Level by Level: Teaching and Differentiating in an Adult ESL Classroom

Julia Damion

Dr. Alan Seaman

Wheaton College,

November 20, 2017

This study concerns a beginner ESL class at World Relief DuPage. The researcher engaged in the
context for five weeks in September and October 2017. Through observation and interviews with
the class instructor and volunteers, the researcher uncovered and explored factors related to
instruction in this context, particularly in terms of teaching to different levels of students. The
categories explored in this paper include the creation of leveled groups and materials development,
followed by a deeper focus on three additional themes: the role of volunteers, student leadership
and roles, and evaluating student progress. This study revealed the importance of volunteers in this
context for differentiated instruction, challenges in terms of the range of levels and potential
solutions, as well as the importance of perspective on progress, particularly with low-level learners.
 Introduction: Beginning the Research

I have been serving as a classroom aide for ESL classes at World Relief DuPage since the

spring of 2017. While my first classroom assignment last spring was to the highest level of class

offered at the time, my placement for this semester took me to the exact opposite classroom

situation: the lowest entry-level class, where many students enter at the pre-literate level. I was

immediately struck by the difference between the two levels in the arrangement of the classroom,

and the activities that were being presented. Having never taught at this level or even observed a

class at this level, but knowing that I would be engaging in this class for at least a semester,

volunteering for two hours every Friday morning, I thought it would be beneficial, as a student of

TESOL, to spend some time understanding how the teacher taught her class.

My research question, though not fully formed at the beginning of this project, has its

roots in a lingering question from a very different classroom experience. During my time

working in Taiwan as an English Teaching Assistant in an elementary school during the 2015-

2016 academic year, I taught in classes where there was a wide range of abilities in English

language. My Taiwanese co-teacher and I were encouraged by my sending program to

implement techniques for differentiating instruction in our classroom, in order to better serve the

varied needs of the students. This would involve varying the content, process, or the expected

product or outcome, depending on students’ abilities, learning styles, and/or other considerations.

However, because of lack of familiarity with the term and methods for differentiation, in addition

to time constraints and the number of students we had to teach, we were only able to try out a

few activities during the whole year. Since then, I have been wanting to learn more about other

teachers’ experiences teaching in multi-leveled classrooms and what differentiated instruction

looks like in practice. This setting at World Relief is obviously quite different than an elementary

2
school classroom in Taiwan. However, as I observed and participated in this class, I noticed that

differentiated instruction was occurring, and so I decided to explore the factors involved in

differentiating in this particular context. My research question, formulated after initial

observation sessions, is: “How does the instructor teach and differentiate in a multi-level class

setting?” The investigation was thus focused on the actions and methods of the teacher in

connection to teaching a diverse, multi-leveled class. Through this report, I aim to present a

description of the context I investigated and the methods used to collect data, outline preliminary

findings, and provide a summary of what I learned through this investigatory process.

Context and Levels

The context of this study is a Gateway / A1 class at World Relief. Gateway A1 is the

lowest level of course offered through World Relief, and it is geared toward students who do not

have much or any prior schooling; as a result, the majority lack or have low levels of literacy in

their native language(s), in addition to lacking literacy in English. Gateway classes (of which

there are currently two: A1 and A2/3) are life-skills and literacy focused, so the students in this

class have been learning various school skills and working to acquire vocabulary and basic

literacy. Students are placed into this class based on the results of a test that contains speaking

and written portions, as well as on personal biographical data indicating the amount of schooling

they have had (which, the instructor notes, are not always accurate). The students in this class are

all refugees, hailing from five different countries: Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and

Myanmar (the number of countries represented decreased by the end of the study, since students

from Iran and Afghanistan had to withdraw). Among the students, the instructor estimates that

ten different languages are spoken. At the beginning of the study, eighteen students were

3
enrolled in the class; by the end, at least three had dropped the class for various reasons.

