Micah Aaron - Specialized Action Research

1
Differentiated Instruction in the Middle School Science Class
Micah Aaron
Chapter 1 - Research
During the period from 1852-1913, laws were passed in every state making school
attendance mandatory. One room school houses now held classrooms of students with
varying ages and abilities, in which there was a single teacher to teach these different
learners. Although a gradual transition, by the end of WWII, most students in the United
States were now attending the more modern grade-level school setting. Somehow, by
grouping students together by age seemed to erode the idea that students in the
classroom had diverse academic needs and thus needed varied instruction. This
ushered in a “one-size-fits-all” approach to teaching/instruction. While this approach is
inevitably easier on the teacher, one must consider if it is in fact beneficial to every
student/ does in fact pertain to every student. Throughout the time period from the
beginning of the “one-size-fits-all” approach to teaching, until present day, much has
been said for the benefits of a more personalized instruction, designed to meet
individualized students’ needs. Or to coin a new phrase: differentiated instruction.
Although the idea of differentiated instruction resembles the one room school
house, there are some significant differences. These differences have been discovered
through advances in the cognitive sciences, revealing evidence of how the human brain
learns and educational studies that have led to advances in best practices that utilize
these studies to increase student achievement.

2
Differentiated instruction is a practical and proactive way for teachers to provide
for different learners with different needs. The teacher that wants to begin
differentiating instruction in their classroom must first understand that his or her
classroom is full of diverse learners. This teacher will then provide a variety of paths
that each learner can take to reach a common goal. It is, at its core, providing
developmentally appropriate learning experiences to all students. To provide a
developmentally appropriate experience is to first know the student, his or her
interests, readiness level and learning profile and give them an attainable challenge that
allows them to attain their maximum learning potential. Much attention is given to
struggling learners in our time. It is true that teaching to the middle can cause
frustration and may ultimately cause our lower achieving students to be “left behind”.
Using a differentiated instruction mind-set allows teachers to provide opportunities for
struggling learners with attainable goals and more moments of success.
When addressing gifted learners, it is important to note that differentiation does
not mean more work. Gifted learners often struggle with boredom in a classroom that
lacks robust curriculum to meet their needs. Asking a gifted learner to write 4 pages in a
research project while the rest of the class is writing two pages is not effective. If the
students were bored and unchallenged writing the two-page report, it is unlikely they
will regain interest writing four pages and in fact might come across as more of a
punishment. Therefore, differentiation must be qualitative, not quantitative (Tomlinson,
2001). By simply adjusting the quality of the assignment to make it more
developmentally appropriate for the gifted student, the teacher will be able to meet

3
their academic needs without unnecessary busy work. Conversely, adjusting
assignments to meet the needs of struggling learners need not be a watering-down of
the curriculum. With the goal to make every learning experience developmentally
appropriate to each student, the teacher must consider what this means to his or her
struggling students. The goal should be to adjust the content in a manner that will be
challenging but achievable for the students.
A walk through a classroom which is currently implementing differentiated
instruction might appear to some as noisy, busy, and somewhat chaotic. It is a far cry
from the image many have of a school classroom with clean, neat rows of students
quietly working on a worksheet while the teacher silently studies the class from her
desk. However, a differentiated classroom is anything but chaotic. Those who have
successfully implemented differentiated instruction into their classroom will relate that
they exert more leadership now than before (Tomlinson, 2001). Many times, in a
differentiated classroom, students are actively working in cooperative learning groups,
talking with each other as they share ideas or work together to solve a problem.
Students may be grouped by readiness (as determined by the unit’s preassessment),
interest level (as determined by the learner profile), or in a student-chosen group. The
teacher chooses the grouping that best fits the lesson that day (Tomlinson, 2001)
A teacher who differentiates instruction understands that their classroom is full
of learners of many levels of interests, abilities, backgrounds, and skills. Seeing the need
for a struggling student to learn about a topic in a different way is differentiation. For
example, if Bill has a hard time understanding the concept of diffusion, a teacher could

4
have him blow up a balloon and let the air out. Seeing that the air went from an area of
high concentration to low concentration could help Bill understand diffusion. This is
differentiation; using varied learning experiences based on the needs of varied learners
in our classroom.
Observable Methods
When using differentiated instruction, a teacher will use multiple methods, some
that are observable and some that are subtle. One such observable method is called
flexible grouping. Rick Wormeli (2006) describes that dividing students into groups to
break up normal routine is a common practice, but it only becomes true differentiated
instruction when we assign students to different groups based on something we know
about those. An effective method to divide students into groups is by flexible grouping.
During flexible grouping, students can be a part of many different groups (or work alone
at times) based on their readiness, interest, or learning style. These groups can be
selected by the teacher or the student, and may be homogenous or heterogeneous
based on readiness level (Tomlinson, 2001). Being a part of many different groups
through the duration of the year will provide students the chance to see how others
process information and to view other students’ reactions to his or her own processing
of information (Marzano, 2007).
Given the nature of differentiated instruction, students will finish assignments at
different times, and therefore will need work to do. Students will then proceed to work
independently on an anchor activity, which is a broad category of tasks that are many
times ongoing in nature. The teacher must take care to train students to autonomously

5
use extra time in class to work on an anchor activity (Tomlinson, 2010). Anchor
activities can also free the teacher up to meet privately with students and offer them
feedback on formative assessments or teach mini-lessons to small groups (Wormeli,
2006)
Sometimes differentiation doesn’t have to be a thought-out process, and can take
on a more subtle nature. Taking the time to re-teach a concept to a struggling student
during work time, drawing a picture for another to aid in comprehension, allowing a
student with a low-reading level to listen to an audio tape, and providing thought-
provoking discourse about the day’s topic are more subtle ways a teacher can
differentiate (Wormeli, 2007).
How differentiated instruction works
An expert in the field, former middle school teacher, and pioneer in differentiated
instruction, Carol Ann Tomlinson suggests that teachers begin differentiation by
considering the content, product, and process (Tomlinson, 2001). To differentiate
content, teachers need to consider if all students must learn the same concepts
(Wormeli, 2007). Furthermore, students at different readiness levels can work on the
same content at different academic levels. Differentiating process means to vary the
path by which students gain understanding of the topic. Tomlinson prefers to use the
term “sense-making activity” to refer to the processing of information. They do this
best when these activities are interesting to the students, they call on them to stretch
themselves to a higher understanding, and cause the students to use key skills to
understand the key ideas (Tomlinson, 2001). Lastly, the teacher can differentiate the

