teacher 2 commented “you could categorize using physical, political, and people as headings.”

Through the reflective journal it was observed that students made positive comments in relation to the brochure activity. The brochure activity allowed the students to choose terms from the assigned reading and to draw pictures or symbols that reflected the Differentiating Homework 31 meaning of their chosen terms. Afterwards, the students presented their brochures to the class. Teacher 1 stated that “the brochure and newscast activities that are used in class are positives.” Teacher 1 also suggested it would be “helpful to add small reading groups whereby the students read to each other and help with the worksheets.” Teacher 2 added that face partners could be used as students work together on a particular task.

To provide interval data for Focus Question Two, data were collected from pre/post assessments and differentiated homework to gauge the effectiveness of the homework. The data collected for Focus Question Two were analyzed quantitatively using a dependent t-test. The rationale of the analysis was to determine if there were significant differences between means from one group tested twice. The null hypothesis was that there was not a significant difference between treatment with and without differentiated homework. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p<.05.

Also, the effect size was calculated by using the Effect Size r. The rationale was to determine the magnitude of the treatment effect. As shown in Table 4.1, the treatment pre/post rejected the null hypothesis. In Table 4.1 the mean scores for the treatment data produced a 44.6 for the pre test and a 68 for the post test. The obtained value was 7.9 and the critical value a 1.6, which rejected the null hypothesis. There was a significant difference between the pre and post tests. Pearson’s r produced a .52, which indicates that most test takers performed with consistency.

Table 4.1: Dependent t-test for Treatment Pre/Post Assessments t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Differentiating Homework 32

Treatment

Pre Treatment Post Mean 44.61538462 68 Variance 547.1153846 622.5 Observations 65 65 Pearson Correlation 0.524767531 Hypothesized Mean

Difference 0 Df 64 - t Stat 7.987563685 P(T<=t) one-tail 1.6953E-11 t Critical one-tail 1.669013026 P(T<=t) two-tail 3.3906E-11 t Critical two-tail 1.997729633

t(64) = 7.9, p < .05

Table 4.2 showed that the mean scores for the non-treatment data resulted in a 28.4 for the pre test and a 51.2 for the post. The obtained value was a 6.4 and the critical value a

1.6, which also rejected the null hypothesis. However, the treatment data showed a large

Effect Size r with a .43 and the non-treatment a .36 medium Effect Size r. The treatment data more closely approximated a perfectly positive linear relationship than the non- treatment data. Pearson’s r produced a .54, which indicates that most test takers performed with consistency. The null hypothesis in comparing the data for both the treatment and non-treatment was that there was no significant difference between treatment and non-treatment post tests.

Table 4.2: Dependent t-test for Non-treatment Pre/Post Assessments t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Differentiating Homework 33

treatment Non-treatment

Pre Post Mean 28.49230769 51.2 Variance 632.2538462 1062.6 Observations 65 65 Pearson Correlation 0.540044842 Hypothesized Mean

Difference 0 Df 64 - t Stat 6.434381529 P(T<=t) one-tail 9.03818E-09 t Critical one-tail 1.669013026 P(T<=t) two-tail 1.80764E-08 t Critical two-tail 1.997729633

t(64) = 6.4, p < .05

As shown in Table 4.3, the post data rejected the null. There was a significant difference between the post tests of the treatment and non-treatment data. The mean score of the treatment post test was a 68 and a 51.2 for the non-treatment. The obtained value resulted in a 3.2 and the critical value a 1.6.