Attendance during my observations ranged from eleven to fifteen students. The students were all

female except for two men, one of whom had withdrawn by the end of the study. While several

of the students were relatively new to the class (having started in August), and one student was

added during the time I was engaged in this project, the majority of the students were longtime

participants: the instructor estimated that six were entering their third year in A1 with her, while

four had been in the class with her for a year.

Through her experience with these students, the instructor has come up with

approximately three levels of student ability and with corresponding level designations, by which

she groups students and develops and manages classroom activities. In her informal system, the

three groups are labeled as 0.1, 1, and 1.5. As she explained it, the lowest level group (“0.5”) was

comprised of students who had been in her class for at least two years and had come in without

even basic school schools, such as being able to hold a pencil, write numbers, and count; they

have since acquired these abilities, though writing remains basic. The mid-level students (“1”),

which the instructor described using various terms, including “basic” or “standard” Gateway fall

between 0.5 and 1.5 in terms of ability and needs. Students at the 1.5 level, according to the

teacher, have some basic writing skills, and their oral abilities are higher; she said that “they

understand basically all that I am doing.” The students in this group pick up on the language and

concepts more quickly. While not entirely correlated with group placement, the age of youngest

students in the class (who are at least in their thirties, if not forties) fall into the highest group

level. In practice, each group contains roughly equal numbers of students, of various ethnic

backgrounds.

4
 In conceptualizing the needs of the three groups, the instructor thinks about them in terms

of autonomy levels and pacing. The lowest level group needs more assistance and a slower pace,

since they are starting from a basic point of “really simple skills… which for a normal

classroom, you probably wouldn’t even think about” and it focuses a lot on vocabulary

acquisition. The mid-level “1” group can handle having more people in the group (implying less

individual attention for each student), a relatively faster pace, and introduction of writing and

conversation patterns like Q&A and picture stories. Finally, the “1.5s” are “more autonomous,”

needing even less direct supervision; the teacher can walk around and check on other students.

There is more writing, and the activities such as stories and Q&A are accomplished even faster.

While the students do take a placement test to enter this class, the instructor prioritizes

observation and “experience with [the students]” over test scores, saying: “I look at the [scores],

but it’s more that you have to experience the person, to see what they’re actually capable of,

because sometimes tests don’t reflect that correctly.” She states that it takes “a couple of weeks”

to determine what group level placement is best, and observing to see how the student does in

mixed group activities. While she has found that in her class, speaking ability and writing ability

have generally correlated, she will move students around depending on what kind of activity is

being introduced. For example, it was noted that one student was high in speaking but low in

writing, so she floats between the “1” and “1.5” group, depending on the activity.

This class meets four times a week for two hours each morning. Based on my

observations, the two-hour class session always begins with a series of routine activities: a

greeting, a Q&A about the date, circling the date on an individual calendar, and a large group

circle activity, which at minimum involves the students lining up according to the days of the

week and months of the year; on some occasions, they also practice specific questions and

5
answers such as “Where do you live?” What follows the routine depends on the content of focus;

sometimes there are additional large group activities or a teacher-guided presentation or review

of material in a large group. The majority of class time, however is spent working in leveled

groups at separate round tables, with one native speaker leading each group (for a better sense of

classroom layout, see Appendix G).

Data Collection Techniques

At the time I began the process of collecting data, I had been in the instructor’s classroom

for four consecutive Friday mornings as full participant in her classroom, serving in the capacity

of volunteer aide. For this project, I intended to engage with the context both as a complete

observer and as participant observer. Over the course of five weeks spanning from the end of

September to the end of October (consecutive, excluding one week in October), I was in the

classroom nine times, four as complete observer. During the initial week of investigation in late

September, I spent three hours (over two class sessions) as complete observer and two hours (one

class session) as participant observer. Preliminary coding began at the end of the first week of

observations. Two additional observations, during which I was complete observer, were

completed at later points (see Appendix C). During one of these later observations, I briefly took

on the role of participant. I engaged as participant observer for a total of five sessions, for every

Friday between the beginning and end of the project (excluding one week in October). Because

volunteers take on instructional roles in this context, the notes for the volunteering sessions were,

for the most part, completed after the class session, and they yielded less specific, data-rich

information than the sessions during which I was a complete observer. For at least one session as

participant observer, I was able to take notes on a notepad and then transferred those notes to my

6
computer. In total, I spent six hours as complete observer and ten hours as participant observer

for the duration of this project.

