Action Research in science classroom

AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 32(3) SUMMER 2004

ACTION RESEARCH IN THE SECONDARY
SCIENCE CLASSROOM: STUDENT RESPONSE TO
DIFFERENTIATED, ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT

AUTHORS

FAITH H. WATERS is Professor in the Professional and Secondary Education
Department, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania

PATRICIA S. SMEATON is Associate Professor, in the Professional and
Secondary Education Department, East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

TODD G. BURNS has been a Secondary Science Teacher for 18 years and is
currently the Principal of Pocono Mountain East High School, Swiftwater,
Pennsylvania.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to share classroom action research studying the
perception of students to a differentiated, alternative assessment model in a
secondary science classroom. Results of the study indicated the majority of
the students preferred the differentiated, alternative assessment model to
solely traditional assessment. The elements of choice, increased learning,
and extended experience were significant factors in student preference.

INTRODUCTION
For the last decade the education world has been inundated with ideas on
ways to individualize and enhance instruction for students. Learning
styles, alternative and authentic assessment, multiple intelligences theory,

89

ACTION RESEARCH IN THE SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM WATERS, ET. AL.

differentiated instruction, and inclusionary practices all have the common
goal of improving learning for each and every student (Tomlinson, 1999;
Darling-Hammond, 1997; Sylwester, 1995; Gardner, 1993). The typical
teacher is presented with many options on how to improve the teaching
and learning process for students. It is often difficult to discern which
new reform will benefit learning, in a particular academic area or class-
room.
Increasingly teachers are relying on action research to inform their
practice. As in traditional research, action research includes on-going
"cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection,
analysis, data driven action taken, and finally, problem redefinition"
(Johnson 1993, p.1). Although typically it is the researchers and their
students who benefit directly, the findings of action research can also
serve as a catalyst for change by other educators (Borgia & Schuler, 1996;
Johnson, 1993). Action research affords opportunities for practicing
teachers to examine current theory as implemented in their daily practices
and to make data-driven adjustments in their curriculum and instruction
in a meaningful way (McLaughlin, Watts & Beard, 2000).
The specific goal of this article is to share how one of the authors, a
secondary science teacher, implemented differentiated, alternative assess-
ment and conducted action research to examine student reaction to the
implementation of the assessment model. The breadth of the content and
practices involved makes the earth and space science classroom an ideal
laboratory for this action research project. This study is consistent with
Fleming's (2000) definition of action research as "a systematic inquiry into
a school or classroom situation with the intent of inspiring the quality of
teaching and learning and gaining a deeper understanding of the complex
content in which it occurs" (p.11).
This article also addresses a concern with the finding that 40% of
science teachers reported that they were unprepared for the development
of performance-based assessments (Weiss, 1997). In response to Weiss’
findings and in an effort to determine what changes might make a signifi-
cant difference in producing rich understanding in his classes, one of the
authors, a high school earth and space science teacher, identified the use
of differentiated, alternative assessment as a methodology worthy of
implementation and study.

OVERVIEW OF STUDY
The purpose of this action research study is to examine student reaction to
the implementation of the differentiated, alternative assessment model in

90

WATERS, ET. AL. ACTION RESEARCH IN THE SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM

one high school earth and space science classroom. As with all action
research, the overarching purpose is to inform practice so students benefit.
Differentiated, alternative assessment is defined for this project as a hybrid
of alternative assessment (Mueller, Waters, Smeaton, & Pinciotti, 2001)
and differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). It combines non-tradi-
tional assessments such as projects, presentations, and performances with
the elements of choice, variety, and individualization of differentiated
instruction.

SETTING
All students involved with this project were enrolled in a high school
earth and space science course, which offers a broad survey of topics but
emphasizes astronomy, geology, meteorology, and hydrology. The setting
for the study was a high school populated by a diverse mix of 3,250 rural
students and recently relocated urban students. While some traditional
multiple-choice tests were still used, the teacher implemented differenti-
ated, alternative assessment practices in all areas except hydrology and
collected feedback from students in a classroom-based, action research
format. The teacher planned to implement the differentiated, alternative
assessment in the hydrology unit the following school year.

PARTICIPANTS
Subjects for the initial phase of this action research consisted of 79 ninth-
grade Earth and Space Science students from three classes in a block-
scheduled rural high school. Participating students were enrolled in the
college preparatory class, had the same teacher for the semester, were
engaged in similar learning experiences, and had completed identical
teacher-led activities. All of the subjects had the same assessment oppor-
tunities. The secondary phase of the action research involved all 47
students from two randomly selected classes involved in the primary
phase.
The teacher-researcher involved in the study was a 17-year teaching
veteran enrolled in a graduate studies program while continuing to teach
full time. The teacher-researcher began phasing in differentiated, alterna-
tive assessments during the fall semester but realized that no data had
been gathered regarding the benefits to the students in such a program.
Because the teacher valued the opinions of those most directly affected by
the assessment model, data on these views were collected utilizing a
Likert-style survey created by the teacher.

91


DIFFERENTIATED, ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT MODEL
Based on the literature regarding performance-based, alternative assess-
ment and how students learn (Holloway, 2000; Wiggins & McTighe,
1998), coupled with his own graduate work and teaching experience, the
teacher-researcher thought differentiated, alternative assessment practices
might provide a vehicle to move toward a more action-oriented evalua-
tion process. In order to put his ideas into action he needed to first
develop the assessment model. Implementing an assessment framework
that accounted for the different learning styles and intelligences of the
students required a transformation in practice for both the instructor and
students. These changes centered on:

• increasing the level of active student participation,
• establishing and sharing the expectations for success,
• increasing the role of students in decision making,
• providing for a variety of student options,
• providing for positive interpersonal interactions, and
• modifying the role of the teacher from director to facilitator.

The initial step in the change process was for the teacher to create
and share with the students the rubric (see Figure 1) that the teacher
would use to assess the products. Because all students had a copy of this
document prior to the beginning of the work, they knew exactly what was
required. Students had time to work through questions, ask for clarifica-
tions, and probe the requirements, enabling them to self-assess and make
modifications prior to submission.
Student work was assessed for:

• the level of accuracy of information (content, processes, skills,
etc.),
• making connections to prior learning or everyday life events,
• identifying effects and formulating solutions,
• devising an original idea pertinent to the topic, and
• discussing different viewpoints centered on the main theme.

Once students understood the scoring system, they entered into a
series of choices that allowed them to exercise control within the assess-
ment process. Students chose the type of assessment activity to complete
and whether to work alone or in a small group. After these choices were
made, the students selected the products to create. Projects produced

92


Figure 1: Assessment rubric to evaluate projects

Criterion Not Needs Meets Mastered
Attempted Work Requirements

Accuracy No information or Some factual Accurate evidence Extensive and in-
references errors, insufficient or information depth information
provided. or inaccurate infor- provided with provided with
mation provided. proper references proper references.
References not
in proper format.

Viewpoints/ No differing view- Differing view- Differing view- Presented differing
Opinions points or opinions points not clearly points or opinions viewpoints and
offered or docu- stated or lacks provided with the references with an
mented. proper documenta- proper accurate descrip-
tion (references). documentation. tion of the differ-
ences.

Connections No connections to Connections to Connections made Connections to
other areas studied prior learning or from the main other topics and/or
were identified or other topic areas concept to other areas previously
incorporated into attempted but are areas studied and studied were made
the project. incomplete on not successfully incor- at high levels of
clearly stated. porated into understanding.
project.

Original No original expla- Original explanation Original explanation Original explanation
Explanation nation or idea or idea attempted or idea offered and or idea offered,
or Idea provided or but not clearly discussed within discussed, and
discussed. stated or incorpo- the project. supported by data
rated. or observation.

Effects No assessment of Real-world effects Real-world effects Real-world implica-
real-world effects presented but not of concept or topic tions are presented,
or implications. clearly defined or are assessed in assessed and a
assessed. project. plan for action
provided

included board games and three-dimensional models, computer presenta-
tions, web pages, brochures, newspapers, formal or creative writings, live
performances, or a combination of these. Throughout the semester
students were required to produce assessment pieces in at least three
different formats. The usual time frame needed to complete the work
consisted of three, 90-minute class periods plus time after school or in the
evenings.

93


Students periodically reported their progress to peers in a roundtable
discussion format that allowed for feedback. This requirement provided a
structure that included internal deadlines. In addition, students working in
small groups continually engaged in discussion concerning the how,
what, and why of the work. Students sometimes disagreed on a course of
action, responsibility, or requirement, but the teacher intervened only
when necessary to keep the students working. As the process unfolded,
the teacher guided, directed, and encouraged individuals and groups.
Upon completion of the task, the student or students formally presented
the project to the class and submitted all materials to the teacher for
evaluation.

METHODOLOGY
The assessment model that the teacher-researcher designed was used for a
one semester, 90-day course during which students completed five differ-
entiated, alternative assessment products. At the conclusion of the
semester, data concerning student attitudes and beliefs were collected
using a forced-response survey and an open-ended questionnaire.
The teacher-researcher created a forced response survey consisting of
24 questions which was administered to the students (see Appendix A).
This Likert-style survey was based on a five-point scale with five being
“Strongly agree” and one being “Strongly disagree.” The null hypothesis
for each statement was a mid-spectrum value of three. Two sets of 12
questions were utilized in an attempt to limit response set. Mean score, t-
value, and significance level for the two-tailed t-test were determined for
answers within each question pair.
An open-ended, two-item questionnaire, also created by the teacher-
researcher (see Appendix B) was administered to those students selected
for phase two. These questions focused on the type of assessment
preferred by the students and their respective rationales.

FINDINGS
Responses for all three-question pairs concerning choice produced signifi-
cant results (see Table 1). Students liked or favored the concept of having
a choice of assessment vehicles and the opportunity to choose between
individual and small group work. They were comfortable with their
choices within the assessment process. Results also indicated that students
believed they worked hard at completing these assessments and were
successful in their completion. Data revealed that students believed they

94


Table 1. Assessment survey results by question pairs.

Statements tested (question pairs) Mean St. dev. t p

I like the idea of having choices 4.73 0.51 3.43 0.0007
I choose with whom I work 4.67 0.48 3.48 0.0006
I work hard at these tasks 4.42 0.59 2.42 0.016
I am comfortable with my own choices 4.34 0.61 2.18 0.030
I learn a great deal completing the tasks 4.32 0.65 2.05 0.041
I control my work on the tasks 4.28 0.63 2.03 0.042
I am successful with the tasks 4.12 0.53 2.13 0.034
I gather & combine information 4.15 0.79 1.47 0.142
I am challenged by these tasks 4.04 0.78 1.33 0.195
I enjoy performing these tasks 3.99 0.80 1.24 0.216
I prefer tasks over MC tests 3.94 1.09 0.86 0.390
I am able to assess my own work 3.92 0.70 1.31 0.190

were in control of their work and learned a “great deal” completing the
assessment process.
Data indicated that not all participants favored the differentiated,
alternative assessment process. A large standard deviation for preference
of alternative assessments over multiple-choice tests revealed a pattern of
clustering at nearly opposite ends of the scale. This result served as the
catalyst for the second phase of the study, ascertaining the reasons for
students’ assessment preferences. Students responded to one of two types
of questions depending upon their assessment preference.
Students preferring alternative assessments to multiple-choice tests
stated several reasons for this preference, including the chance to work
with others, the increased time frame for the assessment process, and
opportunities to be creative (See Table 2). Additionally, the subjects indi-
cated that this type of assessment was fun, easier, produced less pressure,
and led to increased learning.
Those subjects preferring multiple-choice assessments also produced
a variety of reasons for their responses (see Table 3). Several students

95


Table 2. Why do you prefer these assessments to traditional tests?

Rationale # of responses

I learn more 8
I get to work with partners 6
Easier 5
More time to do it 5
It's fun 4
Opportunities to be creative 4
Less pressure/not nervous 3
Personal control 2
Choice 1
Others 2

Total 40

stated that tests were more straightforward, better organized and more
detailed. Others reported that they studied for tests and that these tests
make them think. One student favored multiple-choice tests because
there were no guidelines involved.

OBSERVED BENEFITS TO THE CLASSROOM
As the students were working, the teacher observed them and noted
specific behaviors. From these observations, three educational benefits
worth noting did emerge. During the initial sessions in which students
attempted to synthesize their ideas and correlate them to the rubric’s
guidelines, student enthusiasm was very high. This was evidenced by the
chatter of voices, an array of motions and movements, and even laughter.

Table 3. Why do you prefer multiple-choice tests to the alternative
assessments?

Rationale # of responses

Tests are more detailed 2
I study for tests 2
More straight forward and organized 2
It makes me think 1
No guidelines required 1
Other* 4

* Some answers were off-subject. 8

96


With redirection by the teacher, off-task behaviors were few, and the tone
was friendly, collegial, and supportive. Students desiring a more private
venue worked to one side or even moved chairs to the hall.
A second benefit was the creative expression of students as they
demonstrated their understanding of the content. For example, one group
of students interested in dance and theater constructed a set and scenery,
wrote a script, recorded background music, and then put it all together in
an original performance concerning weather. Another group of students
created an entire deli menu and, in one part, described how the melted
cheese in a specific sandwich was representative of intrusive geologic
formations. Still another group presented a television-style weather fore-
cast complete with remote reporting and news flash warnings.
This originality was coupled with an increased use of technology.
Within the classroom students:

• constructed web pages for the Internet,
• used classroom computers to create presentations, brochures,
and other text documents,
• displayed products via large-screen projection,
• used e-mail to send information between peers and to the
teacher,
• researched and gathered information from a variety of sources.

This increased use of technology allowed for application of computer skills
in context, an initially unintended yet meaningful benefit.

DISCUSSION
The majority of surveyed students favored the longer-term alternative
assessments over standard multiple-choice tests. These students believed
that they were empowered by being given choices, were comfortable with
their decisions concerning product type and working groups, and felt in
control of the assessment process. This development of autonomy is a
significant step in healthy adolescent maturation (Gurian, 1998; Pipher,
1994).
In addition to increased student autonomy, the opportunities for
choice provided for high levels of personalization throughout the process.
Students had opportunities to tailor their efforts to match their respective
learning styles and to work within their own areas of strength. Silver,
Strong, and Perini (2000) identified four primary styles exhibited by
students: the “mastery learner,” the “interpersonal learner,” the “under-

97


standing learner,” and the “self-expressive learner.” This study found that
some students preferred the chance to be creative and artistic, but others
did not. The differentiated process accommodated for these differences.
Other students indicated that time to organize, think, and construct
the product was the reason they preferred the alternative assessment
model. This is a characteristic of the "understanding learners." Still other
students indicated that the opportunity to work with peers was an impor-
tant reason for preferring to complete assessment projects. This social
aspect of the process fulfills a need of the “interpersonal learners” to work
as a member of a team and attends to the social component of brain func-
tion as outlined by Given (2000). Dunn and Dunn’s (1990) work on
socialization supports the premise that some students not only prefer
working in pairs or small groups but also achieve more when doing so..
Findings of Westwater and Wolfe (2000) indicate that when informa-
tion can be personalized and made more relevant, students’ interest levels
rise. Taken collectively, these data indicate that students preferred to have
the assessment process personalized to their learning needs. This may
help explain why students reported that this assessment process produced
less pressure and was more “fun” than traditional testing.
It was interesting to note that the most frequent student reason for
preferring the differentiated, alternative assessments to multiple-choice
tests was increased learning. This indicated that the students believed they
learned more using the differentiated, assessment process. Recent
constructivist research (Perkins, 1999) states that learning is enhanced
when students must organize information, search for patterns and relation-
ships, and connect knowledge or information to what has already been
learned. A product created within this assessment model requires the
students to employ all of these important skills.
In contrast, several students preferred the multiple-choice exams, with
one student stating, "All I have to do is know the answer and not even
understand it." This response indicated acceptance of rote learning, even
though knowing and understanding the answer so it can be used mean-
ingfully in the future is what true learning should be.
Embracing action research as a tool for classroom improvement
involves additional time and commitment from the teacher-researcher.
However, the advantage of being able to make informed modifications to
classroom strategies was significant. Although the teacher-researcher gath-
ered the data using the survey as an anchoring activity within the lesson,
analysis of the results was done at home after school hours. In an attempt

98


to benefit the greatest number of students, the teacher reacted to the study
results by retaining procedures or proposing modifications to the system.
Examples of adjustments included increasing specificity in instructions,
requiring more details in products, and the retention of choice, personal
control in student products, and the use of extended periods of time.
Reflection on the process and results provided the teacher with a
greater insight into the beliefs and attitudes of the students. The author
was pleased with the candor with which the students answered the ques-
tions. The apparent importance of choice and control with teenagers was
not unexpected, and anecdotal notes indicated that when the students
discovered that they had some power to affect the process, they appeared
to buy into the assessment model to a greater degree. The teacher also
sensed that the increased communication with the students created a
more mutually respectful atmosphere in the classroom.
In addition to the effect in his own classroom, the teacher-researcher’s
experience affected a wider sphere. Results from this study were
presented to building and district level administrators at an administrative
in-service and were also shared with in-service colleagues. In addition,
pre-service teachers in a professional development school program had
the opportunity to learn about the experience, ask questions, and incorpo-
rate similar ideas in their own work.

LIMITATIONS
As with any action research, certain limitations were present in the
study. No data were collected to determine if the students had truly
learned more, achieved higher grades, or understood concepts better by
engaging in the differentiated, alternative assessments. Also, the sample
was small by design to make the project manageable to an in-service
teacher with family, educational, and professional responsibilities. A larger
sample may have provided additional insights that were not raised or
found to be significant with the number of students involved, and because
intact classes were used, a representative sample of the school or commu-
nity based upon gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or special needs
status was not obtained. A hallmark of action research is that it tends to
focus on a small intact population, thus limiting generalizability
Another limitation is that differentiated, alternative assessment was
compared only to multiple-choice assessment. The narrow choice for
comparison could not address the student attitudes regarding other forms
of traditional assessment that are incorporated into many classrooms

99


today. Finally, as is also the nature of action research in the classroom, it
tends to be conducted by the teacher, thereby introducing the potential
for researcher bias.

DISCUSSION
Research of any kind often raises additional questions. Three questions
surfaced that are being considered for the next cycle of action research.
Did students actually achieve a greater level of understanding? Although
the students reported that they had learned more, it is important for the
researcher to implement a second study to quantify any increase in
achievement. Secondly, was there a correlation between student learning
styles and assessment choices? While there was no formal assessment of
student learning styles in this study, it appeared to the teacher-researcher
that students selected assessments that seemed consistent with their
observed learning style; including a validated learning style instrument in
the data gathering process would test this assumption. Thirdly, what is the
role of traditional testing within a differentiated, alternative assessment
model? Since some students indicated a preference for the traditional
testing, it is important to consider the necessity of including all types of
assessments as options. This need for clarification is consistent with the
findings of Senk, Beckman, and Thompson (1997) on traditional and alter-
native assessment.

CONCLUSION
As the national and state legislation mandates that schools “leave no child
behind," classroom educators are faced with the challenge of figuring out
how to achieve high levels of success for everyone in a society that relies
increasingly on schools to do it all. This action research study illustrates
two ways that might aid teachers in meeting this mandate. First, teachers
will need to teach and assess each student in ways that facilitate and
maximize learning. In addition it is imperative that the assessments will
accurately reflect what students have learned. Secondly, teachers will
need to don a new hat that of teacher-researcher, in order to continually
evaluate their institutional practices in search of increased learning for all
students.

REFERENCES
Mueller, S., Waters, F., Smeaton, P., & Pinciotti, P. (2001). Making informed choices: A
model for comprehensive classroom assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly 5
(1). 31-37.
Borgia, E., & Schuler, D. (1996). Action research in early childhood education. ERIC
Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 047).

100


Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dunn, R. & Dunn. (1990). Introduction to learning style and brain behavior. Inter-Ed.,
15(46-7), 5-11.
Fleming, D. S. (2000). The AEL guide to action research. Charleston, WV: Appalachian
Education Laboratory.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Given, B. (2000). Theaters of the mind. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 72-75.
Gurian, M. (1998). A fine young man. New York: Tarchner/Putnam.
Holloway, J. H. (2000). How does the brain learn science? Educational Leadership, 58
(3), 85-86.
McLaughlin, H., Watts, C., & Beard, M. (2000). Phi Delta Kappan. 82(4). 284.
Johnson, B. (1993). Teacher-as-researcher. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 355205)
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3),
6-11.
Pipher, M. P. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York:
G.P. Putnam’s Sons:
Senk, S., Beckmann, C., & Thompson, D. (1997). Assessment and grading in high school
mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2),
187-215.
Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating
learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Weiss, I. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the United States:
Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. ERS
Spectrum, 15(3), 34-39.
Westwater, A., & Wolfe, P. (2000). The brain-compatible curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 58(3), 49-52.
Wiggins, G., & Mctighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development:

101


Appendix A
The following statements concern the task assessments you are performing in class.
Please read each of the following statements and indicate your level of agreement or disagree-
ment by circling the appropriate number All questions must be answered. After completing
these questions, please return this paper to your teacher. Thank you.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

1. I like the idea of having a choice of assessments
5 4 3 2 1

2. I am comfortable with my choices of assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

3. I enjoy performing these assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

4. I am successful in completing these assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

5. I work hard at completing these assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

6. I learn a great deal by doing these assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

7. I am able to assess my own work by using the rubric provided.
5 4 3 2 1

8. I gather and combine information from different sources when completing the
assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

9. I choose with whom I wish to work when completing an assessment.
5 4 3 2 1

10. I control the work I do on assessments.
5 4 3 2 1

11. I believe the assessments are challenging.
5 4 3 2 1

12. I prefer the new assessments more than completing a multiple-choice test.
5 4 3 2 1

102


Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

13. Being able to choose my assessment is something I like.
5 4 3 2 1

14. My choices of assessments satisfy me.
5 4 3 2 1

15. The assessments make learning fun for me.
5 4 3 2 1

16. Undertaking the assessments allows me to succeed.
5 4 3 2 1

17. Successfully completing the assessments makes me work hard.
5 4 3 2 1

18. Working on these assessments helps me learn.
5 4 3 2 1

19. The rubric helps me assess my work.
5 4 3 2 1

20. The assessments require me to find and put together information from different sources.
5 4 3 2 1

21. Working on the assessments allows me to choose a partner.
5 4 3 2 1

22. The assessments allow me to be in charge of what I do.
5 4 3 2 1

23. Completing the assessments is challenging for me.
5 4 3 2 1

24. Selecting and completing a new assessment is a better selection for me than taking a
multiple-choice exam.
5 4 3 2 1

Please return this paper to your teacher. Thank you.

103


Appendix B. Assessment Preference Questionnaire

Please answer only one of the two questions below. If you prefer multiple-choice tests, answer
question a. If you prefer the differentiated assessments, answer question b.

A. Why do you prefer multiple-choice tests to the differentiated assessments you completed in
class?

B. Why do you prefer the differentiated assessments you completed in class to multiple-choice
tests?

104

Action Research in science classroom

Action Research in science classroom

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Action Research in science classroom

Action Research in science classroom