Table 4.3: Dependent t-test of Post/Post Assessments t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Treatment Post Non-Treatment Post Mean 68 51.2 Variance 622.5 1062.6 Observations 65 65 Pooled Variance 842.55 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 128 t Stat 3.299537896 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000627289 Differentiating Homework 34

t Critical one-tail 1.656845227 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001254579 t Critical two-tail 1.978670823

t(128) = 3.2, p < .05

To provide qualitative data for Focus Question Three data were collected from an

observational journal. Also, nominal data were gathered with an attitudinal survey. The

data were analyzed qualitatively by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes

in the observational journal. The rationale of the analysis was to look for categorical and

repeating data that formed patterns of behaviors. As shown in Table 4.4, a Chi Square

was used to analyze which survey questions were significant and which questions were

Table 4.4: Chi Square for Student Survey

N=98 X2

Item 1: I like to choose what type of homework assignment I do. 60.6***

Item 2: I like homework that is challenging. 35.7***

Item 3: Homework helps me to understand the lesson being taught. 56.5***

Item 4: I do not understand the purpose of homework. 30.8***

Item 5: I do not spend a long time doing homework. 7.3

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The significance level was reported at the p<.05, p<.01, and the p<.001 levels.

The rationale of using Cronbach’s Alpha was to determine the reliability of the survey

questions by examining internal consistency. The Chi Square null hypothesis stated that

the frequency of occurrences in categories 1,2,3,4, and 5 of the survey questions were

equal. Survey questions 1,2,3, and 4 rejected the null. The obtained values were 60.6, Differentiating Homework 35

35.7, 56.5, and 30.8 respectively. The critical value was set at the .05 significance level which resulted in a 9.49. Survey question 5 did not reject the null with a 7.3 obtained value. The Cronbach result on the survey produced a .04, which suggested that the student responses on the survey were not consistent.

In the observational journal kept by me, the prevalent theme indicated positive responses overall to the differentiated homework assignments. This was also evidenced by the answers to question one on the survey. Seventy-six percent of students agreed or strongly agreed they prefer to choose the type of homework assignment they complete.

When given differentiated homework, students readily volunteered to share their homework assignments with the class. One student was recorded as stating, “awesome,” when given the differentiated homework choices. I observed that the students increased their awareness of the material when going over the differentiated homework. This enabled me to expand the instructional class discussion beyond close ended remarks to higher order thinking concepts. As generated by the survey, 63% of students agreed or strongly agreed that differentiated homework helps them to understand the lesson being taught. During the five classes where the researcher was going over the differentiated homework directions, no students were observed to have negative reactions to the homework choices. Furthermore, the students did not give suggestions to modify the assignment choices.

In summary, the results from Focus Question One indicated that the essential questions in the instructional plan needed to be separated into multiple questions in order to support differentiated homework. Also, the teachers interviewed felt that using vocabulary already learned as well as word walls enhanced the differentiated instruction. Differentiating Homework 36

The brochure and newscast activities received positive responses from both students and teachers. The results for Focus Question Two reported that both the treatment and non- treatment data resulted in significant differences between the pre and post tests. The treatment data produced a greater significance than the non-treatment resulting in a large

Effect Size r. The mean for the treatment pre/post data jumped from a 44.6% to a 68%.

Results for Focus Question Three indicated that there were positive responses to the differentiated homework. Seventy- six percent of students reported that they like to choose the type of homework they do and sixty-three percent stated that homework helps them to understand the lesson being taught. Also, no negative responses were observed by the researcher in administering the differentiated homework assignment. Differentiating Homework 37

CHAPTER 5-ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis of Results

The qualitative data gathering methods for Focus Question One were a reflective journal and an instructional plan with rubric (see Appendix A). Also, data were collected by interviewing two highly qualified colleagues in respect to the utilization of the instructional plan in supporting differentiated homework. Content validity of the lesson plans were supported by the evidence that they were guided by Georgia’s content standards for 6th grade world geography. The data collected for Focus Question One were analyzed qualitatively by coding for recurring, emerging, and dominant themes in the reflective journal and instructional plan. The themes uncovered revealed that there were improvements to be made as well as continuation of influential differentiation. The essential questions would better serve the students if they were revised into more concise segments rather than one broad question. Also, vocabulary terms could be used more often in class discussion through frequent integration with the essential questions and through the inclusion of a word wall in the classroom. The brochure activity that incorporated student involvement and allowed them to choose the terminologies they presented garnered praise from the students and a fellow colleague. This activity was observed as a positive learning assessment. Differentiation of homework was effectively incorporated into the curriculum by actively differentiating throughout the lesson plan.