In addition to observations, I also informally questioned the instructor during breaks and

after classes, and I conducted a one-hour formal interview with her approximately a month after

beginning the research project. The purpose of the formal interview was to gain knowledge about

the instructor’s background and experiences with this class and to gain a more emic perspective

in terms of her methods and choices, particularly as related to differentiation. The questions were

grouped into categories that were based around areas that, through the process of observation, I

had perceived to be potentially informative and/or directly related to differentiated instruction.

These categories included the instructor’s experience, student backgrounds, grouping methods,

the role of volunteers, the materials used in class (including the use of technology), giving

feedback, and evaluating progress. While a set of questions was prepared prior to the interview,

additional questions also arose during the course of the interview. The interview was recorded,

with the permission of the instructor. After the interview, further coding took place around these

categories of interest, and a list of follow-up questions was sent to the instructor, who responded

to all of them. The instructor was also given access to the interview transcript.

In the interest of gaining additional perspectives and triangulating with my observations,

I also desired to conduct short interviews with the volunteers I had observed and/or with whom I

had volunteered. I interviewed one volunteer and, because of time and schedule constraints,

ended up distributing a questionnaire to three other volunteers whom I had observed. The main

purposes of the questionnaire were to gain greater perspective on their experience as volunteers,

as well as their perceptions of the processes surrounding group work in the class.

7
 There was an amount of variance in how quickly after data collection the transcription

occurred. For my participant observer sessions, notes were directly recorded into my computer

after the sessions. For my complete observer sessions, I hand-wrote notes, and transcription was

completed between one day and two weeks after initial data collection. The transcription of the

hour-long interview with the instructor took place over the course of two weeks. All data was

transcribed into Word Documents or Google Docs and then transferred into QDA Miner for

coding and analysis.

Findings

Through preliminary coding, I was able to amass information on the general categories

outlined above. Below I will discuss a few of the factors explored or uncovered in this

classroom. First I would like to address some of the key limitations of this project. They include,

but are not limited to, the following:

 Engagement in this project was limited to a span of five weeks

 Personal matters cut short the time spent in coding and analysis, with the result being that
categories were analyzed in a broader sense than anticipated and the total elimination of
bias could not be guaranteed
 Following from the aforementioned point, this meant that the coding system could not be
utilized to its fullest extent, which may have limited the depth of insight it would
otherwise have been possible to attain

Also, I would like to note that for the sake of space and time, other interesting aspects

that were related to differentiated instruction will not be explored in great detail but are worth

mentioning here. One example is that this instructor differentiates the materials presented to her

three groups. For vocabulary introduction, she will often create or find one worksheet and then

make it easier or harder for her students by adding/subtracting writing portions. Across the

different levels, there is “a lot of clip art” and visual input. In the interview, she discussed the

8
challenges of finding suitable materials for her level, since much of what is on the internet is

geared toward students who have more writing abilities, and she has ended up making most of

the materials herself. Additionally, she is introducing her students to technology and, though

confronted with the challenge of finding an online program that works across the board, has been

using Quizlet flashcards for the past few weeks. An attempt to identify trends in how materials

are used in her practice activities is better left summed up with this statement from the instructor:

“sometimes groups do worksheets and others do a completely different [activity]; sometimes,

they all do the same thing at different speeds, sometimes they all do different worksheets.” It

seems to depend on the topic and goals for the class. However, the instructor noted that she tries

to keep basic content, such as vocabulary, the same across the board, so that the students can

come back together as a large group. The instructor notes that the four skills are what get

differentiated, when practicing the new content, with writing often added to the highest groups’

activities.