6
product, or method by which students will display mastery of the topic. By offering
many ways for a student to demonstrate this mastery, the student can choose a high-
quality product assignment that most
Why differentiated instruction works
Differentiated instruction works for a number of reasons. It seems today that
students in our classrooms are more diverse than ever, exhibiting multiple learning
styles, growing up in different cultures, and representing a wide spectrum of
socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore the stakes are high for teachers to address this
diversity.
The rise of Multiple Intelligences (Garner, 1983) and the widespread examination
of learning styles have uncovered a truth that students have different ways they learn
best (Tomlinson, 2001; Wormeli, 2006). For example, some students may be
predisposed to a quiet room, or one with cooperative learning groups. Some students
would prefer to read a text about the circulatory system, while others may need dry
pasta to manipulate while learning about the inner workings of the system. Providing
options for students to learn according to their individual strengths and diverse learning
styles will, in turn, maximize their learning.
DI also works because of various cultural influences. Culture can have an effect
on how we express our emotions, whether we prefer to learn independently or in a
group, whether we prefer to be more reflective or impulsive, or whether we value
creativity or conformity. The teacher’s role is to understand the learning preferences
that exist within different cultures represented by children in the classroom. The

7
children should not be asked to conform to one culture, but be offered the opportunity
to learn in a way most comfortable and recognizable to them (Tomlinson, 2001)
Differentiated instruction can be effective within a wide range of socioeconomic
status. Research suggests that relationships between peers, adults in the school, and
family members can have a great influence on a child’s behavior (Jenson, 2011). Ekman
states that children are born with six emotions: joy, anger, surprise, disgust, sadness
and fear (Ekman, 2003). In order to develop emotions such as patience, cooperation,
gratitude, shame, and sympathy, children must be provided with crucial needs. Some of
these needs include love, guidance, and support from a primary caregiver; a safe,
predictable and stable environment; ten to 20 hours a week of quality interaction; and
enrichment through personalized, increasingly complex activities (Jensen, 2011).
Children who are raised in a low-SES family tend to be exposed to a high number of
adverse family conditions such as teen motherhood, depression, and inadequate health
care. When families are faced with these conditions, children are less likely to have
these crucial needs met. This means that children who live in poverty will enter the
classroom at a distinct emotional disadvantage than their affluent counterparts. This
can then lead to adverse performance in school (Jensen, 2011). Family income has been
linked with a child’s academic success. Often, children who live in poverty struggle with
absenteeism and tardiness. This manifests many times if parents had a negative
experience in school, and this attitude is passed to the child. Absenteeism,
unfortunately, is the factor most attributed to academics and drop-out rates.

8
Low achieving students also feel alienated from schools, as though the teachers are
against them, not for them. They feel a lack of support and giving up is often the path
they choose (Jensen, 2011). Although this is most often not the case.
We know that learning takes place when students feel a sense of security and
community (Tomlinson, 2001). This is a struggle for children who live in poverty. They
need a safe, predictable environment, a sense of belonging and community in school,
and strong support from adults at school. The differentiated classroom provides this.
Teachers start with the end in mind, and offer students a direct goal to achieve and a
personalized pathway by which to achieve it (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). Additionally,
by meeting every student at their level, we avoid the pitfalls of labeling, and therefore
offer all students the sense that they belong. Finally, by implementing multiple
formative assessments in the lesson, the student will have many interactions with the
teacher by which to discuss his or her progress and how to meet goals. This feedback
shows the student that the teacher cares.
Given the preceding information about how a student’s culture, learning style, or
socioeconomic status can affect the manner in which he or she learns, one can conclude
that the “one-strategy-fits-all” method simply does not work in the classroom (McBride,
2004). By differentiating content, process, and product we are equipping every student
with the right tools to gain essential and enduring knowledge of the content.
Current brain research provides powerful insight for the classroom teacher in
this era of student diversity. This research suggests three concepts that fit into the
differentiated instruction model. First, to encourage learning the classroom

9
environment must be a welcoming, non-threatening one. Just like adults, children have
a need for feelings such as acceptance, respect, security – both physical and emotional –
and success. Instances of rejection, failure, embarrassment may have negative
implications on the student’s ability to learn. (Tomlinson, 2001; Subban, 2006) The
second concept learned from recent brain research is that students need to be
appropriately challenged. This concept fits into Vygotsky’s research on the zone of
proximal development. When a teacher knows the skill level of his or her students, he
or she can then provide them experiences that will challenge them to reach their
maximum learning potential., a student needs to be appropriately challenged. Finally,
research shows us that students need to have the skill set to make meaning of the
content in which they are studying through significant association (Subban, 2006)
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development describes the area between what is
unknown to a student and the development potential of that student. Given that each
student, just as any adult, is at a different development level, each student therefore
has a different zone of proximal development. Differentiated instruction allows for
teachers to design learning experiences for students that will begin at their
development level, and challenge them to achieve their potential development (Subban,
2006 )
Rick Stiggins, educator and assessment expert states that “Students can hit any
target they can see and which stands still for them”. When we design our lessons with
the end in mind and communicate this to students, we are providing a goal for students
to reach for. In addition, we are creating purpose behind learning activities and

10
assessments. When students see the goal, the path seems less daunting. As a teacher,
it is equally important that you know the goal and the path to get there.
The role of assessment during differentiated instruction
Assessment drives the best practice in a differentiated classroom. As the
students are actively engaged in learning experiences, the teacher should be “taking the
temperature” of the class, or effectively collecting information about student mastery
and providing feedback of their progress. Students use this feedback to monitor their
own progress, which is critical for learners to gain insight into their learning and
understanding (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). Scores on traditional end-of-unit
tests are often less evidential of student understanding and more dependent on who
scores the test and how they score it (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001) Studies on
metacognition show that intentional learning happens when students are able to
orchestrate their learning, and reflect on their performance (Bransford, Brown, and
Cocking, 2000)
In a round table discussion with other curriculum and instruction experts, Jay
McTighe related assessment as a “photo album instead of a single snapshot” - Jay
McTighe (video). A common goal of teachers is to prepare their students to be an
effective, successful citizen; to prepare them for the “real world”. If this is truly our
intent, then placing heavy and undue weight on a single end-of-the-unit assessment is
not a real interpretation of the real world. Just as these end-of-unit tests cause much
anxiety for some students, adults would be equally as stressed out if their paycheck or
employment relied on their performance on an end-of-year written exam. Rather, job

11
performance reviews are compilations of an employee’s job performance throughout a
prescribed time period, not just on one day. If we are to truly prepare our students to
be successful in their future careers, this should be our model to assess them. The exam
is not the goal. It would be as if we practice for a physical exam in order to be healthier
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wiggins, 2008)
Mastery
Once we have set end-of-unit objective goals, and created appropriate learning
opportunities for students, we must then decide how we will assess whether they have
attained these goals (Wormeli, 2007). A teacher must decide, “These are the things
students must learn and here’s where they are already. What experiences do I need to
provide in order for them to master this material?” (Wormeli, 2006). Next, the teacher
must decide what he or she will constitute as evidence of mastery. This evidence must
be determined carefully for each unit taught, as it will look different across topics and
subjects. Generally speaking, a student has attained mastery when he or she can
demonstrate understanding of a topic. Rather than merely recalling the information,
the student can break up the concept into its component parts, and be able to apply the
knowledge in new situations (Wormeli, 2006)
When a teacher begins with the unit objective, and creates activities to teach that topic,
he or she is merely creating a form of accountability, and serves only to “cover” the
standards. This type of unit design will foster knowledge of the topic, but will lack the
activities and learning experiences that students need in order to understand the topic –

12
that is, to create relationships or connections. These types of activities, created solely
from the academic need of students, are the signature of differentiated lesson design.
Pre-assessments
Pre-assessments are a valuable tool to determine students’ readiness, interest,
and learning profile (Tomlinson, 2001). Analysis of student responses should guide your
lesson-making. The data received from such assessments can be so crucial that learning
experiences are best planned only after the assessment is analyzed.
Formative assessments
Much research has been done and supports the correlation between formative
assessments and learning (Marzano, 2006). Formative assessments can be more
properly viewed as checkpoints, and must be frequent and ongoing. They are critical for
teachers and students to determine their current level of understanding, and provide a
path to reach student goals/objectives. A key component to communicating this path
for students is by providing feedback. Formative assessment and feedback must be two
sides of the same coin. Meta-analysis of thousands of studies has shown feedback to
have a positive impact on student learning (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
Therefore, as a teacher designs assessments, he or she must also decide the method by
which students will receive feedback of their progress. This feedback can be formal
(through the three-step process below), or informally (instantaneously determined by
the situation). According to Wormeli (2006), these frequent checkpoints are where
student learning happens most. It allows teachers to adjust their strategies accordingly,
provides data by which a teacher can communicate student growth with a parent, and

13
teaches students to take ownership of their education. This ownership can happen
when students and the teacher converse about three things: 1) What was the
goal/original objective? 2) Where am I in relation to that goal? 3) What do we need to
do to close the gap? (Wormeli, 2010) Wormeli (2010) calls this “descriptive feedback”,
and can be a productive method for teachers to employ, and can foster student
ownership of the objectives or goals he or she is aiming for. It should be noted also that
formative assessment can be done as students are working in class. Cris Tovani
proposes that a majority of class should be used for student work time, in her
“workshop” model of teaching. She then uses that time to filter in and out of students
and visit with their thoughts on the current assignment. Differentiation and assessment
can be done during this time (Tovani, 2011).
Summative assessments
The goal of a summative assessment is to provide evidence of mastery of all the
unit objectives (Wormeli, 2006). Ideally, a teacher should only provide the students
with a summative assessment only when he or she is confident the students are ready
for it, and only after proper measures have been taken to ensure student have had the
opportunity to master the objectives. Your summative assessment should therefore be
a reflection of these objectives, and a foundation by which to plan your lesson (Wiggins
& McTighe, 2005). It is the final checkpoint, and catalyst for celebration, as this can be a
motivating time for students.

14
Differentiated instruction in middle school
Students in middle school, whose ages range from 11 – 14 in grades six through
eight are at a transitional and difficult time. They face some obstacles in their learning
that have not been present in previous grades. They experience rapid physical growth,
intense emotions, and are trying to find a sense of self. In addition, they desire social
interaction more than ever, and have a need to feel connected to the larger group
(D’Amico & Gallaway, 2010). Consequently, middle school students learn differently
than their primary and secondary school counterparts. Brain research shows us that an
adolescent student’s brain is at a dynamic stage. Synapses are being pruned while other
connections are striving to become stronger (Wormeli, 2006 “Misleading in the
Middle”). It is the optimal age development to create new connections, and—if visited
often—make these connections permanent. At this age, these connections are best
made by manipulating materials, participating in physical activities, and through
cooperative learning experiences. Unfortunately, due to the abstract nature of the
middle school curriculum, many times students are left in their seats to read, memorize,
and recall. Given these differences, it’s important to understand that middle school
students learn differently than their primary and secondary school counterparts.
Research points to the fact that although they look more like secondary school students,
they are still best taught using elementary school approaches (Schurr, et al, 1996).
Rick Wormeli asserts that getting middle school students to pay attention and
learn is most of the battle for teachers, the rest is pedagogy (Wormeli, 2001). One need
that must be addressed is student interest. At this age, adolescents desire to be heard.

15
We can give them ownership in the classroom when we give them a voice. A
differentiated classroom can meet this need through participation in creating class
expectations, and interest questionnaires. These questionnaires provide feedback to
the teacher and can mold the activities in the upcoming lessons. Whenever students
feel their voice is being heard, they tend to work cooperatively with teachers and are
more motivated to meet their academic challenges (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011).
Often in middle school classrooms students sit at their desk for a majority of
class. Sitting for prolonged periods of time will cause blood to pool in your seat and
feet. By simply allowing students the chance to get out of their seat and move around
in an activity, their brains are receiving 15 percent more oxygen. This, coupled with the
adolescent’s desire for social interaction gives strong reason for incorporating engaging
activities in the middle school classroom (Souza, 2006). Many topics and lessons can be
transformed into a physical activity: Having class team races on a track that traces the
path of blood through the body, playing quiz-quiz-trade to study for a test, or even
breaking up a direct instruction lesson by student partners taking two laps around the
room, while they summarize what they just learned.
The adolescent brain is growing at a rapid rate (Wormeli, 2001). In fact, the
frontal lobe has not completely matured until early adulthood. This means that
students in the middle school classroom have an innate inability with planning, higher-
order thinking, problem solving, and managing fear and their overwhelming emotional
needs (Sousa, 2006; Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011). The differentiated middle school
classroom gives students a rich curriculum that meets their individual needs – their