As discussed further, a majority of students reported that they like to choose the type of homework they do, which strongly indicated that differentiation was desired throughout the instructional period. Differentiating Homework 38

The quantitative data gathering methods for Focus Question Two were pre/post assessments and differentiated homework to gauge the effectiveness of the homework.

The data collected were analyzed quantitatively using dependent t-tests that compared the same students with treatment and without treatment. The null hypothesis was that there was not a significant difference between treatment with and without differentiated homework. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. Also, the effect size was calculated by using the Effect Size r. The rationale was to determine the magnitude of the treatment effect. The treatment-treatment and non-treatment-treatment data resulted in showing significant differences between the pre/post tests. The mean score of the treatment-treatment posttest was a 68 and a 51.2 for the non-treatment- treatment. The treatment-treatment data showed a large Effect Size r with a .43 and the non-treatment a .36 medium Effect Size r. The treatment-treatment data more closely approximated a perfectly positive linear relationship than the non- treatment-treatment data. This indicated that the treatment-treatment data showed greater gains than the non- treatment-treatment data. The mean for the treatment-treatment pre/post data jumped from a 44.6% to a 68%. The pre/post assessment data was reliable in the context of stability reliability, which “is often referred to as test-retest reliability” (Popham, 2011, p.

63). Differentiated homework increased completion and comprehension by the magnitude of what was learned. As will be further discussed, the motivational factor that stemmed from differentiating came from the student’s perceived quality of homework.

The gathering methods for Focus Question Three included qualitative data from an observational journal and nominal data from an attitudinal survey. The observational journal was analyzed qualitatively using content validity in coding for themes and Differentiating Homework 39 looking for repeating forms of behaviors. Content validity assessed how adequately a procedure represented the teacher’s curriculum aim (Popham, 2011). A Chi Square was used to analyze which survey questions were significant and which ones were not.

Cronbach’s Alpha was used to gauge the internal consistency of the attitudinal survey, which supported the reliability of its use. The dominant theme assessed from the observational journal was that of positive responses. The students preferred to have differentiated homework. They enjoyed having the opportunity to select the type of assignment they did. It also helped to increase their awareness of the lesson when their homework was discussed. The differentiated homework enabled the class discussion to reach higher order thinking concepts. The survey supported the observations made by the researcher regarding the motivational impact of the differentiated homework assignment.

Seventy-six percent of those students surveyed agreed that they like to choose the type of homework they do. Also, sixty-three percent agreed that homework helps them to understand the lesson being taught.

The results from the research supported works cited in the literature review. The main goal of homework was to support learning and to reinforce what was taught in the class (Dettmers et al., 2010 & Xu, 2010). As indicated in the results, the homework treatment data produced a greater gain between the pre/post tests than the non-treatment data. The mean score of the homework treatment post test was a 68 and the non- treatment a 51.2. Research from the literature suggested that student effort was predicted by motivation (Trautwein & Ludtke, 2007). By differentiating the homework assignment, the teacher acknowledged student differences and increased their motivation to learn (Subban, 2006). Survey question one that asked students if they like to choose Differentiating Homework 40 the type of homework assignment they do generated a 76% positive response, which supported the literature. As reported, the researcher observed that student mastery of the lesson material increased when going over the differentiated homework assignment, which led to class discussion beyond close ended responses. The literature review affirmed the value of differentiated homework by stating it enabled authentic engagement and promoted a synthesis of ideas (Dettmers et al., 2010). Also, a well planned differentiated assignment helped facilitate each student’s understanding (Levy, 2008).