1. The Role of Volunteers

The first thing one may notice upon entering a classroom at World Relief DuPage is that,

in addition to the teacher, there are one or more volunteer aides in every classroom. During our

interview, the instructor identified the benefits of having volunteers for her classroom context:

Without having much school, the [students are] not very autonomous with being able to do
activities… you can’t just read instructions and [have them] follow it… Even if you
explain the activity, they just really need to be led through it multiple times. That’s hard -
you can’t just set people up and leave them, you know? You need to have three things
going on at the same time with someone leading it.

Issues around student autonomy and how much they can function on their own become a

key question at this level, and the presence of volunteers provides a system of support for this

9
context that enables students to work in smaller groups and according to ability level. One of the

volunteers echoed this sentiment regarding the need for guided instruction in her survey, stating

that the presence of an instructor serves as an “anchor” to the students. The instructor, having

worked in other contexts, including the sister site in Aurora, considers the number of volunteers

at DuPage a “luxury,” as the Aurora site does not attract as many volunteers. “Three” is the

minimum number of native speakers that seems ideal for the context, since her students are

divided into “roughly three levels;” on Fridays, there are four native speakers in the classroom

(three volunteers and the instructor); when this happens, the instructor will split the students into

four groups.

Speaking to the efficacy of this particular class’ system, another volunteer with ESL

background stated that, in her opinion, “[the instructor] really makes great use of her

volunteers—the students get a lot of time in smaller groups, and get to practice English more

with someone paying closer attention than is possible as a full class. They are able to practice at

their own level, too.” The presence of volunteers thus creates the possibility not only of making

better student-teacher ratios, but also of being able to group students by level and have the

volunteers work through different tasks with the students.

Beyond merely having a number of English language speakers in the class, the instructor

incorporates a consideration of who her volunteers are in deciding who will work with what

group. Through observation, she sees who works well with different level groups. To keep

communication of goals and objectives as straightforward as possible, she explains the group

activities to volunteers immediately prior to the activity, and she writes down instructions for

volunteers who desire them, giving particular consideration to those who are new or who do not

have a teaching background. Based on observation, it seemed that some days, all volunteers

10
received instructions, regardless of preference or background. Each set of instructions was

specific to level and laid out steps for the activities (for an example, see Appendix E). It was

observed that sometimes the verbal instructions were not completely followed by the volunteers;

in one case, an elderly volunteer forgot to have the students use different colored pencils to circle

words (to aid recognition and word discrimination). However, all volunteers surveyed or

interviewed indicated that the method in which the teacher generally communicated with them

(orally or written) seemed to work for them. The instructor, meanwhile, takes the concern of

communicating objectives and engages in self-reflection:

I don’t know if I’m always being the most clear with the instructions.... and it is hard
because if I’m leading my own group, it’s harder for me to break away to help them, you
know, because I’m leading my group… I try to write good instructions, but I don’t know if
I always do the best with that… I don’t know if [volunteers] always know what I was
intending for [an] activity.

Along the theme of communication between instructor and volunteers arises the issue of

volunteer absence. With a system that profits from the presence of volunteers, their absence can

disrupt the management of the class. Even though, through observation, I noted compensational

strategies for when volunteers were absent (such as combining groups), it is clear that it is not a

happy occurrence, since the instructor stated in the interview that volunteer absence can cause

distress: “I panic when… there’s been times when both people have been gone - it was more last

year - that was not fun. I [thought] “No, what I am supposed to do?”

World Relief does have a policy by which volunteers are to find substitutes if they cannot

come in, which includes letting the instructor know and emailing other volunteers or substitutes.

I myself tried to find a substitute for myself last week, emailing other volunteers in the class,

with no luck. The instructor noted that “it has been harder this year to find substitutes” and that

with volunteer absences, “there’s a lot of adapting on the fly.” It was observed that sometimes it

11
was unclear whether volunteers would be showing up or if they were simply running late. During

one class session, the instructor contemplated out loud about whether she should stall activities

to wait for the volunteer to show up. In this instance, the easiest solution was for me to step in

and briefly become participant, so that she would not have to re-think the grouping or activities.

