Running head: CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION

Center-based Methods for Differentiation:

How Learning Centers Support Student’s Individual Literacy and Math Needs

Nicole D. Colligan

Michigan State University

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 1

Introduction
Context

I am a third year elementary teacher within a K-8 public school district in Grand Rapids,

Michigan. I have taught in an ESL kindergarten classroom for the last three years. However,

during the fifth week of the 2018-2019 school year, I began teaching a kindergarten/first grade

split due to staff reduction. My classroom is made up of nine kindergarteners and twelve first

graders ranging in age from four to seven years old. I teach twelve boys and nine girls who come

from a variety of diverse backgrounds. Of my twenty-one students, fifteen identify as african

american, four identify as hispanic, and two identify as asian american. My students have a

variety of needs that affect their learning growth and ability to meet grade-level expectations. I

have three students who are English language learners and one who receives special education

services with an IEP. The languages spoken in my class are Spanish, Arabic, and Napali. As a

Title 1 school, many of my students live in low-income areas and are often faced with difficult

home life situations.

Challenge

There are so many factors that can be considered when addressing the needs of a diverse

group of students in order to make learning meaningful to them. A multi-age classroom can be a

challenge due to the wide range of academic abilities present among learners. For example, some

of my students are still learning to identify the letters in the alphabet while others are already

reading above grade-level texts with fluency. These challenges to promote learning can be

further influenced by language barriers as well as learning disabilities present within the

classroom. My ESL students are not only expected to gain information related to important

grade-level concepts but are also required to learn English in order to interact effectively within
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 2

the classroom. My student with an IEP faces unique challenges with speech and cognitive

development, making it difficult for her to understand new information being presented. In

addition, students' home lives can affect their background knowledge and ability to relate

concepts to prior experiences without some sort of support. About half of my students have had

no prior education before this school year, meaning they did not attend any type of early

childhood program. In addition, my students live in low-income urban communities where it is

common for parents to work two jobs or extra shifts in order to make ends meet. This inevitably

allows parents less time to be supporting their child’s learning and development at home.

Justification

As a multi-age classroom teacher I am required to cover grade-level content and

standards for kindergarten and first grade. This essentially doubles the amount of information

that I am expected to introduce to students on any given day. I believe this would be extremely

difficult to accomplish without restructuring learning activities and adopting a more center-based

approach to teaching. A change in structure and grouping was necessary in order to

accommodate for all of the educational needs present within my classroom. By combining

students with similar needs, I can provide them support based on their different math and literacy

skill-levels. In addition, by learning to differentiate instruction through centers, I can provide

support to other teachers who also face the challenge of teaching in a multi-age classroom.

Research Question

After analyzing the challenges present within my classroom, the research question I have

chosen to focus on is, “How can center-based learning engage students in opportunities that

support math and literacy skills?” In thinking about this question, two sub-questions will help
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 3

support me in my findings, “How can students' individual skills be supported through learning

centers?” and “how do math and literacy centers aid students in representing knowledge related

to specific grade-level standards?

Literature Review

This literature review explored ideas stemming from a student-centered approach to

differentiated instruction and how center-based teaching has the potential of meeting the

individual needs of students in a multi-age classroom. My inquiry project delves deeper into the

possibility of providing students with an environment rich in active learning activities. It also

examines how these specific small group instructional strategies can support students' overall

growth. In collecting this research, it was my intention to analyze different techniques used in

creating effective learning centers for both literacy and math. I also looked at how assessment

data can be analyzed in order to create flexible multi-age groupings within the classroom. My

intent was to implement small group centers focused on specific skills relating to grade-level

standards in order to monitor the positive effects this teaching approach has on student learning.

Mixed-age classrooms, which are becoming increasingly popular, aim for students to

learn at their own pace while also providing support to one another through meaningful

interaction. Schools who participate in mixed-age groupings allow students to take time to

master one concept skill at a time regardless of age or grade level (Cohen, 1990). While

traditional grade-level classrooms typically divide students based on their age, I have the

opportunity to group my multi-age students based on their individual understandings of

important math and literacy concepts. According to Cohen’s article, this multi-age design is also

shown to be particularly beneficial to minitories and students from low-income areas (Anderson
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 4

& Goodlad, 1970; Cohen, 1990). Although this research is inconclusive, there may be a

correlation between academic achievement and multi-age groupings in urban education

classrooms similar to my own. This is important to consider as the background knowledge and

prior experiences of my students has a significant impact on their achievement. Although the

transition to a split-level classroom is not often a choice due to staff reduction, looking at long

term implications, if differentiated instruction is carried out effectively it may benefit student’s

overall development.