Survey question two that asked if the students liked homework that is challenging resulted in 62% of them disagreeing. The researcher suspected that each student who took the survey had a different idea of the level of challenge in the meaning of the survey question. As cited in the literature review, homework assignments needed to be challenging but not overwhelming and that motivation and behavior were found to be strongly related to selection and challenge (Dettmers et al., 2010). In reference to survey question three where the students were asked if they think homework helped them to understand the lesson being taught, 63% of them agreed. The literature identified the importance of knowing how students perceived their homework and that it was a contributing factor in the completion of it (Shumow et al., 2008). Also, the literature revealed that the quality of homework positively influenced the student’s expectancy of succeeding and motivation at the individual and class level (Trautwein et al., 2006).

Discussion

The researcher believed that the results produced from the action research into the effects of differentiation on homework came from allowing the students to express their own prior knowledge and abilities in the work they generated through the choice of Differentiating Homework 41 selection. When students were given the opportunity to choose their assignment it increased their motivation to complete it. When a student was motivated, he or she had the tendency to produce quality work. By producing quality work, the students were engaged in comprehension of the material. The data showed that the students learned more with the differentiated homework than without and that it led to positive attitudes among them. The contribution of the action research to the knowledge of education was that it supported other works in that students learn more when given quality work that motivates them via personal choice. The action research also contributed to educational practice by defending the merits and applicability of differentiation. As the quantitative and qualitative data revealed, there were significant gains in learning and noted positive attitudes towards the educational environment of the classroom. The relevance of the action research is associated with the continuing discussions on whether there is any validity in assigning homework or the way that the homework should be designed. The study referred to a multitude of peer reviewed articles in the literature review concerning the subject matters of differentiation, homework, and student motivation. Opposing perspectives on the value of homework were taken into consideration in the literature review. For example, the complex nature of homework has caused some scholars to draw different conclusions from the same research. Especially, considering it is difficult to ascertain the actual achievement gained from homework when separating it from prior knowledge and what was learned in the classroom. Also, whether or not the student had outside help in doing the work made it difficult to ascertain its effectiveness (Vatterott,

2009). I believe that the action research results sufficiently defended against those arguments about homework and justified its use. The more important question that Differentiating Homework 42 should be asked; does differentiated homework improve scores? The quantitative and qualitative results proved that differentiated homework had more of a positive effect than none at all.

Implications

The quantitative data from the dependent t-tests was extrapolated from 65 students who ranged in their abilities and prior knowledge. Also, the attitudinal survey pulled in results from 98 students. I believe this was a large enough number to make generalizations into larger populations. Incorporating differentiated homework into the curriculum generated positive results; both quantitatively and qualitatively. Positive qualitative themes, such as extending the lesson beyond close ended responses, were observed by me. Another theme discovered included increased student motivation whereby greater student engagement was obtained. There were no negative explicit comments made by the students regarding the differentiated homework, only positive ones. Even though this action research was conducted in 6th grade geography classes, it could benefit any subject area or grade level. Differentiated homework was proved to have a positive effect on student learning. The action research can easily be replicated by any teacher. Differentiating or having different activities/assessments that reach multiple learning styles can be narrowly tailored by the teacher to comply with curriculum standards. The degree to which the research shaped and transformed the students was reflected in the observational data. The students showed enthusiasm towards the differentiated homework. The enthusiasm led students to produce well designed homework and it engaged class involvement and discussion. The research also shaped and transformed me as a teacher by focusing my attention on the influential properties of Differentiating Homework 43 differentiating the homework assignment and further inclusion in the instructional lesson.

I became more cognizant of the positive benefits that differentiating instruction provides.

Impact on Student Learning

The action research into differentiating homework had documented the positive impact on student learning. The evidence to support the claim was produced using dependent t-tests to analyze the effects of differentiated homework through the collection of data from pre/post tests with and without the treatment. The treatment and non- treatment data both produced significant gains between the pre and post tests. However, the treatment data showed greater significance or impact by generating a larger Effect

Size r. The mean scores were a 68 and 51.2 for the treatment and non-treatment post test data respectively. The application of differentiated homework improved student learning by showing a relevant increase in the comprehension of the lesson material that was covered between the pre/post tests.

