Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Professional Development Project

Luisa F. Guzmn
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
EDUC 534: Capstone TESOL
March 20, 2016
Dr. Melanie K. Calvert

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Abstract
This action research project aimed to improve written discourse among 20 students in a
7th grade RELA (Reading English Language Arts) inclusion class. The term inclusion is used
because students placed in this group can be either general education students, special education
students, ELLs (English Language Learners), or a combination thereof (special education and
ELL or general education and ELL). A co-teaching model is used in the abovementioned
classroom. That is to say that 3 teachers are responsible for the students instruction and
achievement. Formative assessments revealed learning gaps in student writing. In an effort to
reach every student and improve written discourse, differentiated instruction was embedded into
every lesson of a writing Unit designed around S.E. Hintons The Outsiders. The teachers
administered pre and post-instruction formative and summative assessments and predicted that
students writing would improve if sufficient differentiated instruction and scaffolding were
infused into the Unit. Unequivocally, the results show improvements in both the quality and
quantity of students writing.
Keywords: differentiation, complex instruction, scaffolding, zone of proximal
development

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Research Problem Question: Improving Writing Skills in a 7th Grade English Inclusion
Classroom by Differentiating Instruction Through the Use of a WebQuest
In todays day and age, the ability to write has become an indispensable skill in our
global literate community. Writing skills, at least at rudimentary levels, is a necessary condition
for achieving employment in many walks of life (Brown, 2004, p. 218). Therefore, it is
important to differentiate instruction in order to reach English language learners (ELLs) at
various proficiency levels, abilities, and with different learning styles. Ultimately, the goal is to
improve writing through differentiated instruction.
Rationale
As an educator, I am compelled to agree with Tomlinsons rationale behind differentiated
instruction. I also believe that every student is different. Be it in ability level, proficiency level,
preferred learning style, and cultural background. Thus, I refute the one-size-fits-all approach
to teaching. I aim to spend my final term at USC researching the benefits of differentiated
instruction within my teaching context: A 7th grade English Inclusion classroom, where I pushin to service ELLs (English Language Learners). Carol Ann Tomlinson elaborates on the
founding values of equity and excellence within the realm of education. Tomlinson (1999)
posits the following:
Our schools can achieve both of these competing values only to the degree that they can
establish heterogeneous communities of learning (attending to issues of equity) built
solidly on high-quality curriculum and instruction that strive to maximize the capacity of
each learner [attending to issues of excellence] (p. 1).
I intend to address the topic by honing in on the following areas relevant to differentiated
instruction: Using technology in the ENL (English as New Language) classroom, differentiating

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

in the ENL classroom, writing in the ENL classroom. I will embrace the current unit of study,
which focuses on S.E. Hintons The Outsiders. By designing a Unit around a WebQuest
(Bryant, n.d.) specifically created to incorporate the major literary work, I will engage students
and motivate them in order to improve their writing.
I anticipate that one of the main obstacles will be collaborating with my co-teachers.
However, I strongly believe that my unit and lesson plans will be better received by my coteachers if theyre grounded on relevant and current research and literature related to my
research question.
Literature Review
Although differentiation is considered a buzzword in education today, this instructional
approach has been decades in the making. In his article Adjusting the Program to the Child,
Washburne (1953), begins by asking the quintessential question in differentiated instruction:
How can the teacher best meet - and most wisely use - the wide range of differences in
abilities, interests, and development represented by the children under his guidance (p. 138)?
Consequently, differentiation is of utmost importance in this day and age not only for the
reasons stated by Washburne but especially because of the ever growing influx of ELLs
(English language learners). When it comes to ELLs, the list of differences is not limited to
abilities, interest, and development. Rather those differences are compounded by differences in
language and culture; to name a few. At the very least, the goal of any English as a new
language (ENL) teacher should be to improve his/her students four basic English language
competencies as follows: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Since there are many
subsets to each of the aforementioned language competencies (all varying by grade-level), this

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

literature review will hone in on the issue of: Improving writing skills in a 7th grade English
inclusion classroom through differentiated Instruction.
Analysis
A thorough analysis of nine contemporary research articles revealed various recurring
themes; a common framework for differentiated instruction, complex instruction as a subset of
differentiation, and strategies to improve writing in the ENL classroom.
Principles of Differentiated Instruction
According to Tomlinson & Eidson (2003), differentiation in the classroom refers to a
systematic approach to planning curriculum and instruction for academically diverse learners. It
is a way of thinking about the classroom with the dual goals of honoring each student's learning
needs and maximizing each students learning capacity (p. 3). Additionally, Tomlinson &
Eidson posit six tenets that are crucial to differentiation in the classroom as follows: content,
process, product, affect, and classroom environment. However, this analysis will focus on the
first three: content, process, and product.
Content is defined differently by different educators. However, the content has been
narrowed down to what students should know, understand, and be able to do (Tomlinson &
Eidson, 2014, p. 4) upon the completion of a lesson or a Unit of study. The most crucial aspect
of differentiating content is being very explicit when it comes to student outcomes and
objectives. Teachers should be able to articulate objectives and communicate them to students.
Once the teacher has set the learning objectives he/she can begin to differentiate the content.
Strategies for differentiating content include but are not limited to: Providing supplementary
materials at varied reading levels, re-teaching, providing graphic organizers to guide notetaking, and using wait time to allow for student reflection (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, pp. 4-6).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Process refers to the activities designed to ensure that students use key skills to make sense of,
apply, and transfer essential knowledge and understandings (Tomlinson, 2014, p. 18). Many
teachers think that modifying activities waters down he curriculum. However, nothing could be
further from the truth. If designed appropriately, tiered activities or activities at different levels
of difficulty, but focused on the same learning goals (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, p. 7) can
reach students at every level. Therefore, there is a delicate balance between modifying activities
and maintaining rigor. Educators can accomplish the task of differentiating process by:
incorporating tiered activities, assigning roles during collaborative learning, using flexible
grouping (homogeneous and heterogeneous based on ability and interests), providing materials
in the first language (L1) for ELLs, balancing competitive, collegial, and independent work
arrangements, and developing activities that seek multiple perspectives on topics and issues
(Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003, p. 7). Furthermore, in the article For Integration and
Differentiation Choose Concepts over Topics, Tomlinson (1998) advocates for the use of
subject specific concepts to help students truly understand a given subject or family of
subjects (p. 4). This means of differentiating process requires that teachers generate concepts
that apply broadly and pervasively within and/or across studies, show fundamental patterns
essential to the areas studied and students lives, and reveal similarities and differences
(Tomlinson, 1998, p. 5).
Product refers to the various ways in which students can show what they have learned
and are able to do after a lesson or unit of study. Since each student is different in more ways
than one, it is unfair to abide by the one-size-fits all approach to assessment. Thus, by
differentiating product, students are encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge in different
ways. Some strategies for differentiating product include but are not limited to: using tiered

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

product assignments, providing bookmarked internet sites at varying levels, using rubrics,
allowing students to use a range of media or formats to demonstrate understanding, and
allowing students to engage in pair, small group, or independent work (Tomlinson & Eidson,
2003).
Complex Instruction
This instructional strategy aims to establish equity of learning opportunity for all
students in the context of intellectually challenging materials and through the use of small
instructional groups (Tomlinson, 2014, p. 113). In complex instruction, teachers design
intellectually demanding, open-ended, interesting, real-world tasks. These tasks entail
collaborative learning in small heterogeneous groups that: delegate roles according to ability or
interests, combine reading and writing in meaningful ways, and provide materials in the L1 for
ELLs. According to Tomlinson (2014), overtime teachers that employ complex instruction
maximize on scaffolding opportunities as they delegate increasing authority for learning to
students. They then support students in developing the skills needed to manage the authority
well (p. 114).
Improving Writing in the ENL Classroom
Baecher, Artigliere, Patterson, & Spatzer (2012) believe in valuing students home
language and culture and using them as a bridge to learning English (p. 2). In this study, the
use of students backgrounds as funds of knowledge is of paramount significance. The teachers
in this study are able to tap into their students language and culture in order to anticipate the
types of language errors students will make and plan to address those points in their lessons
(Baecher et al., 2012, p. 3).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

For the past several decades, there has been a recognition that instructors play an
important role in helping learners focus on the process of writing, as opposed to emphasizing
solely the final product of the writing process (Dikli, Jernigan, & Bleyle, n.d., p. 53). There are
three tenets in writing as a process. First, minimal marking is highly recommended. This article
proposes that students minds can be better engaged in the writing process if they are not
distracted by a myriad of red marks on their paper. Second, teachers function as facilitators in
the writing process by providing timely and constructive feedback. While there is an emphasis
on celebrating achievements, instructors must also be explicit and specify what areas of a
students writing need improvement (Dikli, Jernigan, & Bleyle, n.d).
Lastly, feedback is central to the improvement of writing in the ESL classroom. Noursi
(n.d.) describes this phase of the writing process as a means of assisting them [students] to
write better, develop useful revision strategies, nurture confidence, and think more
systematically (p.210). According to Noursi (n.d.), there are six characteristics of effective
feedback as follows: (1) writing outcomes and objectives must be clearly stated before writing
begins; (2) feedback must show the relationship to students current level of performance as
compared to target performance; (3) make specific recommendations for improving writing; (4)
provide feedback in a timely fashion; (5) avoid the use of jargon or specialized language and
employ language that students can actually understand; and, (6) create a dialogic relationship
between students and instructor as part of writing development (Noursi, n.d.).
Gaps and Areas for Concern
There are a myriad of scholarly articles related to differentiation in the mainstream
classroom and writing in various English as New Language (ENL) contexts. However, this
analysis of contemporary literature shows that there is an apparent lack of research and

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

literature in the area that specifically pertains to differentiation in the ENL classroom. This is an
area of great concern since U.S. schools are experiencing a rapidly growing population of
English language learners ... by 2025, nearly one out of every four public school students will
be an ELL (Baecher et al., 2012, p.1). In one study conducted by Langley (2015), the author
noted the ways in which teachers of English at the secondary level differentiate instruction to
accommodate Limited English Proficiency Students (LEPs). There were several shortcomings
in this studys findings. First, only seven practitioners were interviewed. Second, only two
subthemes of differentiation were evident; grouping and scaffolding. Finally, there is lack of
evidence that shows the correlation between differentiation or lack thereof and students
achievement. Needless to say, the TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages)
field is in dire need of literature and longitudinal studies that not only showcase differentiation
techniques and instruction in the ENL classroom, but also present the potential impact that such
instruction can have on English language acquisition and the overall academic achievement of
ELLs.
Conclusion
Teachers can begin to address the needs of all students through differentiated instruction.
Tomlinson (2009) posits that instruction is powerful only when it is sufficiently precise and
focused to build directly on what students already know and to take them to the next level (p.
31). Thus, educators can begin to take their students to the next level by differentiating content,
process, product, and adding complex instruction to their repertoire. Additionally, Dikli,
Jernigan, & Bleyle (n.d.), recommend an engaging approach to the writing process, through
minimal markup of students writing and by providing specific suggestions to improve writing.
Lastly, Noursi (n.d.) highlights the importance of feedback, yet reminds the reader that feedback

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

10

can only be effective if it is delivered in a timely fashion, avoids the use of jargon, provides
examples of target performance, and makes specific recommendations for students to improve
their writing. Overall, there is a need for additional research in the area of differentiated
instruction as it relates to ELLs teaching and learning.
Data Collection and Analysis
Site and Participants
This action research project took place in a public school setting in Montauk, NY. This
K - 8 educational institution services approximately 330 students, none of which qualify for free
or reduced lunch. Students (11 male and 9 female, age range: 12-14 years) in one section of
English 7 were selected for this research project. As part of their regular RELA class,
participants received approximately 4 hours of instruction, guided practice, and cooperative
learning opportunities over the course of a week. Participants were assessed before and after the
implementation of the Unit of study on S.E. Hintons The Outsiders.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

