Imágenes

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to examine the reading

achievement of two eighth-grade classes that were instructed with different pedagogies. Differentiated instructional pedagogy targets the varying levels of intelligence of students to ensure lessons are geared toward their individual learning styles through instructional resources, activities, class expectations, cooperative groups, and assessments (Paris & Paris, 2009). Direct instructional pedagogy occurs when a teacher has expertise in one area and presents this expertise to students in an organized and precise way (Kousar, 2010).

I used the quasi-experimental design because of the two groups and, in addition, I compared CRCT scores of 2 different academic school years to determine whether a difference existed in the change in reading test scores. Students who scored on

Performance Level 3 exceeded the state standard and were reported with a scale range of 850 to 950. Students scoring Performance Level 2 met the state standard and were reported with a range of 800 to 849. Finally, students scoring Performance Level 1 did not meet the state standard and were reported with a range of 650 to 799.

The sample population and size were derived from CRCT archival data involving 64 eighth-grade students. In selecting the sample population for the study, I looked at the total number of students in the classroom who had been taught using direct instructional pedagogy, and those who were instructed with differentiated instructional pedagogy. Two classes participated in this study—one class was instructed using direct instructional pedagogy and was composed of 13 females and 19 males; the other class was instructed

using differentiated instructional pedagogy and was composed of 18 females and 14 males. Archival data were collected from records of students who transitioned from the seventh grade to the eighth grade. The students whose data were used in the study had been randomly assigned to their seventh-grade classroom receiving either differentiated instruction or direct instruction.

The students who were taught in the 2011–2012 academic year with direct instructional pedagogy in the seventh grade were instructed by a teacher who taught direct instructional pedagogy in the 2012–2013 eighth grade academic year, and students who were taught with differentiated instructional pedagogy in the seventh grade were instructed by a teacher who taught differentiated instructional pedagogy in the eighth grade. The CRCT scores of the groups.

Research Question and Hypothesis

For this study, one research question and one related hypothesis were formulated for investigation. They were as follows:

RQ: Was there a difference in the change in test scores of the CRCT reading test from the 2011–2012 to the 2012–2013 academic year for the 2011–2012 cohort of eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction compared with those who received direct instruction?

H01: There was no significant difference in the change in test scores of the CRCT reading test from the 2011–2012 to the 2012–2013 academic year for the 2011–2012 cohort of eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction compared with those who received direct instruction.

H1: There was a significant difference in the change in test scores of the CRCT reading test from the 2011–2012 to the 2012–2013 academic year for the 2011–2012 cohort of eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction compared with those who received direct instruction.

The research question was answered with a one-way ANOVA. The CRCT reading test scores from the 2012–2013 academic year were subtracted from the CRCT reading test scores from the 2011–2012 academic year. The results represented the change scores. The independent variable was the instructional type with the two levels: differentiated instruction and direct instruction.

Findings for the Hypothesis Sample Demographics and Preliminary Analysis

The sample consisted of 64 students; 50% (n = 32) had direct instruction and 50% (n = 32) had differentiated instruction. Direct instruction is a teaching method in which the teacher stands in front of the class and presents the lesson to the students. There was little to no interaction between the teacher and the students. Students are usually given a work sheet to complete at the end of the teacher’s presentation. Conversely, differentiated instruction is the opposite. It is an instructional method that offers a variety of strategies that fits the needs of the students learning style. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the data to examine differences in reading achievement before the treatment. Reading achievement scores were not significantly different between the instructional groups of test scores of eighth-grade students. The achievement score differences between the differentiated instruction group (M = 801.88, SD = 27.62) and the direct instruction group

(M = 799.25, SD = 22.90) were not statistically significant, t(62) = – .41, p =.68, two tailed. Examining test scores of the groups before participating in the instructional methods controls for external validity. Thus, if the differences between the pretest and posttest scores are statistically significant, the differences were not related to the difference in test scores (beginning achievement) of the groups before receiving instruction of either type.

The hypothesis was answered by archival CRCT performance scores of two classes with a total of 64 students. The test score results were collected from archival data of seventh-grade students who were randomly placed in two separate classrooms during the 2011–2012 academic year. One class of 32 students was instructed with direct

instructional pedagogy and another class of 32 students was instructed with differentiated pedagogy. These students were tested and then transitioned to the eighth grade and were placed in the same instructional setting as they were in the seventh grade. The students were then tested during the 2012–2013 academic year. From there, the dependent variable was formulated and the change scores calculated.

Table 2

Group Mean Change Scores for Instructional Type

Instructional type n M SD

Direct instructional classroom 32 11.09 22.11

Differentiated instructional classroom 32 11.69 18.54

Total 64 11.39 20.25

The results presented in Table 2 illustrate that the treatment group for direct instruction had a mean score of 11.09 and a standard deviation of 22.11. The treatment

group for differentiated instruction had a mean score of 11.69 and a standard deviation of 18.54. The total mean for both instructional groups was 11.39 with the standard deviation of 20.32. Although the differentiated instructional group showed a +06 difference than the direct instructional classroom, this is not enough to prove whether differentiated instruction was the better instructional pedagogy.

Table 3

ANOVA Summary Table

Source df Mean square F p

Between groups 1 5.64 .01 .908

Within groups 62 416.38

Total 63

Table 3 results show no significant difference in the change in test scores of the CRCT reading test from the 2011–2012 academic year to the 2012–2013 academic year for eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction (M = 11.69, SD = 18.54) compared with those who received direct instruction, M = 11.09, SD = 22.11 F(1, 62) = .01, p = .908. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Conclusion

This section has presented the results of the analysis performed to address the research question. For the hypothesis, although results revealed differentiated instruction showed a small increase over direct instruction, the results were not large enough

therefore it was found no significant difference in the change in test scores of the CRCT reading test from the 2011–2012 academic year to the 2012–2013 academic year for eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction compared with those who

received direct instruction. This did not support evidence against the null hypothesis signifying that eighth-grade students who received differentiated instruction did not score significantly higher than the eighth-grade students who received direct instruction; therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. These results were somewhat surprising given that some of the differentiated scores were higher than the direct scores before the change scores were calculated (i.e., I thought that differentiated instruction would have a statistically significant difference than direct instruction on the achievement of the eighth- grade reading students CRCT assessment scores. In addition, differentiated instruction is strongly emphasized in the literature review as being a major component of academic achievement with the array of activities that are offered to the students. In today’s education, students like to be given the option of choices and variety instead of being told that they have to do something one specific way).