Recommendations for Future Research

When data were collected and analyzed during the action research into the effects of differentiated homework, I did not come across any finding that could not be explained. I acknowledged that some things could have been done differently to produce more conclusive results. Regarding survey question 5 that stated “I do not spend a long time doing homework” I realized the question should have been worded differently. As it was stated the question was very subjectively. What one student thinks was a long time may be a very short time for another. The question should have been more specific by stating a time frame. The purpose of the question was to ascertain if homework was Differentiating Homework 44 viewed as overwhelming or if it was perceived as too time consuming. Also, the researcher realized he could have collected data on more than one treatment and non- treatment pre/post test to help gauge the consistency of the data results. This led to the next step of extending the research. I plan to collect more data throughout the upcoming school year. I hope these data will yield more results to analyze and that the results will firmly corroborate the original study. Also, I will share the results with fellow colleagues and will discuss the implications for their students. Differentiating Homework 45

References

Blair, E. (2010). How does telling the truth help educational action research?

Educational Action Research, 18 (3), 349-358. Retrieved from

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2010). Homework

works if homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the

development of achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 102 (2), 467-482. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/publications

Georgia Department of Education [GDOE]. (2010). Enrollment by grade level (pk-12).

Retrieved from

http://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_enrollgrade.display_proc

Gill, B., & Schlossman, S. (2004). Villain or savior? The American discourse on

homework, 1850-2003. Theory Into Practice, 43 (3), 174-181. Retrieved from

http://www.leaonline.com

Gilles, C., Wilson, J., & Elias, M. (2010). Sustaining teachers' growth and renewal

through action research, induction programs, and collaboration. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 37(1), 91-108. Retrieved from http://www.caddogap.com

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement [GAOSA]. (2009). Enrollment by

demographics and 2008-2009 Student report card. Retrieved from

http://www.gaosa.org/FindASchool.aspx and http://www.gaosa.org/score.aspx

Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive

guide for educators. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Differentiating Homework 46

Hong, E., Milgram, R., & Rowell, L. (2004). Homework motivation and preference: A

learner-centered homework approach. Theory Into Practice, 43 (3), 197-204.

Retrieved from http://www.leaonline.com

LaGrange College Department of Education. (2008). The Conceptual Framework.

LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.

Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction:

Helping every child reach and exceed standards: Clearing House: A Journal Of

Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81 (4), 161-164. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.

81.4.161-164

Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom management: What teachers need to know.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Salkind, N. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics.

Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sallee, B., & Rigler, N. (2008). Doing our homework on homework: How does

homework help? English Journal, 98 (2), 46-51. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org.relay.lagrange.edu/journals

Shumow, L., Schmidt, J., & Kackar, H. (2008). Adolescents’ experience doing

homework: Associations among context, quality of experience, and outcomes.

The School Community Journal, 18 (2), 9-27. Retrieved from

http://www.adi.org/journal

Simplicio, J. (2005). Homework in the 21st century: The antiquated and ineffectual Differentiating Homework 47

implementation of a time honored educational strategy. Education, 126 (1), 138-

142. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education.html

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education

Journal, 7 (7), 935-947. Retrieved from http://www.iejcomparative.org

Trautwein, U., & Ludtke, O. (2007). Student’s self-reported effort and time on homework

in six school subjects: Between student’s differences and within-student variation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (2), 432-444. Retrieved from

http://content2.apa.org/journals/edu/99/2/432

Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2006). Predicting homework

effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 438-456. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/publications

Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Ludtke, O. (2009). Between- teacher

differences in homework assignments and the development of students’

homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 176-189. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/publications

Van Voorhis, F. (2004). Reflecting on the homework ritual: Assignments and designs.