16
learning profile, interest and readiness – and providing them with developmentally
appropriate learning experiences that encourages problem solving and divergent
thinking (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011). Giving middle school students ample opportunities
for success can increase motivation at an age where motivation is hard to come by.
When a student experiences a positive learning experience, their brain rewards them
with chemicals and a motivated student is the result. When we understand a student’s
readiness, learning profile and interest, we can provide them with rich lessons to give
them these opportunities.
Differentiated instruction in the science classroom
Differentiated instruction can have many forms in the science classroom. As
stated before, connections in the adolescent brain can be made stronger when
manipulating materials, participating in physical activities, and through cooperative
learning experiences. Because the science curriculum at the middle level ranges from
concrete to abstract, the need to teach differently exists. The archaic method of
learning science as purely a set of facts to be memorized from a textbook has been
discredited, and students are now being asked to “do” science in addition to the
knowledge they need. Successful differentiated science classrooms utilize
differentiation of content, process, and product.
Differentiating content refers to what you teach and what the student learns
(Tomlinson, 2001). Although state and federal standards must be adhered to, there is a
degree of complexity that can be varied for different students. For instance, when
planning a lesson on electromagnets, some students will require a more foundational

17
understanding of how they work. Other students may need to stretch their
understanding of electromagnets and conduct research into the vast applications in
every day life, and even come up with their own application of this technology. Both of
these lessons teach the same standard, yet span a spectrum from foundational to
transformational, as indicated on Tomlinson’s Equalizer (Tomlinson, 2001).
By the time students have reached middle school, their ability to conceptualize
scientific topics vary. Often, given the abstract nature of some concepts, students are
left to relying on their text book to discover these topics. However, students with
reading levels two or more grades below grade level will struggle with the science
textbook. Reading the text becomes an exercise in their reading skill, and they are
therefore not accessing the science information needed to make cognitive connections
with the text. This is true even when the text is read aloud to them (Bringham, Scruggs
& Mastropieri, 2011). Studies conducted in classes that contained students with
learning disabilities show that higher effect sizes occur when teachers offer learning
experiences that include strategies such as pneumonics and hands-on activities
(Bringham, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2011). Abstract topics such as the solar system can
be taught using such strategies. From learning the names of the planets (My Very
Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nachos), to developing an understanding of what causes
the moon phases (through a hands-on activity whereby the student becomes Earth, and
they hold out a Styrofoam “moon” illuminated by a lamp – “the sun” – in the middle of
the room. Utilizing Tomlinson’s equalizer (Tomlinson, 2001), the teacher can use
different activities for different groups based on their readiness. An advanced group,

18
for example, is ready to ratchet up the complexity of the assignment by creating a
“phases of the earth” chart if one were to live on the moon.
The science teacher must determine whether or not his or her students have an
understanding of the standards. By differentiating the product, students can choose the
method by which they demonstrate mastery. The teacher can also assign a pre-
determined product for students based on their skills and interests. For example, to
demonstrate mastery of Newton’s Laws of Motion, a student with an interest in small
children could write a children’s book. Another student with technology skills may
create a vivid animated power point or computer generated movie to demonstrate
these laws of motion. Yet another kinesthetic student could create three stations, each
demonstrating a separate law of motion. The opportunities are as varied as the
students in the classroom.
Earth science offers ample opportunity to provide students with lessons where
they can manipulate materials, participate in physical activities, and conduct
cooperative learning experiences. Specifically, a study in Earth’s surface processes
focuses on using and/or creating models to describe weathering, erosion, deposition of
materials, and the water cycle. Many avenues exist to differentiate content, process,
and products in this unit. Current writings indicate that adolescent minds needs
engaging, relevant, and interesting learning experiences (Tomlinson 2001). Coupled
with a robust curriculum, purposeful activities, and sense of community in the
classroom, students are more likely to succeed. If I use differentiated instruction in my
6th grade Earth's Changing Surface unit, then will student scores be higher than the

19
control group using traditional teaching methods, as measured by the district common
assessment?

20
Chapter 2 - Methods
This experiment was conducted during a five-week study on Earth’s Surface
Processes. The purpose of this experiment was to study the effects of differentiated
instruction on student understanding and achievement. A control group was selected,
and each group was taught during the same time period. The experimental group was
given differentiated techniques throughout the unit. These techniques included the
differentiation of content, process, and product. This was planned ahead of time in
teacher lesson plans, but given the ever-changing nature of differentiated instruction
lessons, some additional differentiation was used when needed. Techniques described
in chapter 1 were utilized with a focus on constant student feedback, and utilization of
standards based grading as a means for assessment.
Approximately one week prior to the unit, students were given a pre-assessment
to determine a baseline of their knowledge of the six standards being taught (Appendix
A). After the pre-assessment was given, analysis of student performance with these
standards gave the teacher information needed to create lessons based on the needs of
the students. Once these weaknesses and strengths were identified, lessons were
created that addressed these student needs.
Each lesson was designed to allow for different differentiation techniques to be
utilized such as flexible grouping, anchor activities, co-operative learning, or one-on-one
feedback sessions. Through the course of the five week study, these differentiation
techniques were expected to yield positive growth in each of the six standards being
taught.

21
The students selected for the experimental group in this study are all in 6th
grade, ages 11-12. The students all attend a rural school in a small community. 271
students attend this school, which contains classes from Preschool through 8th
grade.
The experimental group contains 31 students: 14 girls, and 17 boys. After an
assessment of learning styles, it appeared that the majority of students in the
experimental group possessed either a visual or kinesthetic learning style. Reading
ability was factored as well, which ranged from 3rd
grade to high school level in this
group. This information was used in the planning of lessons, and was incorporated in
flexible grouping situations.
The control group contained students ages 11-12 in the 6th
grade, and come
from the same rural district, but attended a school in a more rural setting. Students in
the experimental group lived in or near their small town, while the students in the
control group lived farther out in a more agricultural setting. The school which these
students attended contained 270 students, and the class contained 30 students: 13
girls, and 17 boys. This group was chosen because of the similarities in their size,
demographics, and common curriculum taught within the district they attend.
The evaluation instruments through the experiment consisted of three parts.
Utilized throughout the time period was a pre-assessment given prior to the beginning
of the unit, a series of formative assessments given periodically during the unit, and a
summative assessment given at the conclusion of the unit.
As a way to provide academic feedback to students during the unit, the students
in the experimental group were given weekly progress reports based on their

22
progression of each standard in the unit. In this way, students were keenly aware of the
end of unit objectives as they watch their progress in the graphical report. The focus of
these progress reports was to keep student focus on the unit objectives, and create self
efficacy through watching their progress. Appendix B contains a sample of a student’s
completed progress card and the mastery scoring criteria for each standard. The
highlighted section at the beginning of the graph represents what students knew at the
beginning of the unit as measured by the pre-assessment. As each standard was
assessed through various formative assessments, the teacher shaded in the graph to the
appropriate level of understanding and, with one-on-one conferences, the student
participated in their progress through the standard.
Table 1 shows the standards assessed in this unit. Each standard was assessed
multiple times in both the pre-assessment and summative assessment. Each time the
standard was assessed, the complexity of questioning was ratcheted up. The pre-
assessment and summative assessment were divided into three sections, each section
assessing a higher Depth of Knowledge (DOK) than the previous. The assessments were
organized by the following: Section 1) Foundational, need-to-know information, set up
with level 1 Depth of Knowledge (DOK) questions. Section 2) At-level expectation
according to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) which utilized level 2 and 3
DOK questions. Section 3) Advanced questions that provide opportunity to think
laterally across standards, utilizing level 3 DOK questions. Appendix D contains the pre-
assessment and summative assessment. Each one is divided up into the previously
stated sections.

23
Table 1
Objective Performance Indicator
Weathering, Erosion, and
Deposition
Students will use models to explain how weathering, erosion, and
deposition of Earth materials, by the movement of water, shape landscapes
and create underground formations.
The Water Cycle
Model multiple pathways for the cycling of water through the atmosphere,
geosphere, and hydrosphere as it changes phase and moves in response to
energy from the sun and the force of gravity.
Ocean Movement
Plan and conduct investigations to explain how temperature and salinity
cause changes in density which affect the separation and movement of
water masses within the ocean.
Matter Cycling Through
Earth’s Systems – the role of
water
Plan and carry out investigations of the variables that affect how water
causes the erosion, transportation, and deposition of surface and
subsurface materials as evidence of how matter cycles through Earth’s
systems.
Natural Hazards
Apply scientific knowledge to design engineered solutions to natural
hazards that result from surface geologic and hydrologic processes.
Formation of Soil
Generate and revise causal explanations for how physical and chemical
interactions among rocks, sediments, water, air, and organisms contribute
to the weathering and erosion of rocks and the formation of soil.
Formative assessments were given during the course of the unit as a way to
provide evidence of mastery of each standard taught. In order to determine when a
student had achieved mastery, a mastery scoring criteria was created (Appendix A).
Students were assessed in different ways according to their particular readiness,
learning style, or interest. For example, one student named James1
, struggles with test
anxiety. During a project where James and another student were designing a solution to
avalanches, the teacher asked him some probing questions to determine his
understanding of how natural hazards form and how humans can both increase the
frequency of them and take measures to prevent damage from them. In this manner,
1 Student names are pseudonyms

24
the teacher was better able to assess James’ understanding. This data would have been
incomplete if the teacher only relied on paper/pencil assessments. But by
differentiating how the students demonstrate mastery, this information is more
accurately found, and the student can advance to the next item in the curriculum.
The summative assessment contained the same format as the pre-assessment,
and is designed to be given directly after the five-week study. It should be noted
however, that the experimental group experienced a snow storm the day before the
summative assessment, which happened to be the day before Christmas break.
Therefore, these students had a gap of 13 days between the end of the unit of study and
their next day at school. Two days were used to review the unit, that included a fun
game in which student partners competed with questions pertaining to each objective.
After the two-day review, the summative was given. Even given the measures taken to
review the material, the 13-day gap may have affected the results of the study.

25
Chapter 3 - Results and Conclusion
During this experiment, students were exposed to various ways which they can
learn daily lessons. In order to understand the students better, each student was given
a learning style survey, along with a short lesson about how to interpret the results, and
why metacognition is an important part of the learning process. These results were
then studied by the teacher to develop more of a full learner profile of his class.
Another important factor noted by the teacher was individual reading levels, as
measured by the most recent reading assessment. This information was used to shape
complexities of reading activities, and to find those students who would benefit more
from oral assessments rather than reading assessments.
Lessons given were widely varied both in content, delivery style, and by the
product made by students. When reading the textbook, students all learned to take
notes in a way that best fit their needs. The class was split in two sections. The first
group stayed with the teacher-aide to have the text read aloud for them. For students
who struggled with writing, a fill-in-the-blank notes page was provided. The second
group was on the other side of the room (or the hall where it’s quieter), and was able to
either read alone or with a partner while taking notes on the text. After each group was
finished, they were given an anchor activity that consisted of questions to check
understanding of the text. When the class was ready, the next stage was to meet in
whole-group instruction to discuss the text, and to provide some illustrations or
demonstrations when needed. At the end of class, students were asked to write a one-
paragraph reflection of what they learned that day. This end-of-class reflection was

26
utilized throughout the unit, and was sometimes collected by the teacher in a “ticket
out of class” format. This became valuable data for the teacher to assess student
understanding of the day’s lesson. Each day’s reflection question was again utilized in
the next class period’s warm-up, as a means to review what students learned the
previous class period. It should be noted that student groupings were assigned by the
teacher based on previously mentioned student data (in this case, reading data). But
students were given the freedom to ask the teacher if they can switch groups to best fit
their needs. In this way, students begin to take responsibility and ownership for their
learning, as discussed in our metacognition lesson at the beginning of the unit. It was
the author’s experience that students were excited about the novelty of this freedom to
choose. Of course, the teacher always had a final say to put students in groups that best
fit their needs.
On days when students were learning through activity sheets, they were given
different sheets based on readiness, as assessed by the pre-assessment and weekly
progress reports (see Appendix B). These activity sheets ranged from foundational to
complex, but were all based on the same objective for the day. For example, when
discussing soil formation, students at the foundational level were given a task to identify
and accurately define the major components of soil. Their mastery was then measured
through either a ticket out of class, or through an oral assessment. Students who were
at-level were given the task to describe how weathering and erosion is a critical
component of soil formation, and then, given the varying horizons of soil were asked to
describe climatological conditions that would provide a rich, fertile soil. These students

27
were then to create a presentation to show the ideal fertile soil and conditions that
created them. Students who were ready for a more complex activity were given the
task to research three areas and determine the types of soil that would likely be found
in that area. Biotic factors, climate, rate of weathering/erosion, and other abiotic
factors were necessary to consider when conducting this investigation. Their product
could be in the form of a written report, a large poster, or a power-point presentation.
When investigating the water cycle, it was important for all students to see the
different paths that water can take. The class participated in an activity that would
provide a visual representation of this objective. Students conducted a reading lesson
as described above to learn about the water cycle. Since this is a topic that is learned in
previous grades, this was mostly intended to refresh their memory of the few
components they have learned. During the whole-class time, students were introduced
to new components – transpiration, groundwater, and various types of collection
(rivers, seas, glaciers, etc.). A couple of scenarios were then explored by the class along
with some rules (precipitation cannot precede condensation for instance). In this way,
students learned how they can create multiple ways to create their own water cycle
story. After this, students completed an activity sheet with 8 boxes, each to be filled
with a picture or description of one “part” of the water cycle (groundwater for
example). As the class worked, the teacher spent time checking for understanding.
After students were finished, and the teacher checked for accuracy, students then
created a storyboard on a sentence sheet – folded in half four times to create
symmetrical boxes – to graphically or descriptively depict their water cycle. These

28
storyboards were all hung on the wall for the rest of the unit as a visual of the many
variations that water can be recycled. This project was created because of the high
population of visual learners in the classroom. Students who needed to see these
concepts could understand them more easily. Students did so well understanding this
objective that an extension was created. In this extension, students wrote a story
depicting a day in their life after one component of the water cycle stopped
(precipitation). This was then used as a formative assessment to determine student
progress in the water cycle objective (see Appendix A for the mastery scoring criteria
breakdown). In this assignment, students should reveal an understanding that each part
of the water cycle is interrelated, and a disruption in one part will adversely affect the
others. A student sample of a student scoring a 4.0 on this assignment is included in
Appendix C.
The variable tested in this experiment was to utilize various differentiated
instruction methods throughout the five-week unit of study. Data collected for the
effectiveness of these methods were compared with the control group, which also
received quality instruction, but through mainly traditional means of instruction (whole-
group, lecture, and uniform lab assignments). In data analysis, the six
objectives/standards were coded with numbers 1-6, as can be seen in table 2. These
numbers were used to do a side-by-side comparison of the two groups.

29
Table 2
In the analysis of pre-
assessment data, it was found that
students appropriately lacked
knowledge in all six standards being
taught. Students did, however,
display a foundational knowledge of
natural disasters. They were able to
generally explain how they were
caused, and many understood the
types of measures taken to limit the
damage of them. They all seemed to
know a lot about tsunamis, perhaps
because of the recent tsunamis in the
past five years that have had disastrous impacts around the world.
Another interesting result from pre-assessment data analysis is the different
base-knowledge that each group exhibited at the beginning of the unit. The control
group scored better than the experimental group in all six objectives on the pre-
assessment (except for standard #5, each group was equal). The control group scored
an average of 9.8% higher on all standards, with a maximum spread of 20% on Standard
#4. Table 3 shows the raw data from the pre-assessment and summative assessments.

30
Table 3
Upon analysis of the summative assessment data, it was found that each group
exhibited growth in their understanding of each standard. The control group increased
their score on all six objectives by an average of 22.5%, whereas the experimental group
increased their score of all six objectives by an average of 41.3%. The highest increase
in score for the control group was 33% on standard #1 (Weathering, Erosion, and
Deposition), and the highest increase for the experimental group was also on standard
#1 with an increase of 53%.
In the experimental group, students conducted a differentiated lesson on
weathering after an initial set of lessons and formative assessments to determine
foundational knowledge. In this lesson, students created a statue made of any natural
rock available. They researched the factors that affect weathering, such as rock type,
amount of precipitation, and climate. They then designed their statue, determined the
best material to build it from, and decided on the best climate in which it should be

31
placed. In this activity, the teacher noticed Jerry, a boy who was not motivated to put
much effort in his project. Knowing that Jerry loves baseball, and in particular the St.
Louis Cardinals, the teacher asked him to imagine that the Cardinals had hired him to
make a statue of David Freese (his favorite player), and immediately his attitude,
posture, and work ethic improved. When looking at the data, it is the author’s thought
that this type of differentiation made a difference.
While this is one of many examples when a student found the motivation to not
only complete his work, but to put forth additional effort into it, it should be noted that
not all students did. Conducting a differentiated classroom is vastly different from
education decades ago. No longer is each student sitting quietly at his or her seat
working on the same assignment, but as stated in chapter 1, the room can be quite
noisy at times, and some responsibility on the student’s part is needed in order for the
lesson to go as planned. The teacher found that at times, the large group was a bit
overwhelming. A core group of 5-10 students had a hard time staying focused on the
Figure 1

32
task at hand while others in the room were working. This type of learning environment
seemed new to them, and they struggled to do what was expected of them. As a
solution to this, the teacher offered these students a quiet place to work, without
distractions, which seemed to help. Afterwards, a conference with these students gave
them an opportunity to discuss what this new classroom environment is like, and a re-
teaching of expectations was given. Although, these students still struggled through the
rest of the unit.
Suggestions for future
implementation follows
below.
Figure 2 shows
student growth in both
the control group and
experimental group from
the pre-assessment to summative. As mentioned before, the control group had begun
the unit with a better understanding of the six objectives being taught as shown by the
higher scores on this assessment. It should be noted, however, that a drastic increase
occurred in the experimental group between these assessments, showing a remarkable
growth. Evidence, like the weathering/erosion/deposition lesson, can be drawn to show
that these differentiated lessons have had an impact. In addition, it is highly likely that
student involvement in the learning process had a great impact on metacognitive
Figure 2