In another instance, the absence of a volunteer appeared to compound an already stressful

situation involving observers and the introduction of a new activity using iPad technology in

groups. In this case, the biggest issue appeared to the teacher-student ratio, which made it

difficult to address the needs of the students. Thus, although the instructor is flexible, able adapt

quickly, and will even borrow other volunteers from other classes if need be, the system of

dividing students into groups, relaying goals and objectives and accomplishing those goals are

best achieved when all volunteers are present.

The higher levels: “Student leaders” and roles

The instructor’s initial reason for differentiating instruction was based on a perception

that keeping the group together, with a mixed level of students, would cause boredom. This

concern seems to point most to the experiences of the highest level students. The difference in

ability, particularly between several of the highest level students and the others was made

apparent early on in the opening large group activities, during which students line up according

to the days of the week and months of the year. During initial observations, this activity was

dominated by several of the higher level students, one of whom (Tabitha) would tell other

students to “move” and even physically guide other students to the spot they needed to be. While

none of it seemed aggressive, it did not allow for the lower level students to engage in any sort of

problem-solving. The instructor wanted to take steps to fix this; her solution was to have the

students say “switch” when they thought students were standing out of order. This allowed

12
students to learn a new vocabulary word, and, additionally, to have the students holding the

vocabulary cards to process on their own and move on their own. In this way, they are receiving

guidance from the higher level students, but there is room for more voices and for the lower level

students to try to figure it out for themselves. The word “switch” has caught on and is being used

by more students of varying levels.

When I asked one volunteer what her greatest challenge in group work was, she

responded:

I have felt sorry for one woman who is clearly smart, and therefore bored… Sometimes the
higher students will “take over” and tell the others the answers. It’s very sweet on one
hand, it’s always done with compassion. The only downside is that the [lower] students
aren’t really learning, they’re just accepting the answers from the more vocal higher
students.

Similarly, the instructor noted a concern regarding pacing that speaks to the large groups

especially but to an extent, she said, to the small groups, as well.

The highest level people, I can tell are bored sometimes, but then if I try to go faster, I lose
a bunch of people... So it’s either someone’s going to be totally lost, or someone’s going be
bored out of their mind.

Part of the issue is simply that some students are, according to the instructor, of a higher

level – that is, they are above the 1.5 designation that she sets for the highest level students, and

ideally, they would be in a higher class. She spoke of Tabitha, in particular, and expressed her

desire to move her up. However, because of the current size of next level’s class, students who

would be able to be handle work at a higher level cannot move up. Another issue simply seems

to be the range of abilities present in the class and the lengths to which the instructor can go to

provide different material for them. In the leveled group work time, the instructor states that

seeks to find ways that she can challenge the higher-level students, including through providing

writing activities, which is a primary way the tasks of the highest level group differ from the

13
tasks of the lowest level groups and often of the mid-level group, as well. She also wants to

bring in more complex speaking activities, though she has not figured out how to do so, as of yet.

Yet another consideration is how the higher level students, who are moving toward a

greater degree of autonomy, could be given more roles and responsibility within the classroom.

The teacher states: “something about how giving roles would be a kind of differentiation…

because then you are giving them more responsibility.” In my observations, I did see certain

students come to the assistance of others in their group who were struggling; the teacher’s

comments indicate that she would like to take it a step further and have students mixing among

the different groups, to make the class more “integrated,” since between 50 and 80 percent of

class time (according to her estimation and concurred through observation) is spent in the table

groupings, and students are with the same classmates for the majority of the class. Those

students who are more autonomous, of higher level, and willing to take charge could then be

utilized as “student leaders” in this classroom context.

The lower levels: Evaluating progress

When I asked the instructor what keeps her going, she said “seeing progress.” To qualify

this, she admits that because of the slow pacing of the class, it is hard to see what progress looks

like. Teaching at this low level, and teaching alongside a host of volunteers, also raises the issue

of perspective on students’ abilities and their progress. Particularly with the lowest level of

students, the instructor’s prolonged experience with them lends a more “macro-perspective” on

their progress. She states that:

You kind of have to take a step back for progress; so, like, I look at some people two
years ago, they were so confused by the little calendar that we have? And now almost
everyone has already circled the date before class starts. So that kind of thing is, like,
years’ worth of progress, but like it’s like huge how much more they are able to do.

14
 This perspective is reflective of a teacher who has been familiar with her context for an

extended period (she is entering her fourth year in this classroom) and who has worked with

many of the students for years. Her volunteers have a range of length of experience; one

volunteer, Beth, speaks with the assured air of someone who has done this for a while, indicating

that many times she felt successful was when students started “getting it.” She also indicated that

she works with the lower levels. Another volunteer who joined this semester and has had the

chance to work with different levels in the class also shared her perceptions. Though she

expressed more uncertainty about student progress, there was also empathy and understanding:

Their progress, at times, seems to be slower than I’d expect, but I’m aware that many do
not have reading or writing skills in their own language. This would certainly make
learning a new language extremely challenging for them.

Finally, though I observed moments of apparent frustration, the instructor has experienced

volunteers who voiced their frustration with the lower levels. She said that at that time,

One of my volunteers [said], “They just don’t get it, they just can’t do it,” and I [said] “Ok,
let’s think about this,” and then we got them there, to where I wanted them to be, so… we
did it! And that was just really exciting.

That “excitement” was the result of her lower level students understanding and completing

a worksheet-circling activity; it took four worksheets for them to get there, according to the

instructor, but they got there. She brought up that scaffolding and support are the keys to

progress:

It’s just exciting because if I am able to do it in a way that works, you can get people who
don’t understand how to do something, and they could be doing more complex things after
a while.

She believes that:

15
 Everyone is capable of doing the same things, it just might take some people a lot longer to
get there. So I guess that’s differentiation in the fact that you have to differentiate the way
that you get there… it can be done. It just takes time and it takes extra thought.

In my short time observing and volunteering, I also saw examples of how reinforcement

and repetition lead to progress. One example is the scaffolding the instructor provided for

working with iPads. Fridays are iPad days; my first week of this project was the first week of

using iPads. That day, we had to help the students with everything from opening the iPads to

turning them off. Since then, the instructor provided students with pictures of a step-by-step

process of how to set up the iPad and get to the flashcard website she has been using. Every

Friday, we review the steps verbally and then go through the process of setting up the iPad.

While students definitely still require assistance, the process has been expedited and the students

are picking up language specific to the process, as well.

Another example is the large group circle activities at the beginning of class; the instructor

stated that last year, many students were confused about the process of lining up by calendar

date, but now they get it, and that reinforcement seemed to help. That does not mean there are no

frustrations; some of the students from last year still struggle with the activity and with the Q&A

(“Where are you from?” etc.) that often accompanies it.

While progress is admittedly hard to assess in this context, since there is no textbook to

guide and no formal assessment, much of what the teacher judges as progress is based on her

own perceptions of what the students can do and her experience with them. It is her experience

with them that both helps her judge students’ abilities and also keeps perspective on how much

her students, particular at the lowest level, have already achieved. She speaks of progress not

only in terms of language development, but also of emotional and social acclimation.

16
 I’m thinking of my lowest level group when they came... I think they were just really
overwhelmed coming to America, it’s like a different planet… they just seemed confused
and they were looking like “What’s happening? We don’t get what’s happening.” And
now, they’re really excited to be here and I can tell they really want to learn; I can talk to
them a little bit more, and they’re laughing and joking.

She continued:

It’s even more than just language; it’s like, you’re adjusting to your new life, you know? I
think being with refugees is kind of that, unique experience. You never know, like, where
they came from but you know they probably… there’s some sort of trauma that caused
them to have to come to the new country. It’s getting to be a part of the adjustment
period... English can be a part of them adjusting to the new country, even more than just
the language, it’s a place for them to go and something to do. It’s just really cool to see
people starting over and when people are happier and excited to be here, and they weren’t
at the beginning, and they’re much more open and not as nervous or scared. That’s just
really encouraging. It makes me happy to be a part of that.

Conclusion

This was an interesting process of learning about all the different factors and

considerations in teaching a multi-level class at World Relief. Following this study, it would be

interesting to see how other classes at World Relief utilize their volunteers and communicate

with them. The discussion of higher-level students and student roles all arose out of the interview

with the instructor, so I would not so much offer suggestions as much as point out that the

instructor has worked out a system that works for her but is also considering ways in which to

improve the system or add new elements. Finally, gaining perspective on student progress is

helpful, as a volunteer, when working with students, particularly if one does not have experience

with this population and/or level. Of course, every situation is different, and the insights gathered

from this study cannot be generalized to other classroom contexts. However, this process was

enlightening in demonstrating how many factors go into managing and teaching a multi-level

class; some of the challenges encountered may resonate in other contexts, as well.

17
Addendum: Reflection on the Process

In this next section, I will briefly discuss the process of engaging in research, as well as

discussing some of the areas in which this project informed me about teaching in multi-level

contexts. I would like to qualify this section by stating that additional factors related to personal

situations caused this project to proceed in a not-entirely straightforward fashion, limited the

time and ability to code effectively toward the end of the project, which in turn led to a findings

section that was less focused than what is ideal for an investigative inquiry. The purpose of this

section, first and foremost, is to reflect on what has been learned through this process, in order to

inform potential future investigations.

Whether embarking on a pure ethnographic study or exploring a research question, it is in

the best interest of the researcher to begin with thick description that balances all aspects of the

context, including interactions, procedures, and classroom setting. Initially, my research was to

focus on error correction and feedback techniques. My first observations focused almost

exclusively on the interactions between the instructor, volunteers, and students, leaving much of

the other features of the classroom untouched. The immediate funneling also served to cause my

line of questioning, both to myself and to the instructor, to be quite narrow, whereas is may have

been of benefit to first gain more basic information about the class to get a better sense of the

context and student backgrounds. While such detailed and particular observations may have been

of benefit later on, the early stages of research are better served seeking to understand the context

in a more general, full sense.

One of the principles of qualitative research is that data triangulation is necessary in order

to get the truest sense of what is going on in a context. It is also a necessary step in order to avoid

bias on the part of the researcher, so that the researcher does not come to conclusions based on

18
unsupported findings. I did take care to gather information from various sources throughout this

project, and in the process I learned how, in some areas of investigation, I had assumed or

projected conclusions onto what I had been seeing. Several examples of this came up in my

discussions with the instructor. Interviewing her was helpful not only in obtaining a more emic

perspective on what was going on in class, but also in revealing ways that my desire to see

results could have caused me to jump to erroneous conclusions, such as on the role of iPads as

tools for differentiation. What may have been helpful in this process is to spend more time with

the early data to identify trends and patterns that were potentially not as obvious at the surface

level, in order to better facilitate the funneling process and to have more time to focus in on one

or two categories.

I also learned that it is important to keep field notes separate from reflections, to avoid

bias and to facilitate an easier coding process. For the five participant observations, I really only

succeeded in doing this with the last two observations. For the others, observations and

perceptions were recorded at the same time in the same document. I then had to weed out the

objective from the non-objective statements for analysis. In the future, I would also devote more

time to writing reflection (my log mostly documents procedure) as this can help facilitate the

funneling process and lead to richer questioning and deeper insights.

Finally, I have learned that qualitative research involves humility and flexibility. I have

seen how research can feel overwhelming and learned that that is a common phenomenon.

Rather than abandoning ideas or data based out of fear, it is best to spend some time analyzing

and seeing what is there, rather than thinking about what you would like to see instead, or

growing anxious about how one’s data would fit desired outcomes. This has been a process of

uncovering the ways in which the desire for control can cloud objectivity and decrease the

19
usefulness of an investigation, and it can limit the ways in which the data can speak to you. I

learned much through this process of researching; much about how the instructor uses

differentiation in her class and about myself as a researcher. I will carry these lessons with me

into future contexts.

20