11

Methodology
Burns (2010) posits that teaching lends itself naturally to data collection (p. 54). In
other words, data can be found all around within the realm of education. Some of the data
collection methods suggested by Burns and implemented in this action research include:
observations, video recordings, journal entries kept by teacher, questionnaires and surveys, and
student work samples, worksheets, project, and assessments.
Materials and Procedure
The educational setting of this action research is highly conducive to the use of
technology for teaching and learning purposes. This school has two computer labs (with
approximately 30 laptops each). Each classroom is equipped with a SMART Board.
Additionally, there are 3 additional laptop carts in the building. I am fortunate to have one of
those cart available for use in my classroom. For this reason, and in an effort to better engage
learners, technology has been embedded throughout the course of this Unit. The original
WebQuest was modified to cater to my students learning needs and educational context.
Students worked in heterogeneous groups on an engaging and real-world task. This project
sought to tap into the students technological savvy, presentation software skills, and literary
knowledge on The Outsiders to create a Facebook profile for one of the characters in the novel.
First, students performed independent text and web-based research and recorded this
information on the project planning worksheet. This is an attempt in the teacher's part to scaffold
the learning process and gather pre-instruction formative assessment data. Next, students worked
in heterogeneous groups of 3. Each group had a leader, a researcher, and a presenter. In this
manner the teacher differentiates the task according to ability level and capitalizes on scaffolding
opportunities, as the leaders (higher achieving students) can reinforce what they know while

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

12

assisting the researchers and presenters (lower achieving students). Each group was given the
task of synthesizing the findings that each student recorded on their planning sheet. This
information was then compiled into a PowerPoint presentation (Facebook template) and
presented orally to the class. Upon the culmination of this Unit, students were re-assessed
individually in the form of written reflection.
Results
As Table 1 clearly exemplifies the average attendance rate for this class is just over 90%.
That is to say that, on average students miss about 10% of the instruction. This one factor that I
did not take into consideration during the design phase of my lesson. This Unit was implemented
the week before Mid-winter Recess and many students left for an early vacation and were as I
exclaimed in my video-lesson dwindling in numbers. This greatly affected the implementation of
my Unit and skewed the data results, as 10 out of the 20 students missed some if not all of the
lessons in this Unit.
Data gathered from an exit ticket administered upon the completion of the project
suggests that students were pleased with the project. As Graph 1 shows, 9 of the 20 students
liked the project, 10 missed a portion or the entire project, and 1 disliked the project. Students
reported to like the project for various reasons. Even Though 10 students were non-participants
for the projects entirety, Graph 2 shows that 2 students reported liking the project because it was
interesting, 1 thought the project was engaging, 3 enjoyed working in groups, 3 liked working
with technology, and 1 stated, I really didnt like how I was doing all the work by myself, but
Ill deal with it (see Appendix C). This students frustration stems from the fact that the
remaining members of her group were absent for the majority of the project.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

13

Graph 1. Students Feelings About Project

Graph 2. Students Feedback on Project

The summative assessment for this Unit consisted of a written task in which students
were asked to synthesize the entire Unit of study (the novel, mini-lessons, and the project) into a

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

14

monologue for one of the characters. There is indisputable evidence to suggest that did in fact
improve through the WebQuest and the implementation of differentiated instruction. Table 1
provides clear evidence of a 31% increase in students written discourse. Pre-instruction
assessment data shows an average score in writing of 63%, this is a stark contrast to the average
score of 83% for the post-instruction summative assessment. Additionally, as exhibited by Graph
3, even the lowest scores fell within the passing range (65% and above). Writing stamina was
measured through word count. Students also demonstrated an overall increase in the quantity of
their writing, as the pre-instruction word count average was 82 and the post-instruction word
count average was 106 (see Table 2).
By the end of the Unit, the overall quality and quantity of student writing in this 7th grade
RELA inclusion class did in fact improve. Even though, students were able to improve the
quality of their writing by employing a strong attention grabber, support claims with text-based
evidence, end a text with a strong conclusion, and write more, there are still some areas of
concern. Writing conventions (punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) are still not up to par
with 7th grade standards. Additionally, syntax and grammar is still a concern for 2 of the 5 ELLs
in this class.
Graph 3. Increase in Written Discourse Quality

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Table 1. Assessment Resultsmove down to next page.

Table 2. Word Count

15

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

16

Recommendations
Improving writing skills in a 7th grade English inclusion classroom by differentiating
instruction through the use of a WebQuest is goal that has been attained. However, there is
always room for improvement. The implementation and results of this Unit lead me to believe
that much work still needs to be done in the area of writing conventions and in some cases
(ELLs) in the area of English language syntax and grammar. Thus, I make the following
recommendations: (1) the teacher should target writing conventions through a various minilessons (punctuation, capitalization, spelling, revising, and editing); (2) the teacher should
continue to use differentiated instruction in order to cater to the needs of lower-proficiency
students that need additional instruction and practice with English language syntax and grammar;
and, (3) students should continue to write for prolonged periods of time, in order to sustain or
improve current writing stamina.
Venues for Dissemination
There are many take-a-ways from this course and this action research project. However,
the one concept that has really resonated with me is the need for ongoing professional
development. I feel as though I have only scratched the surface when it comes to differentiated
instruction. For this reason, I vow to delve deeper into this topic through independent research
and professional development. Additionally, I believe wholeheartedly that the only way to reach
every single student and maximize his/her potential is by differentiating instruction. In fact, my
data provides irrefutable proof that this is the case and I strongly believe that other educators can
benefit from my research. Therefore, my proposed venue for dissemination is two-fold. On a
smaller scale, I intend on sharing my finding with my colleagues by either presenting at a board

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

17

meeting or in a more informal setting (such as common planning). On a larger scale, I intend
propagate this information via my ePortfolio, which can be found at
http://luisaguzmaneportfolio.weebly.com/. On this website colleagues will be able to find my
entire research and summative assessment for the TESOL Capstone, which includes but is not
limited to videos, research papers, a literature review, presentations, and references. This site will
also feature a blog, which I hope can serve as a platform for professionals to come together and
share ideas, problems, and solutions in the field of education.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

18

References
Baecher, L., Artigliere, M., Patterson, D. K., & Spatzer, A. (2012). Differentiated Instruction for
English Language Learners as Variations on a Theme. Middle School Journal, 43(3),
14-21. doi:10.1080/00940771.2012.11461807
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (1st ed.). New
York: Pearson/Longman.
Bryant, J. (n.d.). Inside the outsiders. Retrieved from
http://questgarden.com/115/24/0/101127190123/
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Types of Rubrics. Retrieved
February 27, 2016, from
http://carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/improvement/p_5.html
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). English Language Arts Standards Writing
Grade 7. Retrieved January 30, 2016, from
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/7/
Dewey, J. (n.d.). John Dewey quotes. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/42738.John_Dewey
Dikli, S., Jernigan, J., & Bleyle, S. (n.d.). A reflective overview of a process approach to writing
in generation 1.5 ESL classrooms: Instructors' and students' perspectives. In R. Mahrooqi,
V. S. Thakur, & A. A. Roscoe (Authors), Methodologies for effective writing instruction
in EFL and ESL classrooms.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

19

New York State Education Department. (n.d.). Montauk school at a glance. Retrieved February
15, 2016, from
http://data.nysed.gov/profile.php?instid=800000037402
Hinton, S. E. (1967). The outsiders. New York: Viking Press.
Langley, M. L. (2015). Secondary english teachers' perceptions of differentiated instruction for
limited english proficient students (Order No. 3689776). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1677544257). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1677544257?accountid=14749
Noursi, O. A. (n.d.). Don't get it right, just get it written: Making feedback work. In R. Mahrooqi,
V. S. Thakur, & A. A. Roscoe (Authors), Methodologies for effective writing instruction
in EFL and ESL classrooms.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1998). For integration and differentiation choose concepts over topics. Middle
School Journal, 30(2), 3-8.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for
differentiating curriculum, grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction: Shared
principles worth sharing. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 28.
Tomlinson, C. A., author, & ebrary. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the
needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Washburne, C. W. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational Leadership,
(December), 138-147. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195312_washburne.pdf

20

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

21

Appendix A
Summative Assessment
Monologue Task and Grading Rubric
Name: ___________________________________ Period: ______ Date: ___________________
Directions: You will use your planning worksheet and brainstorming graphic organizer to write a monologue from
your characters perspective. Your monologue must be at least ten lines. Your monologue should paint a clear
picture of who your character is, what his/her life is like (is it a struggle? If so, convince the reader of the struggle),
and include any ambitions (if any) that your character has? Remember to begin your monologue with a hook, add a
variety of persuasive tactics (to convince the reader about your characters point of view), and have a clear ending.

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

22

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appendix B
Assessment Results

23

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

24

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

25

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

26

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appendix C
Emoji Exit Ticket

27