33
development, self-efficacy, and the sense of control each student experienced during
this unit.
During each weekly progress report, (a sample can be found in Appendix B) the
teacher discussed with and showed the student his or her progress in each objective
being learned. The students showed interest in their progression, and it opened a
dialog that was not previously present. This dialog included a discussion of three things:
their present level of understanding, where they would like to be (a minimum goal of
3.0 was drawn, unless the student was ready to go higher), and how they plan to get
there. Students even had the option to propose a project to demonstrate their
understanding of an objective just to move ahead on the graph. While there were
exceptions, these visually-oriented students accepted this new form of learning –
student directed.
Differentiated instruction by design is tailored to the needs of all students, so in
addressing all students’ needs, each one has the same advantage as the other. This is
especially important to both at-risk learners and gifted learners. After a reading analysis
was performed, three groups were determined; “below-level”, “at-level”, and “above-
level”. For the purposes of this study, “below-level” was determined as a reading level
less than 5th
grade. “At-level” was determined by reading levels in 5th
or 6th
grade.
“Above-level” was defined as reading levels of 7th
grade or higher. In the experimental
group, 14 students were below level, 11 students were at level, and 6 students were
above level. Table 4 shows the results of this reading level analysis.

34
Table 4
In this analysis, it can be seen that while many students experienced growth
between the pre-assessment and summative in each objective, there were instances
where students experienced a decrease in their score. This may be due to a few factors.
It’s possible that these students guessed correctly during the pre-assessment, resulting
in a deceptively high score. Other factors such as student health or external family
factors could have affected the summative assessment score. Overall, however, the
validity of the testing and experimental procedure lends itself to the validity of this data.
What should be noted in this data is in the statistical analysis of it. While each subgroup
experienced modest growth, the level of growth was lowest in the below-level group,
and highest in the above-level group. As discussed in chapter 1, differentiated
instruction can lead to a more encouraging and respectful environment to our higher

35
achieving students. These students who spend a fraction of the time in class to
complete assignments that are at times levels below their ability level can become
complacent, lose interest in school, or become behavior problems. It is concerning,
however, that the lower-level students had the lowest growth rate. Is it because of a
lack of background knowledge with which to connect to the new information taught? If
so, lesson planning should be focused on creating this background knowledge in these
students before they move into new territory. As stated before, there were students in
the classroom that were unable to quickly adjust to this new differentiation model and
were never able to. The students unable to adjust were in the lower reading level,
which could be one reason for the minimal growth found in that group.
Therefore, in light of this compelling data, it is assumed that this intensive and
intentional student-to-teacher conversation, lessons based on student needs, and
student directed learning, played a major role in the differences shown in growth rates
between the control group and experimental group. Students were not only assessed
for their strengths and weaknesses for teacher reference and lesson planning, but also
for their own reference. It is thought that this self-revelation of ownership in their
learning fostered a greater understanding of assignments given, better work ethic and
less test anxiety during assessments, and an overall positive environment with which to
work in the science classroom. This experiment shows the value of such openness and
transparency between the teacher and student. Why must students be held in the dark
when it pertains to learning objectives and goals in their education? When they are a
partner in this process, they are more willing to put forth the energy required to learn.

36
In addition, they begin to understand “why” we do what we do. They are in control of
their education, which seems to be most appreciated by our gifted learners. Boredom
decreases, because they are allowed to pursue their interests at a pace that is respectful
of their abilities. In this study, it is believed that this fostering of respect for gifted
students’ time and interests provided a fertile ground with which they used to grow.
Questions still remain after completion of this experiment. Of greatest concern
is the effectiveness of differentiation for the at-risk learners. Future study should be
conducted to fully understand why this group of learners were unable to improve as
much as their counterparts. Brain research is conclusive on the positive effect that
background knowledge has on effectively creating links between prior knowledge and
new information into long-term memory. A new study in differentiation should
manipulate different ways to create this background knowledge where it is lacking. The
school district chosen for this study comes from a high poverty community, and with
that comes natural challenges that students bring with them. One of which is a lack of
background knowledge. One could create this knowledge through supplemental books,
activities, videos, or hands-on experiments. Each of these could also be differentiated
for all types of learners in the classroom.
This study provides a great insight into how students learn best, and provided
the teacher with an intense introspective look into best practice teaching. Often it is
stated that educators make decisions that are student-centered or teacher-centered.
Differentiated instruction is definitely student-centered instruction. It is very time
consuming at the onset, and as advised by multiple authors, it should not be a strategy

37
to jump into head-first. A slow, methodical introduction to the strategy will provide the
teacher with most success and least amount of stress.
This is a study worthy of repeating next year. In order to alleviate some of the
factors that may have adversely influenced student achievement, changes to the study
will need to be done. First, providing better background knowledge may help the lower-
level learners as previously mentioned. Pre-recording reading text for students who
struggle with reading could provide them with a manner in which to learn the material
without frustration, can offer reinforcement while they follow along, and with
headphones, a quieter environment. Another change that would help would be to
spend time at the beginning of the year training the class to work in independent
groupings, transitioning around the room, and then back to whole group. This is best
done incrementally and methodically and is very difficult to do while trying to teach the
present topic. As this was not done prior to this study, it did cause some disturbances in
classroom management. An additional change that could be done next year is to
introduce learning contracts to the gifted-learners. These learning contracts provide
those students that are able to work independently with a list of objectives, assignments
and checkpoints to complete on their own. They would be worked on and monitored by
the teacher through periodic checkpoints. Lastly, next year will be the 2nd
year this
teacher will teach this subject, and new strategies and activities can be implemented to
further enhance novelty and the robust curriculum needed to make the lessons
engaging and exciting.

