Jones, Crystal

STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS.
TEACHER-DIRECTED
INSTRUCTION:
WHICH IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is
my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include
proprietary or classified information.
Crystal E. Jones
Certificate of Approval:
_____________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D.
Co-Thesis Chair
Education Department
______________________________
Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Co-Thesis Chair
Education Department
STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS. DIRECT-TEACHER INSTRUCTION:

WHICH IS MOST EFFECTIVE?
A working thesis submitted
by
Crystal Elaine Jones
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
5/4/2011
Student-Centered Instruction
iii
Abstract
Although many studies have shown the effectiveness of student-centered
instruction in a variety of educational settings, relatively few have focused on exceptional
education, specifically in the area of severe emotional behavioral disorders. This study
compared student-centered instruction and teacher-directed instruction using students at
the secondary level within the exceptional education continuum. Comparisons between
the two instructional methods assessed any differences in student achievement and socioemotional skills. In addition, the participants completed a survey that assessed their
attitude toward student-centered instruction. Although no significant differences were
observed in achievement, the participants exhibited some gains in socio-emotional skills.
By the end of the study, the participants indicated a high confidence level for academic
and socio-emotional improvement in all classes.
Student-Centered Instruction iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ..iii
Table of Contents ...iv
List of Tables and Figures ...v
Chapter 1: Introduction ...1
Statement of the Problem 1
Significance of the Problem 1
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ...2
Focus Questions ..5
Overview of Methodology ..6
Human as Researcher ..7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 8
Implementing Instruction 9
Student Outcome ...12
Self Reflection and Student Affect ...14
Chapter 3: Methodology ...17
Research Design ...17
Setting ...18
Subjects and Participants ......18
Procedures and Data Collection Methods .19
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias Measures...23
Analysis of Data 26
Chapter 4: Results .28
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results 43
Analysis 43
Discussion .48
Implications ...51
Impact on Student Learning ..52
Recommendations for Future Research 53
References .54
Appendixes ... ...57
Student-Centered Instruction v
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1.
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Data Shell ..20

Dependent T test Teacher-directed Instruction..32
Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity One....33
Dependent T test Student-centered Instruction Activity Two...34
Chi-Square - Learning Implications..37
Chi-Square - Literacy Implications...38
Chi-Square - Personal Academic and Communications Implication39
Chi-Square - Cultural Implication.40
Figures
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2
Instructional Plan Rubric Opened Ended Questions......29

Instructional Plan Student Survey Rating Scale....36
Student-Centered Instruction 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem
Todays teachers are overwhelmed with the need to raises test scores. Whether
being driven by No Child Left Behind or The Race to the Top high-stakes testing has
stifled the creativity of many teachers. Many, who have made small changes to create an
atmosphere with the student needs in mind, have resorted back to traditional teacherdirected instruction geared towards teaching to the test. Teacher-directed instruction tends
to prevent students from making a connection between school content and real life hence
the student become passive and disengaged.
This study will explore and test the effectiveness of using student-centered
methodology in the secondary classroom to optimize student abilities. Student-centered
classrooms are defined as places that are responsive to the needs of a particular group of
learners (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 10). Student-centered classrooms
recognize that a student transitions through stages and are designed to nurture true
interests. Teachers should create an atmosphere conducive to learning and encouraging
in the development of students personal learning experiences. McWhorter and HudsonRoss (1996) have found that without new approaches to instruction that connect to the
needs and learning styles of students, many will continue to fail and are likely to drop out
of school.
Significance of the Problem
Students who receive teacher-directed instruction are expected to listen to
lectures, wait, take tests, and do seatwork. They are also divided according to various
measures of ability which increases inequalities over time. There is no personalization
centered on the needs of the student. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab
(2001) at Brown University of Providence states that We will not get all students to
achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience for all our young
adults (p. 12). Teachers are faced with the pressures of high-stakes testing and that has
become the driving force behind what students are expected to learn. Author Ron
Passman (2000) concludes that high-stakes assessment based on standardized scores
assumes that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful. We are moving
toward an era of everyone looking exactly like me, where the me consists of those who
define the standards (p. 14). We want students to embrace learning and not become
passive or resistant, apathetic learners. And that will happen as long as we make all the
instructional decisions, learning remains ours and not our students (McWhorter &
Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 15).
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study focuses on the effectiveness of using student-centered instruction to
increase the achievement of students within exceptional education. Teachers must have a
clear understanding how students learn and provide an environment that is conducive to
learning. From a cognitive perspective, teachers must be able to make meaningful
connection between content areas and everyday life.
This thesis about student-centered instruction relates to LaGrange College
Department of Education (2008) Conceptual Frameworks First Tenet of enthusiastic
engagement in learning. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) believes that [teachers]
want students to embrace learning and not become passive, apathetic or resistant learners.
The authors also state that when teachers establish a need to know the information (p.
15) students are then motivated to achieve the task set before them. Students need to be
able to connect classroom learning to the outside world in which they live; therefore,
providing students with a range of choicesin activities, reading material, and subject
matter (McWhorter & Hudson-Ross, 1996, p. 14) is the key to developing a more
personally meaningful learning experience.
In addressing Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Department of Education
(2008) Conceptual Framework exemplary professional teaching practices, teachers are
consciously focused on what motivates students. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996)
researched and found that as long as we make all of the instructional decisions, learning
remains oursnot our student (p. 14). Educators are recognizing the importance of
students taking responsibility for their learning. Many teachers are changing the way they
are planning, instructing, and assessing students abilities. Student-centered instruction
has been around since the 1960s, but it has taken until now for educators to see that
students learn best when the subject matter means something to them. McWhorter and
Hudson-Ross (1996) refer to focusing on individual student learning as a way to connect
cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and constructivism,
all of which positions the student in the center. McWhorter and Hudson-Ross also speak
of added benefits to student-centered instruction; such as, minimizing competition
between the students, encouraging students to work together, and building classroom
communities.
This study also supports LaGrange College Department of Education (2008)
Conceptual Frameworks Tenet Three which addresses caring and supportive classroom
and learning communities. Building classroom communities offers the opportunity for
learning how to work with others who are different from you. It promotes problemsolving and decision making skills that are essential if students are to succeed in the
professional workforce of today. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at
Brown University Providence, RI (2001) quoted McLeod as saying the school is
communally rather than bureaucratically organized (p. 8). The Northeast and Islands
Regional Educational Lab at Brown University Providence, RI (2001) also state We will
not get all students to achieve high standards until we personalize the learning experience
of all our young adults (p. 12).
The Five National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core
Propositions for Experienced Teachers states five propositions which affect all teachers at
some time during their professional career. Proposition one states Teachers are
committed to students and learning and proposition three states Teachers are
responsible for managing and monitoring student learning (as cited by LaGrange
College Department of Education, 2008, p.12). This thesis aligns with both propositions.
Aligning with Proposition One demonstrates the belief that all students can learn and by
researching various instructional strategies it shows dedication to making learning
accessible to all students. When aligning to Proposition Three, teachers are responsible
for student learning, which means they are to continuously search for what works best to
increase student success. Teachers should increase their knowledge of various
instructional techniques or strategies to keep students engaged, motivated, and focus.
They should also know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning
environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals.
Students perform academically and socially at various learning stages and not the
same way in all subject content areas. There are many approaches teachers can utilize
when deciding which instructional strategy will work best. The main focus is to get
students involved and engaged in learning in order to optimize their abilities which would
result in decrease behavior problems. Teachers can continue to think systematically about
their practice and learn from experience, as encouraged by the LaGrange College
Education Department (2008), by trying different strategies to see what works best for
optimizing abilities in all students.
Focus Questions
The overall research question for this study is How can student-centered
instruction increase achievement of students within exceptional education? As the
research literature supports, when students can see the connection between school content
and real life, they are more passionate and engaged in what they are learning. Students
began to set higher expectations for them and are less likely to drop out of school. As an
educator, it is important to gain as much knowledge as possible about how best to
optimize academic and appropriate behavioral abilities in all students.
In exploring Focus question 1) How can teachers implement student-centered
instruction in the classroom, incorporating different activities to engage and challenge
students can help teachers when implementing this type of instruction. Reading the
literature to see what worked for others can let teachers know they are not alone in this
journey. Also, teachers should keep a running log or journal to reflect on techniques and
strategies used in their classrooms. Focus question 2) What effects does student-centered
instruction have on increasing achievement of students within exceptional education and
also in decreasing behavior problems? Various activities can be used to see what kind of
effect the activity has on a student academics and behavior. Also, time and effort are
essential when changing to any new instructional method. In a research study by Michael
L. Rutledge (2008), students perceived that the student-centered approach was most
effective at making the course relevant and interesting, and that it engaged the students in
their own learning.
When addressing Focus question 3) What are teacher and student attitudes
about student-centered instruction in the classroom environment? Hammerman (2008)
presented research that the student-centered approach enables teachers to identify and
address misconceptions students may have developed and assess the effectiveness of the
instructional process. Hammerman (2008) also reported that student-centered instruction
is high-quality instruction with a 21st century approach.
Overview of Methodology
This study was conducted using action research to determine the effectiveness of
using student-centered methodology to optimize student abilities. This action research
was completed in an exceptional education self-contained classroom setting in a high
school located in rural Georgia. The students were on a seven period class schedule and
the program adheres to the school system calendar and curriculum.
This research consisted of 22 subjects ranging from grades 9 through 12 in a
heterogeneous grouping using both quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the
effectiveness of student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education
classroom. Two physical science classrooms of 11 students with mixed abilities were
given a pretest to measure academics standing before implementation of teaching
instruction. A posttest was given to measure improvement in academics at the end of each
teaching instruction implemented. Students were taught for a period of two weeks first
using the traditional teaching method. A posttest was given and then the students were
taught another two weeks using the student-centered method. At the end of the research,
students were given surveys to reflect their feelings about methods used for both twoweek sessions. Additionally, students were observed for behavior and engagement during
entire four week period.
Human as Researcher
As an educator in the field of special education for 13 years, I have experienced
working with a diverse group of students. When I began my teaching career in a program
for students with severe emotional behavior problems, I was introduced to students who
dealt with disabilities that were emotionally-based. When their emotional needs were not
meet, they had no interest or motivation to participate in classroom activities. The more
that this would happen, the further behind they would become academically. They
exhibited a number of behavior issues that stemmed from frustration, poor confidence,
and lack of self-esteem. In completing this action research on brain-based learning, my
hopes are to find that in creating an atmosphere which is conducive to learning and
encouraging in the development of students emotions and feelings, that I will be
optimizing their learning abilities and decrease discipline problems.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will review the literature of scholars who have studied the
connection between student-centered instruction and student achievement and provided
evidence that the student-centered instructional approach is the most effective in
increasing student achievement and also improving student behavior. The scholars
provided background information, strategies, and techniques to help educators implement
this type of instructional approach within their classrooms.
Student-centered instruction, by definition, is placing the student at the center of
the learning process, but today education continues to function like a business operating
on the efficiency model grounded in the Industrial Revolution which resembles a factory,
assembly-line, and production model created back in 1892-93 used to produce functional
members of society. The instructional model in which education of today implements
continues to operate on a system handed down by The Committee of Ten 1892-93
(Johnson, 2003). This system operates on the teacher-centered instructional model which
is designed to teach the four major curriculum subjects: math, English, science, and social
studies, with no emphasis on including any involvement in the arts. The original
education schedule, which is considered to be teacher-centered because it places all the
emphasis on the teacher and not the student, still dominates the education scene. This
teacher-centered instructional model was not designed for educating all but only a small
percentage of students who adapted to it (Johnson, 2003). Is there any reason why a vast
number of students continue to fail at an increasing rate? Bil Johnson considers teachercentered education to be thoughtlessly unphilosophical (p. 3) and one that is dictated by
bus schedules, track classes, and policy makers which lead one to believe that it is not
about the student but about the adults. Yet, according to Johnson, the main purpose of
public schools is to create active, democratic citizens.
As we struggle to create twenty-first century classrooms, we are faced with the
devastating reports that, as a nation, we are lagging behind and that our students are
failing at an alarming rate. There is great evidence that the students we are educating lack
the ability to be productive members of society because they lack critical thinking and
problem-solving skills, and they have little or no knowledge of how to be responsible
members of society. Evidence of this failing rate is based on the only nationally
acceptable measure of student achievement, multiple-choice and five-paragraph testing,
which does not truly determine whether the students have truly learned the content. Facts
have shown that with multiple-choice testing; only two out of seven of Gardners
multiple intelligences are being met so the much publicized results only reveal that
students can or cannot regurgitate the information the teacher has trained them to learn.
Yet, educators are pressed to increase test scores; therefore many educators opt to teach
the test and the students are pressured to pass the test which causes many students and
educators to harbor negative feelings about education and its process.
Implementing Instruction
A movement to reform education was developed but was met with many changes
that were not beneficial to the learner, only to the adults. Many educators say they want
change, but many are afraid or are not equipped to make the change. Educators or
Administrators may implement changes, but when the change does not work out, they are
ready to move on to the next method. Creditability is then lost and this affects not only
the students but the society as a whole. Nobody likes change, but when you are making
change a period of time should be expected before you see the desired result. Just because
it looks like it may not be working, does not mean it wont work. Johnson (2003) said it
best, dissonance is essential for change. Until we accept that, and put the learners at
the center of the debate (not the adult and their interests), we may well see numerous
changes without making any significant progress (p. 4). As previously mentioned,
student-centered instruction is such a model that places the student as the center of the
learning process. Student-centered instruction allows the student to make the connection
between what goes on in the classroom and their real life. According to McWhorter and
Hudson-Ross (1996), a need to know the information must be established in order to
motivate students to achieve.
Felder describes several methods of implementing student-centered into the
classroom. These methods include active learning, in which students solve problems,
answer questions, formulate questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or
brainstorm during class; cooperative learning, in which students work in teams on
problems and projects under conditions that assure both positive interdependence and
individual accountability; and inductive teaching and learning, in which students are first
presented with challenges (questions or problems) and learn the course material in the
context of addressing the challenges. Inductive methods include inquiry-based learning,
case-based instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery
learning, and just-in-time teaching.
Johnson gives some practical steps when implementing student-centered
instruction in classrooms. First, plan backwards from the outcome and the evidence.
Begin with the end in mind. Second, teachers should start small. Use graphic organizers
(mind maps/webs, T-charts, etc.) when implementing the lesson. Third, use groups,
jigsaws, Socratic seminars. Fourth, the use of role-plays, simulations, and debates are
very effective. And fifth, the authentic assessment should be in the form of projects and
portfolios. Howard Gardner (2006) claims that based on his theory of multiple
intelligences:
that almost any topic which is worth spending time on can be approached from
at least six different windows into the same room: 1 Narrational: the story
mode. 2 A quantitative, logical rational way of dealing with numbers, principles,
causality. 3 A foundational way, asking basic kinds of questions such as: Why is
this important? How does it relate to what came before? How is it related to our
lives today? 4 Aesthetic: What does it look like? What does it sound like? What
appearance does it make? What patterns and configurations? How does it impress
you? 5 Hands on: What is it actually like to be this thing, to do this thing? If
youre studying evolution, what is it like to breed Drosophila? If youre studying
democracy, whats it like to be in a group that decides by consensus as opposed to
one that decides by autocracy, oligarchy or some other political principle?
6 Personal: Can you integrate this topic through debate, role play, projects, jigsaw
participation and other joint interactions? (p. 142)
Scholars Schumacher and Kennedy (2008) list several pros and cons, or
drawbacks to student-centered teaching. The authors conducted a study that revealed
teachers who implemented student-centered found that this type of instruction involved a
lot of preparation work. The teachers had questions of how to divide time between lecture
and group work and what to do with at-risk student that retreated and postponed learning,
in which, the teacher suspected may or may not happen at a later time. The drawbacks are
that student-centered takes a lot of classroom time and teachers felt compelled to cover
all the concepts outlined in the standards. When choosing to implement student-centered
instruction most teachers will find they have embarked on a journey which has life
changing implications for both the teacher and the student but mainly for the students.
Student Outcome
Evidence has shown that many teachers have found with student-centered
learning, students are learning the skills necessary for critical thinking, problem-solving,
and becoming responsible citizens. Student-centered classrooms empower students and
give them a voice, making them responsible for their work and actions (Johnson, 2001).
McWhorter et al. (1996) research shows that focusing on individual student learning
connects cooperative learning, performance assessment, multiple intelligences, and
constructivism, in which, all of the concepts mentioned positions the students in the
center. Johnson also contends these concepts are the inevitable product of constructivist
thinking.
As cited by Rutledge (2008), Klionsky, Lawson, and Lord reported on studies that
revealed the effectiveness of student-centered, active learning strategies in promoting
meaningful learning, retention of content, improved student attitude and the development
of critical thinking skills. The use of Howard Gardners six approaches appears to support
the implementation of student-centered instruction by offering two advantages. One
advantage is more likely to reach all students and the second advantage is gives the
opportunity to model what its like to be an expert. With all of the positive research and
evidence of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching, still very few teachers are
implementing this type of instruction within classrooms. Research has claimed many
benefits to using student-centered instruction at the secondary level. According to
McWhorter and Hudson-Ross student-centered reduces competition, encourages students
to work together, builds classroom communities, and allows students to become partners
in the classroom in which the teacher operates as facilitator, collaborating with students
on decisions that are to be made.
While these benefits serve to offer many benefits of building life-long skills
necessary for students to function in the real world, Chall (2000) found that studentcentered failed to produce increased academic achievement for all students. Chall found
that traditional teacher-centered approach yield higher academic achievement within all
social classes and race, for students with disabilities, and with at-risk students. Students
from low socio-economic backgrounds were found to show greater achievement when
taught with traditional methods. These students lacked the readiness skills necessary to
move forward academically at a young age. As the students moved up in grade level, it
became more apparent that the students were not performing at grade level. The low
functioning students and students from low-income families were found to thrive better in
a more traditional setting due to lack of knowledge content. Students from middle-class
or higher-class distinction proved to perform at a higher achievement level with the
progressive (student-centered) approach, possible due to home factors and exposures.
Chall (2000) reported on teachers experiences with student-centered instruction. The
teachers had implemented methods that are favored by student-centered but the results
lead to sleepless nights for one teacher and lower reading achievement scores. Another
teacher experienced disruptive behaviors in classes which were only managed by