According to Stone (2012), teachers can help to meet the individual needs of students by

providing them with opportunities to participate in open-ended learning experiences specific to

their own development. These hands-on activities “allow children of different ages and stages to

work together in a group as well as to practice skills at different levels” (Conell, 1987, p.24;

Stone, 2012). Research conducted by Kats, Evangelou, & Hartman (1989-90) suggest that

children are more likely to benefit from social and academic growth when working with students

with similar but not identical abilities. Mixed-age groupings are not only valuable to younger

students who develop important social skills like sharing, and taking turns. They are also useful

for older students who are provided with more leadership opportunities to exemplify

responsibility (Kats, Evangelou, & Hartman, 1989-90). Since transitioning into a split-level

classroom, I have already begun to see my higher-achieving first graders grow as supportive

leaders to younger students within our multi-age classroom. In addition, I have observed my

early learners developing important skills to support them in communicating their wants and

needs with older students. Based on several studies focused on multi-age groupings, it is evident

that students can benefit from being in a combination classroom despite their age differences.
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 5

By developing engaging literacy and math centers in my classroom, I want to provide my

students the opportunity to work collaboratively in order to assist one another to master

important academic skills.

As a result of this research, it is my hope to differentiate instruction through center-based

learning in order to create meaningful multi-age groupings that have a positive impact on student

achievement. Based on my findings, standardized assessments can support teachers in

reorganizing students into small groups. A case study conducted in Weld County School District

looks at assessment data as an instructional tool used for monitoring student progress and

interpreting standard based-skills that may require support (Salpeter, 2007). The author discusses

how this school district specifically focuses on Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)’s

Measures of Academic Program (MAP) and DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic English

Language Skills) for the assessment analysis of math and literacy skills that need to be targeted.

These standardized assessments are also mandated within my school district and can be used to

create student groupings within my kindergarten/first grade classroom. It is important to note that

these groupings should remain fluid as students move in and out of groups based on their ability

to master grade-level standards for math and literacy, which are assessed throughout the year.

This focus not should not be age-specific but rather based on their individual skills (Salpeter,

2007).

In order to provide support to students with a focus on standard-specific skills relating to

grade-level curriculum, the use of differentiated instruction must be implemented. Teachers can

give additional support to struggling students through a variety of different teaching strategies.

According to the article Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies for Standards-Based

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 6

Learning That Benefit the Whole Class , effective differentiated instruction can be put into

practice through the use of hands-on learning opportunities that allow for cooperation among

students while also connecting important concepts to the real world. Teachers can also design

learning opportunities that connect subject matter with students interests, communities, and

experiences in order to make learning more meaningful. In addition, they can incorporate

multiple intelligences and learning styles into their teaching to reach a variety of students with

different abilities and skills (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). As I begin to implement literacy and math

centers, it is important to keep in mind that differentiated instruction will be necessary in

supporting the classroom as a community of multi-age learners who deserve to be nourished and

taught as individuals (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). For example, many of my students are visual

learners. Therefore, I can utilize the use of modeling and visual aids in order to support students

when introducing centers. In addition, my students really enjoy working in teams and having the

opportunity to connect with one another so it will be important for me to structure my teaching

around various collaborative tasks. These individual needs of my students will act as the driving

force in designing my learning centers.

Learning centers, which are becoming increasingly recommended by childhood

professionals, benefit young learners in a number of ways that would otherwise be impossible in

a traditional classroom format. According to Bottin and Grossman (2005), “Learning centers not

only provide children with opportunities to explore, experiment, and construct their own

knowledge, they also provide opportunities for movement socialization, choice making,

responsibility, and problem solving”(p.274). Their study overwhelmingly suggests that learning

is more beneficial to students in an active learning environment that promotes engagement in

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 7

contrast to a traditional classroom format which may cause students to feel more restricted with

rigid expectations of independent seat work (Bottin & Grossman, 2005). According to Moore

(1974), “Learning centers should be places where students can practice skills and develop

concept mastery in an environment that stimulates interest and creativity” (p.24). She

recommends that any teacher looking to adopt a center-based approach into his/her classroom

needs to do so in an organized and well defined manner that is consistent in application and

evaluation and to be patient with the process of implementing centers as it takes time and

practice (Moore, 1974). After conducting research on many different types of learning centers, I

narrowed my search to only math and literacy centers because I believe these will be most

effective in meeting the needs of my individual students while also maintaining focus on

standard-based skills. The majority of students in my class are below their grade-level

expectations in terms of content knowledge in math and literacy, making these crucial in carrying

out small group practice and support.

Literacy centers should primarily focus on skills related to reading, writing, speaking or

listening. Maurer (2010) suggests that literacy centers are more productive when children are

given the opportunity to make their own choices, communicate with peers, and use literacy in

meaningful ways. She insists that learning will be more worthwhile if children have the choice to

“talk, discuss, write, share and interact with each other” freely (Maurer, 2010. p.356). Through

frequent peer interaction students can strengthen their vocabulary and acquisition as well as build

their comprehension skills during center-based learning opportunities. Kieff also offers important

tips in implementing and managing purposeful literacy centers. She recommends setting

behavioral expectations, providing lots of modeling, and giving students choices with an
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 8

adequate amount of time to explore their understanding of concepts presented within each center.

Like Maurer, Kieff (2005) also encourages peer interaction as it promotes engagement among

students. However, she does suggest keeping partners varied especially when groupings are

flexible and change over the course of the school year.

Small-group instruction can also be used as an effective tool in actively engaging students

in mathematics. Math centers allow students to explore different learning strategies and

collaborate with others to support their academic growth. A study conducted by DePree (2013),

found that students who were exposed to small-group instruction became more confident in their

mathematical abilities and were more likely to complete the course in comparison to students in

a traditional classroom setting. The author also noted that students generally enjoyed working

with others to build upon their understanding because of more opportunities for teamwork and

active learning (DePree, 2013). Because my students lack confidence in their math abilities, I

believe it is important to expose children to opportunities to work together during math centers.

As my research focuses on implementing differentiated instruction through center-based

learning, I will first need to organize small groups based on students’ specific skill needs. This

will be done through the analysis of standardized assessment data for math and literacy. Once

student groupings have been established, I will begin to implement effective math and literacy

centers that expose students to hands-on learning experiences, collaboration among peers, and

opportunities to make their own choices. In monitoring student progress through field notes, a

personal journal, and through photographs of student work I am hopeful to see them achieve

growth as a result of this inquiry project.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 9

Design & Method

Participants

As stated previously, I teach in a kindergarten/first grade combination classroom in a

low-income school district. Of my twenty-one students, two are seven year-olds, eleven are six

year-olds, and eight are five year-olds. My classroom is made up of a very diverse group of

learners with unique background knowledge and prior experiences. I have three students who

speak Spanish, Arabic, and Nepali and are learning English as their second language. I also have

one student with an IEP who receives resource and speech services related to a cognitive

disability.

My students exemplify a wide range of abilities in both math and literacy, above, at and

below grade-level expectations. Because of this, I chose to focus my research on the

implementation of differentiated instruction through center-based learning in order to provide

support to the individual learning needs of each of my students. I made the decision to include

four diverse students in this research in order to gather a wider range of data regarding the

effectiveness of center-based strategies used in a multi-age classroom. Each of these four

students represent a variety of ages, skill-levels, and prior educational experiences.

Setting

My data collection happened in the classroom during our literacy and math block about

three times a week. During literacy and math centers, students had the opportunity to work with

others who shared similar learning needs. Students were organized into five rotating small

groups specifically based on their fall MAP and DIBELS Deep assessment scores. This was done

to ensure students were receiving support for their individual skill levels for both subject areas.
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 10

Each center rotation was about ten minutes long for a total of fifty minutes of center-based

instruction. Each center was specifically labeled in the classroom and referred to by name. There

were also two pocket charts that show the order of centers for each group. Students practiced

these rotations in the same order to improve transition time. Although the names of each center

will remain the same throughout the year, center activities will continue to change based on

student progress,individual needs, and standards being taught.

Literacy centers took place in the morning. During literacy centers, students were

organized into five groups including the red elephants, orange giraffes, yellow cheetahs, green

lions, and blue hippos. These groups were made up of four or five students all working towards

mastery of important literacy skills. The red elephants can be classified as a group of students

who are working on foundational skills while the blue hippos are practicing skills relating to

more complex literacy tasks. During literacy centers students had the opportunity to visit the

word work center that focuses on specific skills relating to phonics rules and letter recognition.

They also worked at the sight word center to build, write, and practice reading sight words in

different ways. In addition, they participated in the partner reading center where they chose

leveled readers, books from the classroom library, or any of our big books. At the draw and write

center students practiced their independent writing skills in a journal or on whiteboards. Lastly,

students also worked with technology to listen to read-alouds and answer comprehension

questions.

Math centers took place in the afternoon. During math centers, students were organized

into five groups including the red circles, orange squares, yellow hexagons, green triangles, and

blue rhombuses. Like literacy centers, these groups were also organized based on students'
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 11

standard-based skill levels. Students had the opportunity to work at the kinesthetic center to use

manipulatives, games, and different types of collaborative tasks to practice math skills. They also

worked on critical thinking skills at the interactive math journal center. At the practice center

students completed tasks related to important math skills. Students also worked with technology

on different math apps exploring number formations, base ten, addition and subtraction, etc.

Lastly, students visited the subitizing/math facts center to represent quantities through composing

and decomposing numbers.

Data

Data was collected in several different ways in order to achieve the intended results of my

research question and subquestions (see Table 1). The field notes that I collected allowed me to

observe student participation and monitor student progress during math and literacy centers. In

these field notes I also wrote down any noticings I observed with student engagement,

collaboration, and transitions during center-based instruction. I also reflected in a personal

journal. This allowed me to think more deeply about how math and literacy centers progressed.

This also allowed me to reflect on my own teaching growth and what changes I needed to make

to the learning centers to further support my student’s strengths and weaknesses. Photographs of

student work were collected through the duration of my research. This was an effective tool in

monitoring student growth in order to analyze how my learning centers were working to meet

student’s individual needs. Another way I monitor student growth is through formal assessment.

I used the marking period assessment to analyze students’ progress. I also collected chapter

assessments for units taught during the research timeframe.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 12

Table 1

Data Sources to support subquestions.

Data Sources

Subquestions Data 1 Data 2 Data 3 Data 4

Field Personal Photographs Formal
Notes Journal Assessment

How can X X X
students'
individual skills
be supported
through learning
centers?

“How do math X X X
and literacy
centers aid
students in
representing
knowledge
related to
specific
grade-level
standards?

Timeline

I conducted my research on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction through

center-based learning for a period of three weeks from October 29, 2018 to November 18, 2018.

Throughout this time, literacy centers were implemented three times a week while math centers

were implemented about once a week. I kept a record of field notes for each center-block. I also

wrote in a personal journal at the end of each day to reflect on what I observed during learning
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 13

centers. In addition, I collected student work through photographs of center tasks to keep track of

student’s progress. I also administered marking period assessments and collected chapter tests

that pertain to the standards taught during math and literacy centers. At the end of the three

weeks I gathered all of my findings and analyzed them further to come to a conclusion.

Role and Ethics Issues

To balance my role as a teacher and researcher, I refrained from analyzing data while

students are in the classroom. Although I will be recording important information through field

notes and observational data, I will not dig deeper into my findings until my planning time or the

end of the school day. This will allow me to focus on my analysis without interruption in order to

directly support students learning during the three week timeframe. To protect the privacy of my

students I will blackout their names and use psyedeums when referring to any of their work

samples. I also sent a letter home to families that explained my action research project and

offered a choice for their child to be a participant or non-participant. If any families did not wish

for their child to participate in my research, I would respect their decision by withholding any

information pertaining to the particular child’s work or assessments for this study. However, I

was able to get parent consent for all of my participants.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 14

Data Analysis

Procedures

My intent for analysis was to use a combination of “priori” and emergent themes while

looking across data sources. However, my final analysis includes only emergent themes that

were uncovered during and after the collection period. At the beginning of the timeframe I

collected data while looking specifically for evidence of academic achievement with an emphasis

on grouping during learning centers. These were aligned with my initial research question and

subquestions. However, once I began to dig deeper into my research it became clear that my

original subquestions did not reflect the themes I saw emerging in the data I already had and

would continue to collect.

I quickly began to see other important patterns appear in the data that contributed to

student’s success in math and literacy in a more systematic way. It was obvious that these

emergent themes related more specifically to student’s individual skill levels and ability to

master grade-level concepts with more emphasis on collaboration among peers during hands-on

activities. Since these new emergent themes became more admissible to my research questions, I

dropped the “priori '' unyielding themes of academic achievement and adopted new subquestions

to focus more specifically on students' individual needs being addressed through center-based

learning. These changes made to my subquestions are evident in the introduction of this inquiry

project.

I used a combination of data sources that were coded according to important themes that

emerged throughout the data collection process. Upon the completion of data collection and the

categorization of themes, I was able to recognize similarities across my sources. This helped me
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 15

to triangulate my findings in order to provide multiple pieces of evidence that are representative

of the final themes as a result of my research. Throughout this data analysis I used student work

as evidence of these themes. When referring to these work samples, all student identifiers have

been changed in order to protect the privacy of my students. I also included excerpts from my

personal journal and field notes to highlight important findings in my research. Although formal

assessments were important in analyzing students' ability to master grade-level content

standards, I made the choice not to include them in my data analysis due to timeline constraints

and other more pertinent pieces of evidence. I had initially wanted to include formative

assessment scores using MAP and DIBELS Deep to analyze academic growth. However, as my

data focus shifted, academic achievement measured through standardized assessments was no

longer necessary in measuring student growth.

I carried out member checks with a colleague several times during my research. These

member checks allowed me to share findings with my grade-level team member who also has

been faced with the challenge of teaching a kindergarten/first grade split this year. My colleague

and I have both been interested in implementing center-based learning in order to meet the needs

of our wide range of multi-age learners. Through the analysis of data, my colleague and I worked

together to identify these important themes within my findings . Since beginning center-based

instruction for literacy and math, I have also been open to hearing students' opinions about

different center tasks given to them and how this has an impact on their engagement. I commonly

ask them simple questions like, “What are you doing?” or “How does this help you in your

learning?” I chose to do these informal types of member checks in order to get students to think

more deeply about their learning and reflect on how well they are able to complete the tasks
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 16

given to them. This self-reflection not only helped students, it also assisted me in making

improvements to my teaching.

Results

During three weeks of data collection, I researched the effects center-based learning has

on student’s individual math and literacy needs. Although my intention was to look specifically

at the impacts that centers have on student’s academic achievement as a “priori” theme, my

research refocused on other overarching themes relating to student’s overall development as

learners. These themes included: engaging opportunities to participate in hands-on learning

tasks, collaboration among peers, and activities specifically designed to practice grade-level

content standards. The triangulation of these emergent themes represented through different data

sources is included below (see Table 2).

Table 2

Triangulation of Data

Theme Data Source Data Source Data Source

Hands-on learning Field Notes Photographs

Collaboration Field Notes Personal journal

Grade-level standard Personal journal Photographs

practice

Prior to integrating literacy and math centers into our weekly routine, students did not

have a designated time block that was specifically focused on hands-on learning opportunities.

However, during the course of three weeks literacy and math centers were implemented a total of

twelve times. Nine occurred during our literacy block and three took place during our math
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 17

block. During literacy and math centers students had the opportunity to rotate a total of five

times. Each rotation allowed students to participate in differentiated hands-on learning activities

geared towards specific grade-level content standards. Throughout the data collection period,

students were exposed to a total of forty-five hands-on tasks. Some of these tasks were repeated

during this timeframe to support students with familiarity in order to build confidence. However,

many of the tasks at each learning center were different everyday.

During centers, I maintained field notes using observations made about my four focus

students and their level of engagement and participation during each hands-on task. These

observations helped to describe the students ability to perform each activity. Notes pointing to

descriptors that support engagement and participation are evident in all nine entries. For

example, in one data entry dated November 18 I mentioned, “Student ND is able to work on

adding the final sounds to CVC words. [She] builds words using digraph sounds [and] uses letter

tiles to represent sight words” (Appendix A). These tasks represent three separate hands-on

learning activities Student ND had the opportunity to participate in and complete during the

center rotations. This students noteable ability to work on and complete each hands-on task at

three separate centers exemplifies that centers support students ability to focus and persist in

practice geared toward specific skill levels. In reference to my personal journal notes on

November 2, it was noted that students seemed “engaged in their learning tasks (eye contact,

having fun, interacting with others, smiling)” (Appendix B). This evidence of engagement is

most easily identified through student eye tracking and reactions that exemplified general

enjoyment during each center task.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 18

Photographs of student work also exemplify the hands-on activities that were designed to

support students' math and literacy skills. The following photographs are used to provide

evidence of engagement through play, fine-motor movements, and higher-order thinking. In

reference to Appendix C, student NA participated in a task at the word work center that required

her to first identify a picture, say the word aloud, and identify the initial sound in this word.

Next, the student had to sort through magnetic letters in order to find the correct letter to

represent each sound. This student was able to practice fine-motor skills for sorting and

multi-step thinking relating to letter-sound correspondence. Student NA remained engaged and

focused in order to complete the given task. She was able to correctly identify ten out of eleven

initial sounds. Her ability to participate in this task and complete it to the best of her ability

represents a general knowledge of the grade-level content standards in practice. In reference to

Appendix D, Student K was photographed during math centers working on a hands-on activity at

the kinesthetic center. This hands-on task required Student K to use fine motor skills to sort

tens-frames. He also used a point and count method to identify each quantity through movement.

In addition, he practiced higher-order thinking skills to match the quantity to a given number.

Student K’s work exemplifies self-directed hands-on learning which promotes a child’s

development through the ability to work at their own pace.

Math and literacy centers provided many opportunities for students to support one

another through collaboration. In field notes, I observed and recorded over twenty-one different

student interactions over three weeks of data collection. One observation made on November 2

(See Appendix E) highlights a conversation that occured at the reading center with Student A

and his groupmate. These two students were able to work together to read an emergent text at
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 19

their appropriate reading level. Through partner work students helped each other stretch out

words, ask and answer questions about unknown vocabulary (“what does the word yip mean?”),

and participate in character analysis through expression identification. These students helped to

build upon their prior knowledge and work together in an active learning environment.

I also reflected on the positive effects of collaboration four different times. One of my

entries details the impact of student conversation at the sight word table, “students were working

on spelling sight words. They worked together to find the letter tiles to complete the task. They

also talked about what each letter was which benefited the students who have not achieved letter

recognition mastery at this point in the school year. This evidence supports the fact that literacy

and math centers promote student engagement while also allowing students to work together to

build upon important skills. Despite differences in age, students were able to act as their own

teachers to one another and take on the responsibility using their social skills to solve problems.

This suggests that students can support each other while practicing grade-level content standards

in order to achieve mastery.

Through a combination of hands-on learning activities and collaboration among peers,

grade-level content standards were supported through differentiated literacy and math centers in

order to increase student’s overall cognitive abilities. Over the course of three weeks, literacy

centers exposed children to over ten English Language Arts Common Core Standards for both

kindergarten and first grade which relate to current curriculum expectations at this point in the

school year. In addition, math centers exposed children to six Math Common Core Standards for

each grade-level during data collection. Like literacy centers, these grade-level math standards

were also specifically focused on the practice of content skills currently being taught in class.
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 20

Based on reflections in my personal journal, it was evident that students were receiving adequate

practice related to these grade-level skills in order to promote their learning in both literacy and

math. Through these notes I was able to monitor specific standards taught during an entire math

center rotation on the afternoon of November 8. This piece of evidence highlights the average

number of standards that were able to be practiced by students during centers in order to guide

them in grasping important math concepts. The table below exemplifies this math centers time

and the six common core standards that were practiced at the five stations. It can be observed

that many of the listed standards were practiced more than once during centers.

Table 3

Math Standards Practiced on November 8 During Centers

Math Kinesthetic Math journal Practice Technology Subitizing/

Standard center center center center math facts
center
CCSS.MATH.C X X X X
ONTENT.K.CC.
A.1 -count to
100 by ones and
tens

CCSS.MATH.C X X X
ONTENT.K.CC.
A.3 -write
numbers 0 to 20

CCSS.MATH.C X X X
ONTENT.K.CC.
B.4 -represent
number with
quantity

CCSS.MATH.C X
ONTENT.K.OA
.A.4 -adding to
make 10

CCSS.MATH.C X X X
ONTENT.1.OA.
A.1- addition
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 21

and subtraction
within 20

CCSS.MATH.C X
ONTENT.1.OA.
C.6- add and
subtract within
10 with fluency

Literacy centers also exposed children to many opportunities that allowed for

differentiated practice of grade-level content standards related to literacy. These opportunities

support students in their current abilities and challenges them to make improvements to their

practice. One piece of evidence shows the progress of students' writing ability which was evident

from photographs taken at the draw and write table. This center provided many opportunities for

students to practice writing skills that demonstrate grade-level standards. In reference to

Appendix G, Student A produced a narrative writing piece that can be connected to the following

English Language Arts Common Core standards which are listed for writing and language use:

Table 4

Writing Standards Evident in Student Work (Appendix G)

Writing/Language Standard Draw and Write Center

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.1- Write an opinion piece

and state an opinion

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.2- Write
informational/explanatory text

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.1.3- Write narrative with X

sequencing of events

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.1.5- Add details through X

feedback
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 22

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.1.6- Use digital tools to

publish writing

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.1.7- Shared research

project

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.1.8- Recall information X

from experiences to write

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.1- Demonstrate X
conventions of English grammar when writing.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.2- Demonstrate X
conventions of English capitalization, punctuation and
spelling when writing.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.4-Clarify meaning of
unknown multi-meaning words and phrases

Through the writing sample it is evident that Student A is able to compose his own

personal narrative piece based on his prior experiences. This student chose to write about his

Thanksgiving plans and is able to sequence the events in the order in which they take place. In

the writing sample the student uses conventional spelling for words and common spelling

patterns for irregular words using phonological awareness. However, this particular student is

still working towards mastery of common english conventions related to ending punctuation and

only using capital letters at the beginning of each sentence. This work exemplifies many

strengths in the students' writing, however, the standards being taught have not yet been

mastered. The draw and write table allows this student to reflect on his writing and improve

these skills in order to achieve mastery. At the end of the second marking period, these specific

skills practiced in centers will be assessed in order to see if the cognitive development of

students has increased.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 23

Conclusion & Discussion

Summary

This inquiry project was initially designed to monitor the effects of center-based learning

and its impact on students’ academic achievement. However, once data began being collected, it

became clear that math and literacy centers produce other more relevant themes essential for

students' overall learning and development of skills. Through the implementation of centers in

my multi-age classroom, I was able to see important social and cognitive abilities being

supported through engagement and participation in hands-on learning activities that fostered

fine-motor movements and higher-order thinking. I also observed many opportunities during

centers that allowed for active collaboration among peers. The ability for students to work

together produced important social skills critical to their overall development. In addition, the

practice of grade-level content standards acted as a driving force of the tasks designed to support

students' individual needs despite differences in age or grade-level. In addition, students were

given the opportunity to participate in activities that were directly connected to Common Core

standards for language arts and math. This exposure to grade-level content standards allowed

students to work towards mastery at their own pace. Overall, this action research project was

successful in implementing center-based methods in order to meet the individual literacy and

math needs of my diverse group of students.

Connections

Much of the research gathered prior to the data collection process is directly related to

and supportive of my findings. Research conducted by Kats, Evangelou, & Hartman (1989-90)

suggested that children achieve social and academic growth when working with others who share
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 24

similar abilities. Despite age differences, math and literacy centers proved to be beneficial to all

the students in my classroom through collaborative work and participation in hands-on tasks.

Kats, Evangelou, & Hartman also mentioned that younger students will have the opportunity to

develop important social skills like sharing and taking turns while older students would be

exposed to responsibilities related to leadership. However, these skills were evident in students

of all ages within my classroom as center-based learning was implemented.

In addition, math and literacy centers exposed students to experiences that allowed them

to explore their own learning while supporting each other in the process. Bottin and Grossman’s

(2005) research was evident in my own findings as it connects to opportunities of movement,

socialization, choice making, responsibility, and problem solving. The active learning

environment that I introduced into our classroom proved to be much more effective in engaging

students in their own learning, especially in comparison to the traditional classroom setting that

we originally had in place. Through future improvements made to learning centers, I hope to

design differentiated hands-on tasks that are more directly connected to students interests to

engage them even further as they build upon their literacy and math skills. It is my hope that

learning centers will continue to become more student-driven through more opportunities for

students to choose from a larger variety of tasks based on their prior knowledge and individual

preference like Kieff (2005) recommends in her study.