38
During this experiment, I learned that my students are eager to try new things.
They were excited to be a part of an “experiment”, and were excited to do something
new. I learned that 6th
graders are much different that 7th
grade students! At first, the
younger children were hard to “figure out”. The maturity level of the boys seemed far
below the girls (which has some truth to it), and having so many students in the room
made for a tough class on the days they were in a very social mood. The expert teacher
would be able to recognize these days and adjust lesson plans to allow them to learn
socially that day. I would like to be able to harness that social energy for good. Another
lesson learned from my students was one of their needs. As a budding teacher, I was
one that simply taught “to the middle”. The gifted learners continued to learn in spite
of me, and struggling learners just had to hang on. I find myself much more tuned in to
those special needs learners – both the gifted ones and struggling ones – and constantly
taking the temperature of the room to see if what I am doing is working. I feel this is
where I have changed the most. Being able to allow myself to go off-script, and
completely change the day’s lesson because it is what the students need is something I
have learned to do. This goes back to the discussion of whether we are making student-
centered or teacher-centered decisions. Keeping a tight, neat lesson plan book and
adhering to it no matter what sure makes the teacher’s life a lot easier. However, if we
are truly to create this transparent relationship between us, the curriculum, and the
students, our day-to-day planning needs to revolve around where the students are,
where they are headed, and how we will get there. I believe this is the most important
lesson I have learned through this process, and it has changed the way I approach my

39
day-to-day decisions. Finally, I have found that differentiated instruction has increased
the likelihood of a healthier teacher-parent relationship. Standards Based Grading
becomes second nature when differentiating, as it is the standards by which you are
assessing students. Parents of primary students are used to these types of school
reports, but something changes when letter grades are introduced in 4th
grade. We
begin on the right track of tracing a child’s steps through objectives learned, and then
we get off track and only shoot for an A or B in each subject. The problem is, many
parents (and teachers) don’t know what that really means. Through standards based
grading by means of differentiation, this tracing of progression in each objective
becomes a more obvious barometer of student achievement in school. It also gives the
parent a bigger window into the curriculum being taught in their children’s school, of
which each parent should be an advocate and champion. I found parents to be
supportive of this type of instruction and grading during our October Parent Teacher
Conferences. I could especially feel the appreciation from the parents of our gifted
learners. I look forward to implementing and fine-tuning the many strategies I have
acquired through this study throughout my classes in the coming years.

40
Bibliography
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn, brain, mind,
experience, and school. (Expanded edition). Washington: National Academies
Press.
D’Amico, J., & Gallaway, K. (2010). Differentiated instruction for the middle school
science teacher: Activities and strategies for an inclusive classroom. New York:
John, Wiley, & sons.
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve
communication and personal life. New York: Henry Holt.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Jensen, E. (2011). Teaching with poverty in mind, what being poor does to kids' brains
and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works,
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McBride, B. (2004). Data-Driven Instructional Methods: 'One Strategy Fits All' Doesn't
Work in Real Classrooms. T H E Journal, 31(11), 38.
Schurr, S., et al, (1996). Teaching at the middle level: A professional's handbook.
Lexington: D.C. Heath Company.
Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sousa, D., & Tomlinson, C. (2011). Differentation and the brain: How neuroscience
supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Subban Pearl. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research basis. International
Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. (2
ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Tovani, C. (2011). So what do they really know?, assessment that informs teaching and
learning. Markham, Ontario: Stenhouse Pub.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. (2nd ed. ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. (2008). [DVD]. Connecting differentiated instruction, understanding what
works, and what works in school: An exploration of research-based strategies.
Wormeli, R. (2001). Meet me in the middle, becoming an accomplished middle-level
teacher. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
Wormeli, R. (2007). Differentiation. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Differentiating for Tweens. Educational Leadership, 63(7), 14-19.

41
Wormeli, R. (2006). Misleading in the middle: a rebuttal to cheri pierson yecke.
Educational Leadership, 63, Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always equal, assessing & grading in the differentiated
classroom. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
Wormeli, R. (2010). Rick wormeli: Formative and summative assessment. [Web Video].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJxFXjfB_B4

42
Appendix A
Mastery Scoring Criteria
Weathering/Erosion/Deposition
Score Content
4.0
Given a current earth landscape (e.g., the Mississippi Delta),students will hypothesize what this landform looked
like thousands of years ago, and cite evidence for this hypothesis
3.5 In addition to score 3.0 performance, partial success at score 4.0
3.0
Students will use models to explain how weathering, erosion, and deposition of Earth materials, by the movement
of water, shape landscapes and create underground formations.
2.5 No major errors regarding score 2.0 content and partial success at score 3.0 content.
2.0 Students can identify the different methods by which water causes weathering and erosion
1.5 Partial success at score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0 With help, partial success at score 2.0 content and score 3.0 content.
0.5 With help, partial success at score 2.0 content, but not at score 3.0 content.
0.0 Even with help, no success
The Water Cycle
Score Content
4.0
Students will be able to discuss how each component of the water cycle is interrelated, and how an inconsistency
in one will affect the others.
3.0
Model multiple pathways for the cycling of water through the atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere as it
changes phase and moves in response to energy from the sun and the force of gravity.
2.0 Students can label the major parts of the water cycle on a picture

43
Ocean Movement
Score Content
4.0 Students can explain how ocean currents affect local weather patterns on land
3.0
Plan and conduct investigations to explain how temperature and salinity cause changes in density which affect the
separation and movement of water masses within the ocean.
2.0
Students can measure the density of liquids, and recognize that higher density fluids will sink below lower density
fluids.
Matter cycling through earth’s systems – the role of water
Score Content
4.0
Students can hypothesize how a change in the water cycle would ultimately affect how matter cycles through
Earth’s systems.
3.0
Plan and carry out investigations of the variables that affect how water causes the erosion, transportation, and
deposition of surface and subsurface materials as evidence of how matter cycles through Earth’s systems.
2.0 Students will identify examples of how water causes erosion, transportation, and deposition of materials

44
Natural Hazards
Score Content
4.0 Students can relate how human activity can affect the occurrences of natural hazards
3.0
Apply scientific knowledge to design engineered solutions to natural hazards that result from surface geologic and
hydrologic processes.
2.0 Students can identify natural hazards on Earth.
Formation of Soil
Score Content
4.0 Given an area’s climate, students will be able to predict the type of soil that will form
3.0
Generate and revise causal explanations for how physical and chemical interactions among rocks, sediments,
water, air, and organisms contribute to the weathering and erosion of rocks and the formation of soil.
2.0 Students can identify the major components of soil

45
Appendix B – sample student progress report
(See Appendix A for scoring criteria)

46
Appendix C – student writing example

49
Appendix D – Pre-assessment and Summative Assessment
Pre-Assessment

Micah Aaron - Specialized Action Research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Micah Aaron - Specialized Action Research

Similar to Micah Aaron - Specialized Action Research (20)

Micah Aaron - Specialized Action Research