returning to traditional teacher-approach instruction.
Self-Reflection and Student Affect
Scholar Passman (2000) discovered that when teachers were faced with the
pressure of high-stakes assessments, they felt compelled to stick with a traditional
classroom setting and teacher-directed instruction. Teachers often are afraid to take risks
and try something new. Teachers are afraid to do the very thing students are asked to do
dailyto take a risk. On the other hand the scholar, Aaronsohn (1996), found that the
problem does not always lie with the teacher feeling pressured and resorting back to
traditional instruction but the main reason was the lack of support. Many teachers have
reported that they have tried it and when it didnt work out they went back to the only
teaching method they were most familiar with which was traditional instruction.
Aaronsohn (1996) completed a case study to prove that with support and effort, studentcentered instruction works for the both the student and the teacher. In this case study,
Aaronsohn documented her experience with a teacher who taught high school English in
a teacher-centered manner felt she was not fully meeting students needs. The teacher in
the case study began to implement methods that would allow the students to construct
their own meaning.
The scholar, Aaronsohn reported on the frustrations and isolation from colleagues
felt by the teacher and also on the resistance of the students when more responsibility of
learning was placed onto the students. The teacher in the study reported that at times she
struggle to stay back when the students complained about the responsibility given to them
but she continued to try despite how hard it was. Also the teacher in the case study felt
without the support of her mentor, Aaronsohn, she would have resorted back to traditional
instruction. The conclusion of the case study proved success for both the teacher and the
students. The longer the teacher committed to student-centered, the less pressure she felt
and she actually liked it and enjoyed her work. And more importantly the students no
longer resisted but instead moved in the groups cooperatively and began working without
having to be told what to do. The case-study teacher went on to supervise more student
teachers and hold workshops for others who believed that student student-centered
methods could work in high schools.
Challs (2000) research study that focused on what really works in classrooms,
found that when looking at non-academic attitudes; there was little difference in how
teachers and students felt when comparing traditional and student-centered instruction. In
fact, Chall (2000) came across descriptive reports of the education of lowsocioeconomics-status children, from early 1900s to the present, notes that parents of
these children voiced serious objections to having their children educated in schools that
followed an informal, student-centered approach (p. 172). Chall also included facts on
how the two instructional approaches affected the educational policy. During the years
1995-1996, five out of seven books on education and educational policy were reviewed
and were found to all favor the greater effectiveness of the traditional approach. Scholars
Stevenson and Stigler (1992) found that Japanese children who were taught using a
traditional instructional approach liked school better than U.S. children who were taught
using a progressive (student-centered) instructional approach. While there were many,
including parents and students, who favor the traditional teaching approach, there were
many who were highly committed that a progressive (student-centered) approach is best
for a democracy and for the social and emotional well-being of the child, as well as for
academic progress (Chall, 2000, p. 178). As concluded in her book, Chall reported on an
eight-year study of high school students, which found no significant difference between a
progressive or traditional approach, but the small differences that were found seemed to
favor the progressive, student-centered approach.
In conclusion, there will be new and veteran teachers opposed to student-centered
instructions, there are teachers who are willing to take the risk and try something
different. Student-centered instructors should know they are not alone in what they are
feeling. It will take some time to undo all the years of traditional instruction taught. The
key is to gradually introduce the new method and reflect on any issues that may arise.
Teachers should also seek out other teachers who feel the same way they do, who are
willing to take a risk on implementing student-centered instruction, as a support system to
ensure success of the transition. Evidence has shown teachers who decided to make the
transition, with the help of a support system or mentor, ended successfully.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design
This action research focused on the effectiveness of using student-centered
instruction at the secondary level in a science class within the exceptional education
setting. Of the four types of action research described by Cher Hendricks (2009),
classroom action research is the research that was employed for the focus of this study.
Hendricks defines classroom action research as a form of action research that is
conducted by teachers in their classrooms with the purpose of improving practice. It
values the interpretations that teachers make based on data collected with their students
(p. 10). Hendricks elaborates on the systematic process which involves ongoing
reflection and a series of steps that continuous spiral beginning with reflect, act, evaluate,
reflect, act, evaluate. According to Hendricks, action research uses both data collecting
methods, quantitative and qualitative, to identify and study a problem being tested by an
investigator.
Eileen Ferrance (2000) defines action research as a process in which participants
examine their own educational practice systemically and carefully, using the techniques
of research. Ferrance describes the steps in the action research process as identify the
problem, gather data, interpret data, act on evidence, evaluate results, and next steps (p.
9) which involves identifying additional questions raised by the data and plan and plan
for additional improvements, revision, and next steps (p. 13). Ferrance lists the benefits to
action research as a 1) focus on school issue, problem, or area of collective interest, 2)
form of teacher professional development, 3) collegial interactions, 4) potential to impact
school change, 5) reflect on own practice, and 6) improved communication (pp.13-15).
Setting
This action research took place in a Georgia high school located in Troup County.
At the time of the study, I taught in Exceptional Education working with students who
have Severe Emotional Behavior Disorders. I chose to complete my study within my
science classroom to improve my educational practice. A request for permission to
complete this action research was submitted to the coordinator of the program and to the
superintendent of the school system. Both parties approved the action research study.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects were students enrolled in behavior modification program which
services students with severe emotional behaviors disorders located in a rural county in
Georgia. The behavior modification program services students from grades P-12, enrolled
in the public school system in surrounding counties. All subjects meet and qualify for
exceptional education with severe emotional behavior disorder eligibility. The population
within the program is majority African American and Caucasian boys ranging in age from
fifteen through twenty-two. All subjects in the program were scheduled for classes based
on the classes needed to satisfy graduation requirements, available space, and preferential
scheduling. The subjects who are participating in this action research were registered for
the class I teach by the programs lead teacher.
The participants in this action research consisted of one mixed-race girl age
fifteen, one African-American girl age sixteen, and two Caucasian girls one age nineteen,
the other sixteen. The remaining eighteen participants are five African-American males
three age fifteen and the remaining two age sixteen, twelve Caucasian males one age
fifteen, four age sixteen, three age seventeen, two age eighteen, and one age twenty, and
one mixed-race male age seventeen.
All participants currently function below grade in reading and math with the
exception of one sixteen year old male student who is functioning near grade level in
math and above grade level in reading. Although participants scored in the low to low
average range on administered achievement tests, they are able to function successfully
on various classroom assignments with and with accommodations and modifications. The
participants will be divided into subgroups based on mixed-ability grouping based on
teacher observation, teacher-made tests, and achievement test scores from most currently
achievement testing.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
McWhorter and Hudson-Ross (1996) express that a need to know the information
must be established before students become motivated to learning the material taught. So,
choosing concepts that are relevant to students real life would seem the logical first step
in implementing the focus of this researchstudent-centered instruction or any type of
instruction. When students can answer the questions: What does this have to do with
me? or How can I apply this to my real life? only then will they become highly
interested in what they are doing. A sense of purpose is then created. Once the
appropriate motivating activities are chosen, the investigator can began to concentrate on
the method needed to carry out the instruction of choice, which in this action research
will be student-centered instruction.
After choosing the research topic and researching the literature, a method of
organizing the data should be created. A data shell (see Table 3.1 below), allows the
researcher to list any data to be used to support research findings. The data shell also
serves as a graphic organizer categorizing the collected data to its key focus question.
Table 3.1
Data Shell
Focus Question
Literature
Sources
How can teachers
implement studentcentered instruction
in a secondary
exceptional education
classroom?
What effects does

student-centered
instruction have on
students learning
within exceptional
education classroom?
McWhorter
& HudsonRoss
(1996),
Johnson, B.
(2003),
Felder,
R.M.(n.d.)
Rutledge,
M. (2008),
Chall,
Jeanne S.
(2000),
Hargrove,
T.Y. and
Nesbit, C.
(2003)
Type of
Method, Data,
Validity
Type of
Method:
Instructional
plan, Rubric,
and interview
How these
data are
analyzed
Qualitative:
Coded for
themes aligned
with focus
questions
Rationale
Quantitative:
Descriptive
and inferential
Statistics,
independent ttest
Quantitative: To
determine if there are
significant differences
between means from
two independent
groups.
Quantitative:
Chi Square
Quantitative: To
determine if there are
significant differences
between means from
two independent
groups.
Qualitative: Looking
for categorical and
repeating data that
form patterns of
behaviors
Type of Data:
qualitative
Type of
Validity:
Content,
Type of
Method:
Behavior chart,
Teacher made
tests
(pre/posttest),
science
notebook
Type of Data:
interval
What are teacher and

student attitudes
about studentcentered instruction
in the secondary
exceptional education
classroom
environment?
Passman,
R. (2000).,
Chall,
Jeanne S.
(2000),
Aaronsohn,
E. (1996),
Type of
Validity:
Content,
Type of
Method:
Surveys,
Reflective
Journal, focus
group journal
questions
Data:
Nominal
Type of
Validity:
Construct
Qualitative:
Coded for
themes aligned
with focus
questions
Desire to find what

questions (items) are
significant (and which
ones are not).
Qualitative: Looking
for categorical and
repeating data that
form patterns of
behaviors
An instructional plan (see Appendix A) was then created which includes

everything that is relevant to the activities which will be implementing during the action
research. After the completion of the instructional plan, an experienced colleague
evaluated the content of the instructional plan for validity using a rubric (see Appendix B)
and offered written feedback. The initial feedback received was not as in-depth and did
not offer specific information which could be important to the success of the research.
Hence, I sought another colleague experienced in the field of the content I chose to
implement. I used the same instructional plan and rubric and completed a taped interview
which provided specific key information and ideas which validated that the chosen
activities were good activities that apply real-world concepts.
Richard Felder (n.d.) describes three methods used to implement student-centered
instruction. The three methods are active learning, cooperative learning, and inductive
teaching and learning which is also known as inquiry-based learning, case-based
instruction, problem-based learning, project-based learning, discovery learning, and justin-time teaching. Cooperative learning is the method chosen to implement studentcentered instruction for this action research. The practical steps provided by Johnson
(2003) corroborate the method of implementation of student-centered instruction
described by Felder. Johnson informs investigators that implementation should begin
with planning with the end in mind (plan backwards). Next, he suggests starting small
and using groups. Assessment should be authentic and carried out in the form of projects
and portfolios. Cooperative learning is also discussed by McWhorter and Hudson-Ross
(1996) as being an effective method for connecting the focus on individual students
learning. As mentioned by the previously mentioned authors, cooperative learning will be
used and the participants will be assessed on their final projects, which fall into the
category of inquiry-based and discovery learning (project-based learning). The students
will also science notebooks as communicative devices related to final assessment on the
cooperative learning project.
The action research was implemented by first administering a pretest (see
Appendix C) to set a basal level of performance for each participant. The pretest was
designed based on the state standards for the coverage of the curriculum unit. The control
group was administered traditional instruction. The traditional lesson was administered
for approximately seven days followed by the same posttest (see Appendix C). As
conducted with the control group, a pretest for Activity One (see Appendix D) was
administered based on state standards for the curriculum unit. Also on day one, an
overview of the research was given along with instructions on the use of the science
notebooks (Hargrove & Nesbit, 2003) (see Appendix E). Day two, students were given a
copy of cooperative learning assignment and instructions. The assignment and
instructions were reviewed before placing students in their pre-assigned cooperative
groups. The cooperative groups were facilitated from that point on. This initial part of the
action research lasted for approximately three days. On the fifth day, students were
administered the same Activity One post test on the coverage of the curriculum
implemented.
The second week of the research, participants will be introduced to another
cooperative learning project which will follow the same implementation pattern as the
previous week. Students were given a pretest for Activity Two followed by the same
posttest (see Appendix F). Rutledge describes research studies in which student-centered
instruction was very effective in improving student attitudes along with developing
critical-thinking skills. Johnson (2000) describes student-centered instruction as an
effective tool for empowering students and making them responsible for their work and
actions; therefore, a chart documenting cooperative and participatory behaviors (see
Appendix G) was used to determine whether the instruction had any effect on student
behavior. This chart was used throughout the research.
The final day of research, participants were administered a survey (see Appendix
H) to assess participants attitudes about the student-centered instructional method
implemented. Scholar Chall describes research in which students and parents favored the
progressive instructional method over traditional instruction. Hence, additional data were
gathered using focus group journal questions (Morton, 2008) (see Appendix I) to
determine level of engagement of participants. I also completed a daily reflective journal
(see Appendix J) to assess attitude about instructional methods implemented. Aaronsohn
(1996) found that reflecting on daily experiences gave her insight on the effectiveness of
her practice.
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias
When determining the effectiveness of any instruction, W. James Popham (2008)
states that we must first have a clear understanding to what the terms mean even if we do
not apply them on a day to day basis. Validity is defined as meaningfulness and
trustworthiness of your data influenced by design and methods of research (three
measures content, construct, criterion). Validity, stressed by Popham (2008), is the
most significant concept in assessment (p. 48). Popham reiterates that the more
evidence of validity we have, the better well know how much confidence to place in our
score-based inferences (p. 53). Reliability is when research can be repeated with
consistency. The goal is to minimize errors and biases so that study (not results) can be
replicated. Reliability influences validity. Dependability is closely related to the concepts
of accuracy and consistency. Assessment bias refers to qualities of an assessment
instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students because of students
gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such group-defining
characteristics (Popham, 2008, p. 73). Although no one can be fully objective, research
should be free of unfair, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias.
This study, using participants selected to control for confounding variables, shows
dependability in the researchers ability to maintain well organized data. It establishes a
chain of evidence which connects the research question to theory to all focus questions to
conclusions. The study also provides complete and accurate supporting data.
Dependability was also shown in writing a detailed method section located in this section
of the thesis. The first focus of this action research was to test how to implement studentcentered instruction in a secondary exceptional education classroom. Therefore, an
instructional plan was developed to ensure that all instructional components were
included that would cover both aspects of meeting the needs of students with disabilities
and as well as incorporating student-centered instruction. A rubric was designed to assess
the instructional plan which was analyzed by a colleague to ensure content validity was
present. Qualitative data were gathered through an in-depth recorded interview based on
the answers constructed on the instructional plan rubric.
The second focus question was to look at student outcome. Teacher-made pretest
and posttest, science notebooks, and behavior charts to were used to collect data. The
teacher-made pretest and posttest were analyzed for reliability using a dependent t-test to
determine if there were significant differences between the groups tested. I analyzed this
at a significant level of p<.05. Popham (2008) refers to the use of test-retest as a way to
show reliable consistency of test results over time. When constructing assessments,
Popham also points out that all classroom teachers routinely need to use absence-of-bias
as one of the three evaluative criteria by which they judge their own assessments and
those educational assessments developed by others (p. 92). The interval data collected
from the pretest and posttest supports the dependability of the procedures and
assessments implemented during the study. The science notebooks and behavior charts
were used also used to establish a chain of evidence connecting the research question to
the focus question and to provide complete and accurate supporting data which helped to
determine absence of unfair, offensive, or disparate impact bias.
The last focus of the research was to assess how the students felt about the
instructions used. Construct validity was determined through the journal prompts that
were answered daily by the researcher and through a Likert scale and open-ended focus
group journal questions answered by the participants. The qualitative data from the
reflective journal, focus group journal questions, and surveys show that data collection
and treatment are kept consistent and the control of the data collecting setting. The openended focus group journal questions will provide a way for interviewees transcripts to be
checked for accuracy. The use of open-ended focus group journal questions also shows
evidence of the participants selected to control for confounding variables. The qualitative
data gathered were used when determining the absence of unfair, offensiveness, and
disparate impact bias.
Analysis of Data
The first focus of this research was to find out how student-centered instruction
could be implemented or taught in a secondary exceptional education classroom. A
qualitative analysis was conducted for this part of the study. An instructional plan,
instructional plan rubric, and an interview were designed to evaluate this focus. In
looking for categorical and repeating data that forms patterns of behaviors, the rubric
produces qualitative data coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. The
instructional plan produced qualitative data which reveal if the length of time for data
collection is persistent and prolonged.
A quantitative analysis to determine if there are significant differences between
means from one group tested twice was conducted for the second focus question of the
research when looking at student outcome using a dependent t- test. The decision to reject
the null hypothesis was set at p<.05. The results of the pretest to posttest were analyzed
using an effect size R calculation. The decision for effect size was set at small effect size,
r=0.1-0.23; medium effect size, r=0.24-0.36; and large effect size, r=0.37 or larger.
The third question focused on self reflection and student affect. A qualitative
analysis was conducted in order to determine categorical and repeating data that forms
patterns of behaviors. At the end of the study, the students were given a Likert scale
survey to reveal the attitudes of the instructional methods used. A Chi Square was used to
find what questions (items) were significant (and which ones were not). Reflective
journals and open-ended focus group journal questions were coded for recurring,
dominant, and emerging themes. As a part of the cooperative learning project, students
recorded their findings in a science notebook. Also, a behavior chart was used to
document behaviors seen throughout the study which will be used to determine if the
particular instruction had any effect on students behavior.
Looking at the study holistically, validation was reach by consensual validation of
the study provided upon approval by the faculty advisor. Epistemological validation was
shown in the comparison of the results to the literature viewed. Credibility was shown
through structural corroboration through the use of various methods was used within the
study. Fairness was determined by representing opposing point of view. Rightness of Fit
was established in showing that great care was taken to provide precision and accuracy to
ensure presentation of a tight argument, coherent case, and strong evidence to assert
judgments. Transferability of this study shows referential adequacy and can be duplicated
by others and easily used for future research. This study also proves it is transformational
through catalytic validity in that it causes a positive change or transformation for
researchers and others.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

This study explored Student-centered Instruction or Direct-teacher Instruction:
Which is most effective? The qualitative data were expressed through the results of an
instructional plan rubric, science notebooks, student survey, teacher reflection journal,
and focus group journal questions. A Chi-Square and Cronbachs Alpha were used to
analyze the results of the student survey. The results were examined for thematic
occurrences associated with students academic achievement, engagement, attitudes, and
behaviors in reference to student performance in relation to student-centered instruction.
The quantitative data were expressed through the results of pretests and posttest scores
and behavior charts. The results were examined to identify patterns in student
performance and level of engagement when the variable of instructional method was
introduced. A dependent t-test was used to analyze the results of the pretest and posttest
administered. The results are organized according to the three focus research questions
addressed in this study: implementation of student-centered instruction in a secondary
exceptional education science classroom; affects of student-centered instruction on
students learning within exceptional education classroom; teacher and student attitudes
about student-centered instruction in the secondary exceptional education classroom
environment.
Focus question one: How can teachers implement student-centered instruction in a
secondary exceptional education science classroom? An instructional plan and
instructional plan rubric was used to gather data. Emerging themes of standards
coverage, student relevance, appropriateness of activities for all students was coded for
the student-centered instructional experience identifying the effectiveness of the
instruction. To begin the study, an instructional plan was developed in backward design
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) which included the activities, enduring understandings and
standards of my collaborative learning activities. A rubric was also created which was
used to assess the instructional plan. Qualitative data was obtained from an interview
with Teacher One with more than 15 years experience in exceptional education and
Teacher Two with more than 15 years experience in regular education. Each teacher was
asked the same set of open-ended questions (see Figure 1) to address the criteria listed
within the rubric.
Figure 4.1 Instructional Plan Rubric Open-ended questions
Instructional Plan Rubric: Open-ended Questions
Does the essential question address the enduring understanding?
In what ways can the use of instructional technology be improved?
Are there other materials that would be appropriate?
To what degree are the needs of special learners being met?
Do the assessments align with the standards stated?
Are there other assessments that would yield better data?
Does the concept yield relevance to students learning?
When answering the first open ended questions about the instructional plan,
Teacher One stated the essential question(s) appropriately addresses the enduring
understanding Teacher One suggested the use of the promethean board as a way to
improve technology. When asked Are there other materials that would be appropriate?
Teacher One answered, The material list appears to be complete and appropriate.
Additional qualitative data were sought to address focus question one; hence, a
second interview was conducted. During the interview, Teacher Two was asked Does
the essential questions for the student-centered activities addressed the enduring
understanding. The interviewer responded, Yes, they do. Teacher Two asked, Could
you tell me about the applying the knowledge of constructing a fast roller coaster. What
materials are you using there? The interviewer recited the list of materials that would be
used to construct a fast roller coaster. Teacher Two suggested, You could use an
accelerometer to measure the acceleration of the roller coaster and have the students
graph the data. Teacher Two was also asked Are these good activities for studentcentered instruction and if not could you suggest some activities? Teacher Two
responded, Yes, these are good activities which students can apply to their everyday
life.
Focus question two: What affects does student-centered instruction have on
students learning within exceptional education classroom? Behavior charts and teacher
made tests (pre/posttest) were used to gather quantitative data when addressing this focus
question. Science notebooks were used to gather qualitative data as well. The first method
used for obtaining quantitative data is the behavior charts. Students were observed for the
emergence of three specific behaviors: engaging in positive peer interactions, engaging in
on-task behavior with another student, and active participation. The students were
observed in 10 minute intervals which began after the tardy bell rung which signifies that
class has started. At the end of each 10 minute period students were observed for the
three behaviors listed above. If the behavior was present, the students were given a 1 and
if the behavior was not displayed, students were given a 0. At the end of the study, the
number of 1 and 0 were totaled together, then each behavior category was counted to gain
a percentage of the behavior displayed or not display overall.
The overall finding for teacher-centered (traditional) instruction was 82 percent of
the time students were actively participating with the lesson while 8 percent of the time
students were non-participants. When students attention moved away from the teacher, 3
percent of the time the student was engaging in off-task behavior with another student
which did not pertain to the lesson while 1 percent of the time students engaged in ontask behavior with another student. Also when students completed work earlier than
others, 5 percent of the time the student was engaging in positive peer interaction with
another student while 1 percent of time students were engaging in behavior that was not
positive. The overall finding for student-centered instruction was 80 percent of the time
students actively participating and 10 percent were not actively participating. When
students attention moved away from the teacher, 9 percent of the time the student was
engaging in off-task behavior with another student which did not pertain to the lesson.
When students interacted with one another, 1 percent of the time students were engaging
in interaction with peers that was not positive.
The second data gathering method used to gain quantitative data for focus
question two was a teacher- made pretest and posttest. To determine if there were
significant differences between means from the pretest and posttest, a dependent t- test
was used to analyze the results. Emerging themes of student engagement and academic
retention level was coded for student achievement. The first instructional variable used
was teacher-direct instruction. Students were taught in traditional style in which they
were seated individually, given lecture and notes, used a textbook, and provided a study
guide. Students were tested at the beginning of the lesson and retested on the same
information at the end of the lesson.
According to the dependent t-test (refer to Table 4.1) used to analyze the data, the
test of significance for the pretests and posttest was t (13) = 2.96, p<.05. This means that
the obtained value of the test, 2.96, was greater than the critical value of 1.77; therefore,
the null hypothesis was rejected. There was significant difference between the pretest and
posttest administered. The effect size (magnitude) of the difference was at .39, which falls
within the medium range, showing there was less in common with the pretest and posttest
test groups in terms of gains and losses.
Table 4.1 Dependent t-test for Teacher-directed Instruction
Dependent t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
*t (13) = 2.96, p<.05
Pretest
32.85714286
152.7472527
14
0.488027561
0
13
-2.961749925
0.005510095
1.770933383
0.011020191
2.160368652
Posttest
46.42857143
374.7252747
14
The reliability statistic between the two test groups, r = .48, showed a moderate
relationship between direct-teacher instruction and student academic achievement.
When looking at the statistical significance of student-centered pretest and
posttest, the results of the dependent t-test revealed t(13)= 1.59, p>.05 for Activity One (see
Table 4.2). The obtained value, 1.59, was less than the critical value, 1.77, which shows
no significant difference between what occurred on the tests and what would occur by
chance; therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The reliability statistic, r=.43,
showed moderate relationship between student-centered instruction and academic
achievement. The effect size of the test scores was medium, .34, showing that there was
moderate magnitude in the difference in the means of the two tests in terms of the
instruction administered and test score gains or losses.
Table 4.2 Dependent t-test for Student-centered Instruction Activity One
Activity One
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
*t(13)= 1.59, p>.05
Pretest
22.35714286
Posttest
29.35714
118.5549451
14
-0.431374205
0
13
-1.594879141
0.06737618
1.770933383
0.13475236
2.160368652
71.63187
14
The test of significance for the pretest and posttest for Activity Two is t(12)= 2.45,
p<.05, as shown in Table 4.3. The obtained value, 2.42, was higher than the critical value,
1.77; therefore; the null hypothesis was accepted. There was significant difference
between the pretest and posttest for activity two. The reliability statistic, r = .67,
interprets a strong relationship between this student-centered activity and student
achievement. The effect size of the test scores was medium, .25, and showed moderate
magnitude in the difference in the means of the two tests in terms of the instruction
administered and test score gains or losses.
Table 4.3 Dependent t-test for Student-centered Instruction Activity Two
Activity Two
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
*t(13)= 2.42, p<.05
Pretest
33.71428571
186.6813187
Posttest
26.35714
207.9396
14
0.673260084
0
13
2.420657511
0.015433531
1.770933383
0.030867061
2.160368652
14
The last data gathering method for focus question two was used to gain qualitative
data. The students were provided the use of science notebooks during the studentcentered implementation of this study. The students were very reluctant to use the science
notebooks and had to be directed often to use them. The data reflected from the
notebooks were very minimal and only revealed basic knowledge of what the students
were doing at that moment. One student wrote, It took me a while to get into it. It was
all right. Another student wrote, in response to activity one, Oh!! I liked this activity.
Thanks Ms. Jones.
The third focus question: What are teacher and student attitudes about studentcentered instruction in the secondary exceptional education classroom environment? The
data gathering methods used was the teachers reflective journal, student survey on
student-centered instruction, and focus group journal questions. To obtain qualitative
data, a set of questions were construct to guide teacher daily reflections. The reoccurring
theme appeared to be lack of teacher preparation, the students relying heavily on the
teacher for guidance, more behavior disruptions due to less structure, and more
engagement and desire to participate. On day one of teacher-directed instruction I wrote
in the teachers journal reflection, Everything was covered today. A lot of students were
off task. The students put no real effort into focusing on the lesson for academic success;
they only completed the work because it was required. During the student-centered
instruction I wrote, was not prepared with set upclassroom serves as a lab room,
classroom is small and I teach other subjects. When working in exceptional education in
the area of severe behavior disorders, the teacher to student ratio is 12:2 (one teacher, one
assistant); therefore, since we are self-contained and have to teach multiple subject areas.
On the day the second student-centered activity began, I wrote, The students enjoyed
working together. Students who started off somewhat off task became more interested...
Students did not want to do the writing part of the project. The students became more
engaged with the hands-on activities. I also recorded, A couple of students were off
task.
For both types of instructional methods used, students showed off-task behavior
which is often undetermined as to when certain behaviors may or may not occur with
students who are diagnosed with characteristics of severe emotional behavior disorders.
An entry in the teachers reflection journal states that The students really enjoyed the
lesson and wanted to explore more. They knew more than I expected. The students were
more engaged and eager to participate appropriately in the hands-on activities.
A student survey was created to rate students attitudes about student-centered

instruction. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about student-centered in the
classroom and what they gained academically from becoming a member of the inquiry
and cooperative learning community. An example of the rating scale used can be seen
below in Figure 2.
Figure 4.2 Student Survey Rating Scale
The Rating Scale:
4 I strongly agree with this statement.
3 I agree with this statement.
2 I disagree with this statement.
1 I strongly disagree with this statement.
A Chi Square was used to analyze the data obtain from the study. The first set of
statements is viewed in Table 4.4 below. The alpha level was set at p<.05 (95%), 5 %
chance of being wrong; p<.01 (99%), 1% chance of being wrong; p<.001 (99.9), 1 in
1000 chance of being wrong.
Table 4.4 Chi-Square-Learning Implications of Student-Centered Instruction

LEARNING IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED
CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
n = 38
Item 1. I have learned to form ideas with more confidence.
Item 2. I have learned to participate regularly.
Item 3. I am more motivated to learn.
Item 4. I have learned to enjoy this subject matter more.
Item 5. I have gained self-confidence as a student.
Item 6. I remember information better.
Item 7. I can link information together better.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
2
8.42 *
14.35**
12.87**
14.35**
10.65*
6.94
14.35**
When answering questions about learning implications of student-centered and

inquiry/cooperative learning, the trend of significance showed that a high percentage of
the students answered in a closely related manner on this set of survey questions with
most students choosing strongly agree or agree for the items stated. Item one, p<.05,
showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students
learning to form ideas with more confidence. Item two, p<.01, showed there was a
significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students participating
regularly, meaning there was a 1% chance of being wrong about whether or not students
would participate when student-centered instruction was implemented. Item three, p<.01,
showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction and
students motivation to learn. Item four, p<.01, showed there was a significant
relationship between student-centered instruction and students learning to enjoy the
subject matter more. Item five, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between studentcentered instruction and students gaining self-confidence; there was a greater chance of
being wrong about whether or not student-centered instruction contributed to this feeling.
Item six showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and remembering

information better. Item seven, p<.01, show there was also a significant relationship
between student-centered instruction and students being able to link information together
better. Questions 2, 3, 4, and 7 showed the greatest significant trends when p < .05, .01,
and .001, meaning that there was a high percentage of students that strongly agreed or
agreed with the impact that student-centered learning made on how they learn.
The trend seemed to follow the same pattern when students were asked to apply
their experience to literacy implications of student-centered classroom and
inquiry/cooperative learning. Participants were asked to rate how they felt about
speaking, writing, and listening in class following the practice of classroom questioning
and multiple intelligences. Table 4.5 shows the results of these findings.
Table 4.5 Literacy Implications of Student-centered Instruction
LITERACY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED
CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
n = 38
Item 1. I communicate more clearly.
Item 2. I can debate more confidently.
Item 3. I can form opinions more confidently.
Item 4. I can make predictions more confidently.
Item 5. I am more motivated to listen, learn, and participate.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
2
15.83***
8.42*
10.65*
4.72
12.87**
Survey item one, where p<.001, showed there was a very significant relationship
between student-centered instruction and students communicating more clearly. As
student-centered instruction increases, students are more likely to improve their
communication skills overall. Item two, p<.05, showed there was a relationship between
student-centered instruction and students ability to debate more confidently. Item three,
p<.05, showed that there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and
students being able to form opinions more confidently. Item four showed no relationship
between student-centered instruction and students being able to make predictions more
confidently. Students appeared to remain less confident in their prediction skills. Item
five, p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered and
students willingness to listen, learn, and participate. The data continued to trend at the
top of the scale with more participants choosing strongly agree or agree when reflecting
on how student-centered impacted the literacy aspect of their learning.
Participants were asked to rate their overall confidence and motivation in their
academic life to address the personal academic and communication implications of
student-centered classroom and inquiry/cooperative learning (see Table 4.6 ). Item one,
p<.01, showed there was a significant relationship between student-centered instruction
and confidence level overall as a student. Item two, p<.001, showed there was a very
significant relationship between student-centered instruction and students participation
level overall in all classes. More participants are more likely to increase participation in
all classes. Item three showed there was no relationship between student-centered
instruction and students asking more questions overall in all classes. Item four, p<.05,
showed there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and student
motivation overall in classes. Item five, p<.05, also showed there was a relationship
between student-centered instruction and students feeling they have more investment in
the discovery of new information in classes. The data trended with the greatest amount of
participants choosing strongly agree and agree when student-centered instruction
impacted their personal academic and communication aspects of learning.
Table 4.6 Personal Academic and Communication Implications

PERSONAL ACADEMIC AND COMMUNICATION
IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and
INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
n=38
Item 1. I feel more confident overall as a student.
Item 2. I participate more often overall in my classes.
Item 3. I ask more questions overall in my classes.
Item 4. I am more motivated overall in my classes.
Item 5. I have more investment in the discovery of new information in
my classes.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
2
12.87**
20.28***
2.5
9.91*
10.65*
Lastly, the participants were asked to rate their self-confidence when interacting
with their academic peers, family and friends as well as their motivation to share their
knowledge to address the cultural implications of student-centered classroom and
inquiry/cooperative learning. Table 4.7 showed there was significance with Item one
when p<.05, there was a relationship between student-centered instruction and students
self-confidence to communicate clearly about classroom discoveries with their academic
peers, family, and friends. Item two showed a very significant relationship between
student-centered instruction and students having the motivation to teach their academic
peers, friends, and family the material they learned when p<.001. Item three, p>.05,
showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and if students will think
about what they will communicate and how they will communicate outside of school.
Item four, p>.05, also showed there was no relationship between student-centered
instruction and students self-confidence and motivation to be an active citizen in a
democracy of informed citizens. When looking at the data trend for cultural implications,
at times there was a high amount of students who strongly agreed but there was also a
high amount of students who disagreed on several of the implications when studentcentered instruction impacted the cultural aspects of their life.
Table 4.7 Cultural Implications of Student-centered Instruction
CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED
CLASSROOM and INQUIRY /COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
n = 38
Item 1. I have the self-confidence to communicate clearly
about classroom discoveries with my academic peers,
family, and friends.
Item 2. I have the motivation to teach my academic peers,
friends, and family the material I have learned.
Item 3. I think about what I will communicate and how I will
communicate outside of school.
Item 4. I feel self-confident and motivated to be an active
citizen in a democracy of informed citizens.
2
9.17 *
15.83*
**
7.68
5.46
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Also, to determine internal consistency reliability of the student-centered survey
given to students, a Cronbachs Alpha was used. The Cronbachs Alpha was used to
determine whether the test items were consistent with one another in that they represent
one, and only one, dimension, construct, or area of interest (Salkind, 2010). The
Cronbachs Alpha was = 0.91, therefore, the survey showed a high level of reliability.
The focus group journal questions was not applied for this project because of the
destabilizing of this group dynamics of low frustration level and cohesiveness; however
this may be a technique that may prove beneficial of future research on student-centered
instruction within an exceptional behavior disorder class.
Overall, the quantitative data discussed in this chapter, as a result of the action
research study, did not produce significant results from implementing cooperative
learning activities as a form of student-centered instruction. On the other hand, the
qualitative data showed a positive effect from using cooperative learning activities with
students with severe emotional behavior disorders. Further analysis of this study is
provided in Chapter Five providing discussion on the inconsistencies observed, along

with the implications of the study, the impact on student learning, and recommendations
for future research.
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis
This section analyzes the results of each focus question in detail as it relates to the
main research question of this study. Focus question one was stated as follows: How can
teachers implement student-centered instruction in a secondary exceptional education
science classroom? The data gathering methods for this focus question one were an
instructional plan, an instructional plan rubric, and an interview. All data gathering
methods for this focus question were analyzed for qualitative data and coded for themes
aligned with the focus question. Overall, based on the collection of data from the
instructional plan, instructional plan rubric, and the interview from Teacher 1 with more
than 15 years experience special education and Teacher 2 with more than 15 years
experience in regular education of the instructional plan, I found that the implementation
of student-centered instruction in an exceptional education classroom was not as
successful as hoped in increasing student achievement academically; although, findings
did lead to more engagement and cooperative learning among the participants. The
literature suggests that students are more involved in taking responsibility for their own
learning when they can establish what the concepts have to do with them. Once the
students established relevance, they became more engaged in learning.
The second focus question was stated as follows: What affects does studentcentered instruction have on students learning within exceptional education classroom?
The data gathering methods were pretest and posttest, behavior charts, and science
notebooks. Quantitative data were analyzed by dependent t tests and calculated
percentages of tally marks on the behavior chart. Qualitative data from entries in the
science notebooks was also analyzed. Based on the data gathered from the pretest and
posttest, behavior charts, and science notebooks, student understandings of the concepts
showed no significant difference between student-centered instruction and teacherdirected instruction, but there was significance in student engagement and confidence
level. Overall, the effectiveness of student-centered instruction on increasing student
achievement academically and behaviorally was somewhat positive and negative.
When researching the effectiveness of student-centered instruction, the same
process was used for implementing both the control method and the experimental method
of the action research. A pretest was given, then the treatment, followed by a posttest. The
participants were grouped heterogeneously according to ability. In the beginning, the
participants were not happy with the grouping but as they continued with the activities
new friendships formed. The students showed more engagement in what they were doing
and were willing to problem solve on their own. Many students showed an increase in
positive peer interaction. Although there were positive aspects of student-centered
instruction, there were also negative aspects. Some of the negative aspects of studentcentered instruction were that there were arguments with peers taking over another
students role and students not actively participating.
When looking at behavior, three aspects were considered. Students were observed
for engaging in positive peer interaction, engaging in on-task behavior with another
student, and active participation. Students behaviors were recorded on a behavior chart
and were recorded in intervals every ten minutes. Overall students showed they were
actively participating at least 90 percent of the time for both instructional methods which
shows that the students did not favor one method over the other. The students also
participated in using a science notebook (see Appendix F) to record information during
the student-centered instruction of the action research. The science notebooks revealed
that the students only had minimal knowledge of content area. During the course of the
research, students had to be encouraged to record information in science notebooks and it
was stressed that the science notebooks were a requirement of their project.
The third focus question was stated as follows: What are teacher and student
attitudes about student-centered instruction in the secondary exceptional education
classroom environment? The data gathering method used for focus question three was
student surveys, teacher journal reflection, and focus group journal reflection. A Chi
Square was used to obtain quantitative data to determine if there was a significant
difference between means from two independent groups. Overall the participants seemed
to trend with a high number of students strongly agreeing and agreeing with the how they
felt about student-centered instruction.
Qualitative data was obtained from daily teacher reflection journal to look for
categorical and repeating data that forms patterns. Overall, I found out that the attitudes
of the students on student-centered instruction in increasing student achievement
academically and behaviorally was positive; although the attitude of the teacher met with
some disappointment. Based on the data gathered from the teachers daily reflection
journal and students surveys student highly favor student-centered instruction in regards
to overall implications to their learning, literacy, personal academic and communication,
and cultural aspects. The focus group journal questions was not applied for this project
because of the destabilizing of this group dynamics of low frustration level and
cohesiveness; however this may be a technique that may prove beneficial of future
research on student-centered instruction within an exceptional behavior disorder class.
At the end of the study, one female participant stated, Im glad you didnt let me
change my group, I got to know James and hes pretty cool. So thank you, Ms. Jones.
That newly forged relationship continues today, weeks after the research project has
ended. James who usually does not interact with his peers has made a new friend and
appears to be more self-confident. He also talks about his days of when he talked to no
one and how long it took him to talk to anyone. Another participant stated, This was a
good activity. When are we going to do some more projects?
The action research implemented somewhat proved and disproved what the
current literature states. The research also modified what the current literature states when
taking into account the severe disabilities of students within the exceptional education
spectrum of the education continuum. Scholar Felder (n.d) described several methods that
could be used to implement student-centered instruction in the classroom. The method
chosen for this action research was cooperative learning, which proved to be similar to
what the scholars stated this method would provide. Felder described cooperative
learning as students working in teams on problems or projects under conditions that
assure both positive interdependence and individual accountability. This method provided
a sense of interdependence and accountability with the participants. Scholar Bil Johnson
(2001) also stated student-centered classrooms empower students and gives them a voice,
making them responsible for their work and actions. The participants felt a sense of selfconfidence and motivation with performances within school and outside of school as a
result of the student-centered instruction implemented. Bil Johnson listed steps to take
when implementing student-centered instruction which included beginning with the end
in mind and using authentic assessments in the form of projects and portfolios, which was
mentioned by Felder and McWhorter & Hudson-Ross. The use of backward design
instructional plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) proved to give an overview of the lessons
to be used.
From an educator aspect, this action research proved similar to the literature by
Schumacher and Kennedy (2008) and Chall (2008) who state that teachers who
implemented student-centered instruction found it to involve a lot of preparation work,
physically and mentally. Such teachers resorted back to direct-teacher (traditional)
instruction. As recorded on one of my teacher reflection days, I recall saying that the
research period would have easier if I was better prepared. Although the scholars
mentioned that the teachers had question of what to do with at-risk students, my study
was completely comprised of students who were all at-risk. This is where I feel my study
modified or disproved the scholars claim. The student-centered instruction should
incorporate activities that relevant to all students and students should be strategically
grouped to encourage the highest level of motivation possible.
A similarity, in this action research, was found with the literature by Chall when
reviewing the results of the pretests and posttests. Student-centered instruction approach
did not yield higher academic achievement as expected for students with disabilities, atrisk students, or student from low socio-economic backgrounds which I taught. Chall
found that direct-teacher (traditional teacher-centered) approach yield higher academic
achievement with students of that nature. Also similarly, Rutledge (2008), who cited
Klionsky, Lawson, and Lord reported on studies that revealed the effectiveness of
student-centered instruction in promoting improved student attitude which is what I
found with the participants in my action research.
A difference I encountered compared to the literature of Passman (2000) is that

when teachers are faced with high-stakes testing pressures, teachers resorted back to
traditional teaching instructions. Although there are a lot of pressures involved with this
type of instructional practice, Aaronsohn (1996) found in a study that proved with support
and effort, student-centered instruction works for both the student and the teacher. I feel
students should be given every opportunity to increase personal academic success on all
levels; therefore, incorporating both types of instructional practices may yield better
results for special needs students. When concluding this action research, I found similar
evidence as Chall (2008), that there was no significant difference between a studentcentered (often called progressive) instructional approach and teacher-directed
(traditional) instructional approach.
Discussion
The purpose of this action research was to find a way to help students within the
exceptional education classroom increase academic achievement. I focused on the
students who have severe emotional-behavior problems; therefore, my study included the
aspects of students behaviors. The finding from the interviews about the instructional
plan was positive. Teacher One assessed the instructional plan more from an exceptional
educator point of view and found that the activities addressed the standards and a
connection of relevance was made to the students. Teacher One also stated that
appropriate accommodations were addressed to assist students within exceptional
education. Teacher Two, who is a general education teacher whose content area is
science, responded the same as Teacher One in respect to whether the activities were
relevant to the students and if they addressed the standards and accommodations of
special needs students. Teacher Two went a step further by giving tools that could refine
the activities chosen. Hence, the unit of study and activities chosen contributed greatly to
guide the action research process on student-centered instruction.
The action research was implemented and began with instruction in direct-teacher
instruction (the control method). The students were given a pretest followed by the
treatment then a posttest. The results from the pretest and posttest showed small gains.
Upon the completion of the implementation of teacher-directed instruction, studentcentered instruction was implemented. The students were given a pretest and posttest
based on one cooperative learning activity followed by another cooperative learning
activity which began and ended with a pretest and posttest. Both cooperative learning
pretest were followed by the treatment and concluded with a posttest. The results from
the pretest of Activity One showed small gains but the results of Activity Two showed a
decline in score from the pretest to the posttest. Some students scores on the pretest were
lower than their posttest scores.
The subjects participating in this action research are all in exceptional education
and have severe emotional behavior disorders. Not all the students in this program are
functioning on a below average grade equivalence but the major of the students are. So
the students who are already functioning below average grade equivalence may
experience difficulty with any form of instruction, which showed to be the case with my
study. Although the subjects in this action research function on various grade levels, all
have disabilities that affects the emotional and behavioral aspects of their life which
strongly interferes with their ability to be successful within the learning environment. The
inconsistencies of these students emotionalities also affected the outcome of the students
behaviors. There were many days during the research time frame students were not
present during the research time due to in-school or out-of-school suspension or just
unable to attend the class due to trouble in other classes which put them in a bad mood.
Due to severe emotional disabilities of the students, many of the students performances
were greatly affected which produced lower test scores.
Even though my assessment was not what I expected, I had to reflect back on the
literature on implementing student-centered in the classroom, I found this study to be
very beneficial. Aaronsohn (1996) completed a detailed case study that proved with
support and effort, student centered instruction works for both the student and the teacher.
The students have to be taught how to rely on constructing their own meaning and rely
less on the teacher to give them all the answers. The literature stated how difficult this is
starting out and how many teachers see student-centered as being too much work and
many teachers often give up. At the end of this action research, I concluded that a
combination of both student-centered and teacher-directed instruction works best for the
subjects who have severe emotional behavior disorders. The students needed the stability
and structure of teacher-directed instruction due to the emotional and behavioral
disabilities, and the students also needed the connections made through the use of handson cooperative group activities which could optimize students abilities within the
classroom environment.
This study provided structural corroboration by ensuring credibility through the
use of the instructional plan rubric and interviews to assess the instructional plan that
would be implemented to address focus question one. When addressing focus question
two, credibility was achieved by using behavior charts, teacher-made pretests and
posttests, and science notebooks. And lastly, credibility was achieved when addressing
focus question three by using student surveys and daily teacher reflection journals.
Fairness was presented with scholars who opposed the thesis focus of student-centered
instruction of being most effective when increasing student achievement academically
and behaviorally. Scholars Passman (2000) and Chall (2008) both reported similarly that
either student-centered fail or teachers resorted by to traditional instruction or that there
was no difference in students achievement when taught in student-centered approach or
teacher-direct approach. The purpose of this paper was to determine which instructional
approach was more effective in increasing student achievement academically and
behaviorally. I created and implemented an action research study which resulted in an
answer to the study. The data gathered through the use of various methods from the study
offered valuable insight to both instructional approaches implemented; therefore, I made
a coherent case. The evidence provided in this study also proves sufficiently strong to
assert a judgment which shows that Rightness of Fit was established.
Implications
The quantitative findings showed there was no significant difference between
teaching students in student-centered instruction or teacher-directed instruction when it
comes to increasing academic achievement within an exceptional education classroom of
students with severe emotional behavior disorders. Some of the major themes uncovered
were more overall self-confidence in personal areas and school subjects, increased
interest in the content area, new friendships or positive connections formed, and a desire
to learn.
This study was important in finding what works well for students within the
exceptional education programs especially students who have severe emotional
behavioral disorders. There are many students who suffer from similar disabilities which
affect the learning environment. Educators who come in contact with students with
disabilities will find this action research useful when beginning to implement studentcentered instruction within the classroom environment.
This study will help educators see how focusing on the students can lead to
increasing self-confidence, connectedness to others and their lives, cooperative
participation, critical thinking skills, and overall better school performance. This study
help the subjects to make connections with others whom they would not have otherwise,
to want to participate in the activities, to share their knowledge and listen to others, to be
excited about their class assignments, and to be eager to take responsibility for their own
learning. The study also helped me to see the balance that is needed for the student to
remain motivated. Im looking at ways of implementing small lectures and pairing it with
a hands-on activity to be implemented as often as possible.
Impact on Student Learning
This action research made a small impact on my students learning academically
and behaviorally. The students in the study experienced both types of instruction and
were able to see what works best for them. For some students the impact was greater and
for others, there was no impact at all. The quality of students learning was improved by
providing hands-on cooperative learning activities in which they could make connections
to their everyday lives. The students were able to construct an understanding for the
concept they needed to learn with the help of their peers and critical thinking skills.
Although the tests showed no significant difference, there were inconsistencies with the
small improvements or gains that were made.
Some students in the study also made improvements behaviorally through
increasing self-confidence and making positive connections and working well with peers,
while others showed inconsistency with behavior issues prior to and during the research
time period. Many students found they gained more interest in the subject area and the
class and stated that they felt comfortable discussing what they learned with their peers,
friends, and family.
Recommendations for Future Research
My recommendations for future research would be to combine both instructional
practices for daily implementation. A balance of teacher-directed instruction in the form
of a small lecture in whole group and student-centered instruction using a hands-on
method could possible yield better results for special needs students within exceptional
education. Given more time to implement the study, students could use more time in
learning how to use the science notebooks. Although some situations within my field of
work could not be avoided, making kits of the materials needed to be close at hand and
aid in fast clean-up would also be helpful in reducing the stress of the educator allowing
more focus to be on facilitating and monitoring students learning.
References
Aaronsohn, E. (1996). Going against the grain. Supporting the student-centered teacher.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Chall, J. S. (2008). The academic achievement challenge. What really works in the
classroom. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Felder, R.M. (n.d.). Student-centered teaching and learning. Retrieved from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/RMF.html
Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education. Action research. Providence, RI: Brown
University.
Gardner, H. (2006). The development education of the mind: the selected works of
Howard Gardner. Retrieved from http://www.netlibrary.com.relay.lagrange.edu/
Hammerman, E. (2008, May). Science for real life. Principal Leadership, 8(9), 35-39.
Retrieved from Research Library. (Document ID: 1501074371).
Hargrove, T.Y. and Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: tools for increasing
achievement across the curriculum. ERIC digest. Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-4/notebooks.htm. (ED482720)
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research. A comprehensive guide
for educators. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Johnson, B. (2003). The student-centered classroom handbook: A guide to
implementation. (1). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College.
McWhorter, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (1996). Student-centered literacy instruction in high

school: I want to, but how? Instructional Resource No. 29. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (Accession No. ED398556)
Morton, B. (2008). Engaging students in technology: using student-centered and
interactive video instruction. Retrieved from http://www.waukee.k12.
ia.us/easonelementary/computers/Portolio/artifacts/actionresearchpaper.pdf
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab at Brown Univ. (2001). Student-centered
high schools: Helping schools adapt to the learning needs of adolescents.
Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Retrieved from ERIC database. (Accession
No. ED463588)
Passman, R. (2000). Pressure cooker: Experiences with student-centered teaching and
learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(Accession No. ED440146)
Popham, James W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th Ed).
Boston: Pearson.
Rutledge, M. (2008). Effectiveness of elements of a diversified instructional approach in
an introductory biology course. Bioscience: Journal of College Biology Teaching,
34(1), 24-29. Retrieved from ERIC database. (Accession No. EJ859821)
Salkind, N.J. (2010). Statisitics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schumacher, P., & Kennedy, K. T. (2008). Lessons learned concerning a student centered
teaching style by university mathematics professors from secondary school
educators. Education, 129(1), 102-109. Retrieved from Eric database. (Accession
No. EJ816975)
Stevenson, R. and Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Expanded 2nd Edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ/Alexandria, VA: Pearson Education Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Appendix A
INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN
STAGE 1IDENTIFYING DESIRED RESULTS
Unit Title: Density & Buoyancy
Forces and Motion, Reflection
Course Title: Physical Science
GPS Standards: SPS8b, c, d; SCSh3.c, e; SCSh4.c;

Date/Length of Unit: 4 Weeks
SPS9.d; SCSh3.e
Established Goals:
Build and calibrate a hydrometer that will help determine how much cargo a model ship can carry without sinking in
fresh water.
Apply knowledge of forces and motion to design and construct a fast roller coaster.
Learn how images reflect in a mirror, and apply this understanding to construct a periscope.
Understandings:
Essential Questions:
Students will understand
How can the salinity of a body of water predict the
Salinity is a measure of the dissolved solutes in a
buoyancy and density of an object?
liquid.
How does todays increased population and industrial use

A liquids density is affected by its salinity.
impact the oceans?
The buoyancy of a solution increases as its
How can forces be used to make objects move, change
salinity increases.
direction, or stop?
The greater the salinity of a solution is, the
How is the motion of an object related to the size of the
higher the hydrometer will float.
object and the amount of force that is applied to the
The concepts of acceleration and velocity.
object?
The forces that act on an object, such as gravity,
What is gravity and how does it affect things on the earth?
friction, and centripetal force.
How do simple machines make work easier for people?
Energy and energy conversions and how the
How does the light reflect?

conversions affect the motion of the ball bearing.
Can reflection help us see around corners?
How reflection works and how angles play a role
in how reflection works.
Reflective properties.
Students will know
Students will be able to
Density
SPS8.b. Apply Newtons three laws to everyday situations
by explaining the following: inertia, relationship between
Salinity
force, mass, and acceleration, and equal and opposite
Buoyancy
forces.
Forces and motion
SPS8.c. Relate falling objects to gravitational force.

Gravity
SPS8.d. Explain the difference in mass and weight.
Friction
SPS9.d. Investigate the phenomena of reflection,
Centripetal force
refraction, interference, and diffraction.
Energy and energy conversions
SCSh3.e. Develop reasonable conclusions based on data
Reflective properties
collected.
Graphs and charts
SCSh4.c. Use technology to develop, test, and revise
experimental or mathematical models.
58
Appendix B
Criteria
Essential
Question (s)
Rubric for Evaluating Instructional Plan

Describe & State
Instructional
Technology
Materials
Accommodations
for special needs
Standards
covered
Assessment
(formative)
Computer, science notebooks, hands-on projects

Plastic drinking straws, modeling clay, scissors, pencils, thumbtacks, test tubes, permanent marker,
plastic/paper cup, triple-beam balance, pennies, paper towels, support stands and clamps, ball bearing,
stack of books, meterstick, stopwatch, pocket-sized mirror, graph paper, masking tape, and protractor.
Relevancy to
children
How can the salinity of a body of water predict the buoyancy and density of an object?
How does todays increased population and industrial use impact the oceans?
How can forces be used to make objects move, change direction, or stop?
How is the motion of an object related to the size of the object and the amount of force that is
applied to the object?
What is gravity and how does it affect things on the earth?
How do simple machines make work easier for people?
How does the light reflect?
Can reflection help us see around corners?
Open-ended Questions
Does the essential question address the
enduring understanding?
In what ways can the use of instructional

technology be improved?
Are there other materials that would be
appropriate?
Student will be arranged in heterogeneous, small groups based on ability level.

Directions will be read aloud.
Extend time will be given.
SPS8.b. Apply Newtons three laws to everyday situations by explaining the following: inertia,
relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, and equal and opposite forces.
SPS8.c. Relate falling objects to gravitational force.
SPS8.d. Explain the difference in mass and weight.
SPS9.d. Investigate the phenomena of reflection, refraction, interference, and diffraction.
SCSh3.e. Develop reasonable conclusions based on data collected.
SCSh4.c. Use technology to develop, test, and revise experimental or mathematical models.
To what degree are the needs of special

learners being met?
Each group member should write a research and design report in his or her own science
notebook.
Each group member should be able to explain how a hydrometer works and how the group
arrived at a solution.
A contest between other roller coaster designs in the class.
Are there other assessments that would

yield better data?
Do the assessments align with the

standards stated?
Each group member should be able to discuss what was successful and what was unsuccessful
in the research, design, and performance stages of this project.
Constructed periscope
Each group member should be able to explain the connection between angles and what is seen
in a mirror.
A liquids density is affected by its salinity.
The greater the salinity of a solution is, the higher the hydrometer will float.
Does the concept yield relevance to

students learning?
The forces that act on an object, such as gravity, friction, and centripetal force.
How reflection works and how angles play a role in how reflection works.
59
60
Appendix C
Pretest/Posttest- Ch. 21 Magnetism
Name _____________________________________ Date_____________ Period ______
1. A device that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy is a(an)
a. electric motor
b. generator
c. transformer
d. solenoid
2. Which of the following measures small amounts of current?
a. solenoid
b. electromagnet
c. galvanometer
d. electric motor
3. The force a magnet exerts on another magnet is called
a. magnetic force.
b. magnetic field.
c. magnetization.
d. repulsion.
4. Which property would you want to increase in transmitting electrical energy as
efficiently as possible over long distances?
a. current
b. voltage
c. resistance
d. all of the above
5. What property of an alternating current does a transformer change?
a. power
b. energy
c. voltage
d. force
6. A ferromagnetic material is best defined as any material that
a. has unpaired electrons.
b. is always a magnet.
c. contains iron.
d. can be magnetized.
7. Which of the following statements about magnetic fields is FALSE?
a. The magnetic field is strongest near the center of the magnet.
b. Field lines begin at a magnets north pole and extend toward its south pole.
c. The arrows on field lines indicate what direction a compass needle would point.
61
d. Field lines close to one another indicate a strong magnetic field.

8. Electric force is caused by charged particles, and magnetic force is caused by
a. charged particles
b. the repulsion between objects.
c. the spin of electrons.
d. the movement of charged particles.
9. A charged particle is moving across a page from left to right as it enters a
magnetic field that runs from top to bottom. How will the motion of the particle
be changed as it enters the magnetic field?
a. It will accelerate.
b. It will deflect either up or down.
c. It will deflect either into or away from the paper.
d. Its motion will not be affected.
10. Where is the field of a magnet strongest?
a. near the north pole
b. near the south pole
c. near both poles
d. near the middle
11. If you cut a magnet in half, you have
a. no magnets.
b. two half magnets.
c. one magnet.
d. two magnets.
12. A magnets field lines always start near the magnets
a. middle
b. south pole.
c. north pole.
d. side.
13. An iron bar is placed in a solenoid to
a. decrease the voltage.
b. increase the voltage.
c. increase the magnetic field strength.
d. decrease the magnetic field strength.
14. Which of these cannot increase the strength of an electromagnet?
a. making the loops smaller in the coil
b. placing an iron bar in the coil
c. winding more loops in the coil
d. increasing the current in the coil
62
15. A transformer increases or decreases

a. energy.
b. resistance.
c. voltage.
d. direct current.
16. The Earth has a magnetic field most likely because:
a. the atmosphere contains oxygen
b. charged particles in the core move in circular paths
c. it is so close to the Sun
d. it orbits the Sun
17. In which direction will the free moving magnet on the left move as a result of the
one on the right being brought close?
a. left
b. right
c. up
d. down
18. A straight current-carrying wire produces
a. an electric field
b. a magnetic field
c. beams of white light
d. matter
19. An electric generator is a device that converts
a. nuclear energy to electric energy
b. wind energy to electrical energy
c. energy from burning coal to electric energy
d. All of the above
20. The part of a magnet where the magnetic field and forces are strongest is called a
a. magnetic field
b. magnetic pole
c. magnetic attraction
d. magnetic repulsion
63
Appendix D
Pretest/Posttest--Density and Buoyancy
Name
Class
1. A resting object exerts pressure equal to
a. its mass times its contact area.
b. its weight times its contact area.
c. its mass divided by its contact area.
d. its weight divided by its contact area.
Date
2. Compared to the pressure exerted by a brick standing on its end, the pressure
exerted by a brick resting on its side is
a. the same.
b. less
c. more.
d. twice as much.
3. The amount of water pressure you experience while swimming in a pool depends
on
a. your buoyancy.
b. the area of the pool.
c. the volume of water in the pool.
d. how deep you are in the water.
4. Which of the following is NOT true about the SI unit of pressure?
a. It is used for fluids only.
b. It is called a pascal.
c. It is equal to one Newton per square meter.
d. It represents force per unit area.
5. Blaise Pascal discovered that changes in pressure
a. are transmitted equally throughout a fluid.
b. increase with depth of fluid.
c. decrease with depth of fluid.
d. depend on area.
6. In a hydraulic lift system, the output force is greater than the input force because
a. a larger pressure acts on the output piston.
b. a larger pressure acts on the input piston.
c. the fluid pressure acts on areas of different sizes.
d. of Bernoullis principle.
7. Which of the following is NOT true about Bernoullis principle?
a. The pressure within a moving fluid is greater than the pressure within a
nonmoving fluid.
64
b. As a fluids speed increases, the pressure within it decreases.

c. When a moving fluid slows, the pressure within it increases.
d. It helps explain the lift of an airplane.
8. The buoyant force acting on a submerged object is equal to
a. the objects mass.
b. the objects volume.
c. the mass of the fluid displaced by the object.
d. the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.
9. A partially submerged object floats when
a. the objects weight is equal to the buoyant force.
b. the objects mass is equal to the buoyant force.
c. the objects weight is greater than the buoyant force.
d. the buoyant force is downward.
10. A submarine changes depth by altering its
a. speed.
b. density.
c. total area.
d. shape.
11. Tow identical beakers are both half-filled with a liquid. Beaker A contains water
and Beaker B contains a liquid that is denser than water. Which of the following is
FLASE?
a. The pressure at the bottom of Beaker B is greater than that at the bottom of
Beaker A.
b. The pressure within each fluid is exerted equally in all directions.
c. The mass of fluid in Beaker B is greater than the mass of fluid in Beaker A.
d. The mass of fluid in Beaker A is greater than the mass of fluid in Beaker B.
e. The volume of fluid in Beaker B is equal to the volume of fluid in Beaker A.
12. When air is blown between two balls suspended from strings, the balls come
together and touch. This is explained by
a. Archimedes principle.
b. Pascals principle.
c. The Pauli exclusion principle.
d. Bernoullis principle.
e. the hydraulic principle.
Short Answers
13. What is the formula for finding density?
14. How does buoyancy affect the apparent weight of an object in a fluid?
15. What determines if an object will float or sink in a fluid?
65
66
Appendix E
WHAT ARE SCIENCE NOTEBOOKS?
Shavelson (2001, p. 2) defines a science notebook as "a compilation of entries that
provide a partial record of the instructional experiences a student had in her or his
classroom for a certain period of time". Not only do science notebooks provide
information about classroom experiences, they imitate the journals that actual scientists
use as they explore the world. Through writing in science notebooks, students engage in
authentic scientific thinking as they carry out their own investigations. Science
Notebooks include a question to explore, predictions, a description of what was done, and
what students learned. In addition, they may incorporate narrative statements and
drawings about the student's observations, data sets, diagrams, graphs and tables.
While there is a need to conduct additional research on this topic, the following
characteristics seem to make the implementation of an active science program using
science notebooks a viable way to collect assessment data from multiple areas of the
curriculum:
* Most of the work done in the notebook is descriptive or narrative. The qualitative
nature of the notebook provides the teacher with insightful information about what
students truly understand.
* The notebook is centered around authentic tasks such as collaborating, researching,
analyzing and evaluating.
* The work done in the notebook is purposeful. Students are investigating their own
questions in which they are genuinely interested.
* There is seldom one right answer or conclusion. In fact, it is not uncommon for the
teacher to "discover" alongside the student.
* Other stakeholders are involved, primarily the student. Assessment of the science
notebook is used to provide insight to students about how they learn and to inform the
teacher of what the student needs next. Notebooks also serve as an excellent resource to
demonstrate growth to parents-growth not only in science, but in multiple areas of the
curriculum.
With the implementation of science notebooks, students become actively involved in
their own learning. Students are afforded the opportunity to investigate content in which
they are naturally interested and to wrestle with authentic problems. It only makes sense
that achievement is enhanced in all areas of the curriculum.
Source: Hargrove, T.Y. & Nesbit, C. (2003). Science notebooks: Tools for increasing
achievement across the curriculum. ERIC digest. Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-4/notebooks.htm. (ED482720)
67
68
Appendix F
Pretest/Posttest--Forces and motions
Name________________________________________ Date __________ Period______
1. Which is not a force?
a. friction
b. gravity
c. momentum
d. weight
2. You push on a box and are unable to move it. What force opposes your push?
a. static friction
b. rolling friction
c. sliding friction
d. air resistance
3. Air resistance depends on
a. the velocity of a moving object.
b. the weight of a moving object.
c. the mass of a moving object.
d. the inertia of a moving object.
4. What force besides gravity acts on a projectile?
a. weak nuclear
b. electrical
c. magnetic
d. air resistance
5. Newtons first law of motion is sometimes called the law of
a. inertia.
b. conservation.
c. momentum.
d. resistance.
6. A change in which of the following affects the weight of an object?
a. momentum
b. velocity
c. acceleration due to gravity
d. friction
7. Which represents Newtons second law?
a. v = d
t
c. F = mv
b. a = F
m
d. F = 0
8. For every action force there is a

a. reaction force.
c. friction force.
b. net force.
d. unbalanced force.
9. Momentum depends upon

a. force only.
c. weight and mass.
b. velocity and friction.

d. mass and velocity.
69
10. What force holds the nucleus together?

a. magnetic
b. strong nuclear
c. gravitational
d. centripetal
11. If an object is at rest, which of the following statements MUST be true?
a. There are no friction acting on the object
b. There is no friction acting on the object
c. The forces acting on the object are unbalanced
d. The net force acting on the object is zero
12. How would your mass and weight change if you were on the moons surface?
a. They wouldnt change.
b. Your mass would remain constant and your weight would increase.
c. Your mass and weight would decrease.
d. Your mass would remain constant and your weight would decrease.
13. A force that continuously changes the direction of an object to make it move in a
circle is a
a. centripetal force.
b. magnetic force.
c. static force.
d. radial force.
14. What is inertia?
a. the force of gravity acting on an object
b. forces of friction slowing an objects motion
c. the mass of an object
d. the tendency of an object to resist change in its motion
15. A red Velcro ball is rolling towards a stationary blue Velcro ball of the same mass.
The balls will stick together upon contact. How will the red balls velocity after
contact compare to its initial velocity? (In this collision the law of conservation of
momentum is obeyed.)
a. The red balls velocity is the same as before.
b. The red balls velocity is the same magnitude, but in the opposite direction.
c. The red balls velocity is half its initial velocity and in the same direction.
d. The red balls velocity is double its initial velocity and in the opposite direction.
16. A 3,600-N force causes a car to accelerate at a rate of 4 m/s2. What is the mass of
the car?
a. 600 kg
b. 900 kg
c. 14,400 kg
d. 1,200 kg
17. Which of the following is NOT a type of friction?
a. static friction
b. sliding friction
c. fluid friction
d. pull friction
18. Momentum is
a. the rate at which an objects acceleration changes.
b. the reaction force that accompanies every action force.
c. an objects mass multiplied by its acceleration.
d. an objects mass multiplied by its velocity.
19. A stationary figure skater pushes off the boards around an ice skating ring an
begins gliding backwards away from the boards. Which law explains why the
figure skater moves backwards?
a. the law of conservation of energy
b. the law of inertia
c. Newtons second law
d. Newtons third law
20. Which of the following statements about gravitational forces is FALSE?
a. They are the weakest universal force.
b. They act between any two objects.
c. They become stronger as the distance between two objects increases.
d. They become weaker as the mass of either of the two objects decreases.
21. In which direction does Earths gravitational force act?
a. opposite the direction of motion
b. downward toward the center of Earth
c. upward away from the center of Earth
d. in the direction of motion
22. What are the only forces that can both attract and repel?
a. electromagnetic forces
b. centripetal forces
c. strong nuclear forces
d. gravitational forces
70
71
Appendix G
Behavior Chart
Group __________________________________ Date _________________________
(Give a 1 for displaying behavior and 0 for not displaying behavior)
Behavior
Engaging in ontask behavior

with another
student
Active
Participation
Total Tally for behavior

***Behavior checked every 10 mins. with preset timer not noticeable to students
Total
Tally
Student
Engaging in
positive peer
interaction
72
Appendix H
STUDENT SURVEY
On these pages you will be asked to rate how you feel about student-centered in the
classroom and what you have gained academically from becoming a member of the
inquiry and cooperative learning community.
The Rating Scale:
4 I strongly agree with this statement.
3 I agree with this statement.
2 I disagree with this statement.
1 I strongly disagree with this statement.
Select ONE of the following for each prompt in each category.
A.LEARNING IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and
1. I have learned to form ideas with more confidence.
2. I have learned to participate regularly.
3. I am more motivated to learn.
4. I have learned to enjoy this subject matter more.
5. I have gained self-confidence as a student.
6. I remember information better.
7. I can link information together better.
B. LITERACY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and

On this page you will be asked to rate on how you feel about speaking, writing, and
listening in class following the practice of classroom questioning and multiple
intelligences.
1. I communicate more clearly.
73
2. I can debate more confidently.
3. I can form opinions more confidently.
4. I can make predictions more confidently.
5. I am more motivated to listen, learn, and participate.
C. PERSONAL ACADEMIC AND COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS OF

STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and INQUIRY/COOPERATIVE
LEARNING.
On this page you will be asked to rate your overall confidence and motivation in your
academic life.
1. I feel more confident overall as a student.
2. I participate more often overall in my classes.
3. I ask more questions overall in my classes.
4. I am more motivated overall in my classes.
5. I have more investment in the discovery of new

information in my classes.
D. CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and

INQUIRY /COOPERATIVE LEARNING.
And finally, in this section you will be asked to rate your self-confidence when you
interact with your academic peers, family and friends as well as your motivation to share
your knowledge.
1. I have the self-confidence to communicate clearly about classroom discoveries with
my academic peers, family, and friends.
4
3
2
1
2. I have the motivation to teach my academic peers, friends, and family the material I
have learned.
4
3
2
1
3. I think about what I will communicate and how I will communicate outside of school.
4
3
2
1
4. I feel self-confident and motivated to be an active citizen in a democracy of informed
citizens.
4
3
2
1
Appendix I
74
Focus Group Journal Questions Student centered Instruction-Engaged Students

Student comprehension of science concepts while being taught using student-centered
methods of teaching and learning.
1. Why was learning on your own your choice for learning science concepts?
2. Explain some benefits with constructing learning on your own?
3. Explain some challenges with constructing learning on your own?
4. How did learning on your own help you effectively learn science concepts?
5. What did learning on your own provide to better help you learn science concepts?
6. What additional help, if any, did you need after learning science concepts on your
own?
7. Anything else to add in regards to learning science concepts on your own to better
understand science concepts?
Focus Group Journal Questions Student centered Instruction-Disengaged
Students
Student comprehension of science concepts while being taught using student-centered
methods of teaching and learning.
1. Why was learning on your own not your choice for learning science concepts?
2. Explain some benefits with learning science concepts using student-centered
instruction?
3. Explain some challenges with learning science concepts on your own?
4. How did learning on your own not help you effectively learn science concepts?
5. What did learning on your own not provide to better help you learn science concepts?
6. What additional help, if any, did you need after learning science concepts on your
own?
7. Anything else to add in regards to learning science concepts on your own to
better understand science?
Source: Morton, B. (2008). Engaging students in technology: Using student-centered and
interactive video instruction. Retrieved fromhttp://www.waukee.k12.ia.us/eason
ia.us/easonelementary/computers/portfolio/artifacts/actionresearchpaper.pdf
Appendix J
Reflective Journal Questions
Class
Date
Strategy
1. What were three
main things I learned
from this session?
2. What did we not
cover that I expected
we should?
3. What was new or
surprising to me?
4. What have I changed
my mind about, as a
result of this session?
5. One thing I learned in
this session that I may
be able to use in the
future is...
6. I am still unsure
about...
7. Ideas for action, based
on this session...
8.
What I most liked

about this session
was...
9. What I most disliked
about this session
was...
10. Miscellaneous
interesting facts I
learned in this
session...
75

Jones, Crystal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jones, Crystal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS.

STUDENT-CENTERED INSTRUCTION VS. DIRECT-TEACHER INSTRUCTION:

Data Shell ..20

Instructional Plan Rubric Opened Ended Questions......29

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

teacher experienced disruptive behaviors in classes which were only managed by

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

What effects does

What are teacher and

Desire to find what

An instructional plan (see Appendix A) was then created which includes

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

A student survey was created to rate students attitudes about student-centered

Table 4.4 Chi-Square-Learning Implications of Student-Centered Instruction

When answering questions about learning implications of student-centered and

Item six showed no relationship between student-centered instruction and remembering

Table 4.6 Personal Academic and Communication Implications

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

provided in Chapter Five providing discussion on the inconsistencies observed, along

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A difference I encountered compared to the literature of Passman (2000) is that

McWhorter, P., & Hudson-Ross, S. (1996). Student-centered literacy instruction in high

Course Title: Physical Science

GPS Standards: SPS8b, c, d; SCSh3.c, e; SCSh4.c;

How does todays increased population and industrial use

How does the light reflect?

SPS8.c. Relate falling objects to gravitational force.

Rubric for Evaluating Instructional Plan

Computer, science notebooks, hands-on projects

In what ways can the use of instructional

Student will be arranged in heterogeneous, small groups based on ability level.

To what degree are the needs of special

Are there other assessments that would

Do the assessments align with the

Does the concept yield relevance to

d. Field lines close to one another indicate a strong magnetic field.

15. A transformer increases or decreases

b. As a fluids speed increases, the pressure within it decreases.

8. For every action force there is a

9. Momentum depends upon

b. velocity and friction.

10. What force holds the nucleus together?

Engaging in ontask behavior

Total Tally for behavior

2. I have learned to participate regularly.

3. I am more motivated to learn.

4. I have learned to enjoy this subject matter more.

5. I have gained self-confidence as a student.

6. I remember information better.

7. I can link information together better.

B. LITERACY IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and

2. I can debate more confidently.

3. I can form opinions more confidently.

4. I can make predictions more confidently.

5. I am more motivated to listen, learn, and participate.

C. PERSONAL ACADEMIC AND COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS OF

2. I participate more often overall in my classes.

3. I ask more questions overall in my classes.

4. I am more motivated overall in my classes.

5. I have more investment in the discovery of new

D. CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOM and

Focus Group Journal Questions Student centered Instruction-Engaged Students

What I most liked

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