Implications

I have learned a lot about how an active learning environment can engage students in

opportunities that support their literacy and math skills. By introducing center-based learning in

the classroom, students were provided an increase in hands-on learning activities that they
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 25

otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to on a typical day in our previously traditional

classroom. By providing students with opportunities for exploration and play through learning

centers, students are active in their learning and allows them to participate in tasks that support

math and literacy skills.

Through this action research process, it can be implied that an effective way to meet the

needs of all students in a multi-age classroom is through the implementation of center-based

instruction. Because there is such a wide range of learners it is near impossible to differentiate

instruction in a whole group setting. Through centers, I could identify their needs of support,

design tasks to help them practice unmastered skills, and provide students an opportunity to learn

through collaboration.

Further Study

Although my data collection shifted my research in a different direction, I am still

planning on analyzing winter scores for MAP and DIBELS Deep standardized assessments in

January in order to monitor students ability to master specific math and literacy skills supported

through centers. Because students are exposed to focused skill-based tasks with consistent

support, their ability to achieve mastery will correlate with improved assessment scores.

Although I know this is not the only indicator of student learning, it will be helpful in assessing

my students' skill levels and assist me in reorganizing my center groups if necessary. If

centers-based teaching continues to be successful during math and literacy, I may also begin to

implement a more hands-on approach into science and social studies instruction. Through

exposure to more student-centered exploration, students may benefit from the integration of

center-based learning in all subject areas.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 26

Reflections

I plan to continue implementing math and literacy centers throughout this school year.

However, through reflecting on my action research, I know I need to make a few adjustments to

my teaching approach in order to meet the individual needs of my students more effectively.

Initially before beginning data collection, I was planning on conferencing with small groups

during math and literacy centers in order to provide more support to students by focusing on

specific skills they’re still working on. However, because the implementation of centers was such

a change in our daily routine, both for me and the students, it was very difficult for me to collect

data effectively without being able to monitor learning at all other centers. Therefore I made the

choice to forego small group instruction so that I could monitor interactions around the

classroom during the data collection time frame. However, with students becoming more

accustomed to the implementation of literacy and math centers, I will no longer have to monitor

them so closely. This will allow me more time to work with students with similar needs in a

small group setting.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 27

References

Bottini, M., & Grossman, S. (2005). Center-Based Teaching and Children's Learning: The

Effects of Learning Centers on Young Children's Growth and Development. Childhood

Education, 274-277. Retrieved October 8, 2018.

Cohen, D. L. (1990). A Look at Multi-Age Classrooms. The Education Digest, 20-23. Retrieved

October 8, 2018.

DePree, J. (1998). Small-Group Instruction: Impact on Basic Algebra Students. Journal of

Developmental Education, 22(1), 2-6. Retrieved October 14, 2018.

Kieff, J. (2005). A 1st-Grade Teacher's Survival Guide to the Implementation and Management

of Literacy Centers. Classroom Idea-Sparkers, 292K-292N. Retrieved October 13, 2018.

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies for Standards-Based

Learning That Benefit. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62. Retrieved October

16, 2018.

Lilian, K. G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. A. (1989-1990). The Case for Mixed-Age Grouping

in Early Education. 7-75. Retrieved October 16, 2018.

Maurer, C. (2010). Academic Standards Through Peer Dialogue at Literacy Centers. Language

Arts,87(5), 353-362. Retrieved October 13, 2018.

Moore, N. (1974). Learning Centers: "Turning On" an Elementary Classroom. Educational

Technology, 14(11), 24-26. Retrieved October 13, 2018.

Salpeter, J. (2007). Vital Signs. Technology and Learning, 18-26. Retrieved October 15, 2018.

Stone, S. (1994). Teaching Strategies: Strategies for teaching children in multi-age classrooms.

Childhood Education, 102-105. Retrieved October 8, 2018.

CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 28

Appendix A
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 29

Appendix B
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 30

Appendix C
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 31

Appendix D
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 32

Appendix E
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 33

Appendix F
CENTER-BASED METHODS FOR DIFFERENTIATION 34

Appendix G