Theory Into Practice, 43 (3), 205-212. Retrieved from http://leaonline.com

Vatterott, C. (2009). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse needs.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Xu, J., (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: A multilevel Differentiating Homework 48 analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 103 (3), 171-182. doi: 10.1080/0022

0670903382939 Differentiating Homework 49

APPENDIX A

INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN AND RUBRIC

Instructional Plan

Focus Question 1: How is differentiation in homework incorporated into the curriculum? Rationale: To test the validity of differentiating homework assignments. Content: 6th grade World Geography; Latin America Unit. Knowledge Base: “The intent of the geography domain is for students to begin to grasp the importance geography plays in their everyday lives. The history domain focuses on major events in each region during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries” (Georgia Department of Education).

Standards and Objectives: SS6G1a, b; 2a; 3a, b. SS6H1a, b. Lesson Plans: Designed by using school wide template. The lesson plans are thought out at least one week in advance. The plans include the standards, objectives, essential question, activators, teacher instruction, student work session, materials, technology, and assessment types (summative, formative).

Essential Questions: What is the impact of development and trade on the environment? How does the physical geography of Latin America and the Caribbean affect where people live? How has the physical geography and distribution of resources influenced how people have lived in Latin America? What are the major physical features of Latin America and the Caribbean, and where are they located on a map? What are the major countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and where are they located on a map? How do the factors of climate, access to water, and natural resources affect where Latin America and the Caribbean choose to live and work? Why is this region known as Latin America? How were the Europeans able to conquer the Aztecs and Incas? What were the consequences of Spain‘s conquest of the Aztecs and the Incas? What roles did Cortez, Montezuma, Pizarro, and Atahualpa play in the Spanish encounter and conquest of the Aztecs and Incas? Differentiating Homework 50

Vocabulary: Tributary, deforestation, tropical zone, El Nino, Amazon River, Atacama Desert, Sierra Madre Mountains, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Haiti, Panama, Venezuela, Panama Canal, Andes Mountains, Aztecs, Incas, Maya, Cortez, Montezuma, Pizarro, and Atahualpa.

Instructional Activities: Lead discussion in the guided reading sessions and answering the essential questions. Also, give instruction on activities and presentations. Student Work Session: The students will be working on essential questions, guided reading graphic organizers, outline maps, and geography brochures. The students will also be involved with think- pair-share and two minute writing activities and presentations.

Assessments: Homework and pre/post formative assessments will be the focus of the research. Also, formative assessments will be used from the student work session on a daily basis.

Technology: The e-beam, power point, and white board will be frequently used.

Instructional Plan Rubric

Questions regarding Instructional Plan Open Ended Responses

Can the essential questions be more effectively stated?

Are there some other terms that should be highlighted as vocabulary?

Is there adequate differentiated instruction?

Do you think the student work session has engaging activities?

Is the use of technology sufficient?

APPENDIX B Differentiating Homework 51

JOURNAL PROMPTS

Reflective Journal Prompts:

What techniques are you finding that motivate students?

How have you utilized students’ prior knowledge and/or previous experiences to encourage student learning?

How have you attempted to make the subject matter meaningful for students?

Describe a verbal and/or nonverbal communication technique you have successfully utilized.

What type of accommodations have you made?

What did you learn today that surprised you?

Was the lesson plan completed today? If not, how could you adjust it for maximum impact the next day?

How did the students respond to the introduction of the differentiated homework?

How did the students react after going over the homework directions?

Were there any suggestions from students on how they could modify the homework?

What was the overall response by the students after they turned in their homework?

How could I have made more use of class time today?

APPENDIX C Differentiating Homework 52

ATTITUDINAL HOMEWORK SURVEY

I like to choose what type of homework assignment I do. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree

I like homework that is challenging. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree

Homework helps me to understand the lesson being taught. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Differentiating Homework 53

I do not understand the purpose of homework. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree

I do not spend a long time doing homework. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree