Big Idea: Through the lens of an unbiased observer's field notes, I discover that my students' intellectual autonomy is hindered by a lack of appropriate access to learning materials and resources. I decide that it is necessary to pivot my research from a dual focus on differentiation and intellectual autonomy to a triple focus that also includes access.
Roadmap:
-
Background
-
Data Analysis
-
Connection to Literature
-
Reflection and Next Steps
References: Martinek, et al. (2016), Government of New South Wales (2021)
Background
Key Idea: My differentiation supports seemed to work well in transitioning my students to intellectual autonomy, but I wanted to get my instructional coach's feedback via a class observation so that I could eliminate any potential personal bias.
​
After my analysis of Artifact 4, I was ready to begin the meat of my Phase 2 investigations – enacting group-level differentiation by process for my students, so that they could move toward autonomous learning, application, and creation. In the ensuing classes, I did exactly that. I created lessons, activities, and assignments in which students could choose how they wanted to accomplish their tasks. Each time, I also added a couple suggested processes, so that they would not feel overwhelmed if they could not conceive of a good way to start. Slowly, I began to notice some of the effects of my process differentiation. My students seemed more and more comfortable with their intellectual autonomy, and I received fewer questions about how to get started. Even if I did not include some suggested processes, my students seemed to be able to figure out how they themselves would best approach the topic.
​
However, I wanted to check myself for researcher bias. Was my group-level process differentiation actually increasing student autonomy, or was I only noticing that because I wanted to? After discussing this dilemma with my mathematics instructional coach Taryn Ortlip, she agreed to help me by observing a class and taking field notes for me. By objectively analyzing those notes after the fact, I could come to a better understanding of how my students were progressing in terms of their intellectual autonomy.
​
The class she observed was on finding probabilities using the normal distribution. The bulk of the class was focused on the formative task, during which I asked my students to search online to find information about the day’s topic, using the process of their choice. I gave them four processes to choose from, and encouraged them to find alternate ones as well if they so desired. Taryn took objective field notes for me, based on what she saw in the classroom and what she heard me say. Because she was virtual, she was only able to hear and record what I said. However, my students’ responses are still fresh in my mind, so the field notes are still a very useful artifact for me to analyze.
​
Data Analysis
Key Idea: My differentiation supports have objectively led to increased intellectual autonomy in the learning, application, and creation of math knowledge, but appropriate access to relevant resources seems to be a remaining barrier to full autonomy.
​
In my chronological analysis of the field notes, I will focus on evidence (or lack thereof)
of student autonomy that appears to have been supported by the group-level differentiation. During the circulation phase starting at 1:34pm, it was clear that my students were happy to take on the challenge of their autonomous learning; they were all hard at work finding information on normal distribution probabilities. One of the students even surprised me by finding a resource that I had not officially released to the class (pg. 2 ln. 11). She told me that since I had encouraged them to use any method to calculate normal probabilities, she was inspired to look around more places to gather information.
​
One pattern I noticed is that my students were not asking me for help as much as usual because they were so absorbed in their research. In fact, even when I stopped by to offer some guiding questions, they told me to let them think about it instead of giving them more details. This happened with multiple students throughout my circulation (pg. 2 ln. 15, 16, 17; pg. 3 ln. 2, 3). At various points, I was impressed by how much their motivation was increased by being able to choose their own processes (pg. 2 ln. 18, 19), which in turn made them pursue their autonomous learning even more enthusiastically.
​
Later on, during the independent practice portion, I was again impressed at my students’ motivation to try out the process that they have each learned about. When I checked for their understanding by asking what we were working on (pg. 4 ln. 18), they were very clear on the goals for that section of class. Most of them were already at work applying their processes to different problems in order to create new methods of arriving at the solution. In essence, during that lesson they had touched on all three aspects of intellectual autonomy: learning, application, and creation. Even when a student was sidetracked, a gentle nudge in the right direction was enough to get them thinking about their process of choice again (pg. 4 ln. 20; pg. 5 ln. 1).
​
One concern stood out to me, however. I had enacted group-level differentiation by process, but I had not considered whether or not my students had appropriate access to the lesson materials – in this case, knowing how to search online for information. This gap was especially apparent during the start of the formative task. Many students had problems searching the correct keywords, or choosing the right links to navigate to (pg. 2 ln. 6-16). During our post-observation discussion, Taryn and I discussed how that seemed to be a significant barrier to my students’ ability to seamlessly learn autonomously. Although they ultimately did get to that point, it used up a lot of class time and could definitely have been seen as quite frustrating.
​
Connection to Literature
Key Idea: Drawing on Martinek, et al. (2016) and the Government of New South Wales (2021), I can fully transition my students to intellectual autonomy if I provide access supports alongside my existing differentiation supports.
​
This problem of access is definitely one that I need to address. Although group-level process differentiation seems to have been an effective measure in promoting students’ intellectual autonomy, it is not a standalone solution. Access to the learning, resources, and materials is important as well, and I need to figure out how to incorporate that into future lessons. This realization is a valuable one – when we are teaching, we need to make sure that we don’t focus so intently on one area of improvement that we fail to see other potential ones.
​
Looking back through my literature, I now see two pieces that emphasize the importance of access. In the Martinek, et al. (2016) study, they found that differentiation strategies resulted in intellectual autonomy because of both the access and the motivation they provided. My differentiation strategy only resulted in increased motivation, and not in increased access; so, the autonomy that resulted was, although present, not entirely optimal. The article written by the Government of New South Wales (2021) gives a recommendation on how one might additionally differentiate based on resource availability. In essence, different students are given different depths of resources and amount of scaffolding to access those resources. That way, not only are students motivated to pursue their own education, but they also have the means to actually do so.
​
Reflection and Next Steps
Key Idea: This artifact has revealed the additional concern of access, so I will need to pivot my research from a dual focus on differentiation and intellectual autonomy to a triple focus that also includes access.
​
By analyzing this artifact in writing, I have been able to see an aspect of my topic that I had not before – access. I was so focused on motivating my students that I did not consider if they had the means to actually satisfy that motivation that they obtained. I am glad to have had Taryn observe me and record the field notes for my own unbiased reflection. It helped me to see a potential shortcoming in my practice, and get me thinking about how I can improve moving forward.
​
I have now arrived at two separate conclusions regarding my topic. First, group-level differentiation, in my case by process, is indeed a very valuable tool in increasing students’ autonomy in learning, applying, and creating knowledge. Second, another important factor to consider is access. Without the appropriate access, students may become frustrated because they do not know how to pursue their newfound motivation, which in turn curtails their autonomy.
​
The next step for me is exploring this concept of access and its relation to intellectual autonomy. Although my Phase 3 was originally going to focus on individual-level differentiation, I believe it would be even more valuable to shift that focus to providing my students with appropriate access to resources and materials. That way, I can ensure that they have both the motivation and the means to achieve the intellectual autonomy that I hope to inspire. Also, by differentiating along two different axes (process and access), I will likely be close to enacting individual-level differentiation anyway.