Differences in Instruction and Environment

Upon looking at differences in instruction between high and low level classes, of the eight teachers interviewed, five specifically mentioned trying to do student-centered activities as

much as possible in the lower leveled classes. The five teachers included both English and math teachers and their mindset scores ranged from 2 to 3.25. Two of those teachers, an English teacher currently teaching homogenously tracked courses and a math teacher who moved from teaching homogeneously tracked courses to heterogeneously tracked courses within the last three years indicated that their lower class receives more student-centered instruction than their higher, or AP, levels. The math teacher, when referring to teaching her upper level classes, noted, “I’m in front of the classroom, and I’m lecturing, but it’s not really lecturing [it’s a] mix of the two. I’ll go through examples, and I’ll show them, and I’ll point out things that are going to be stumbling blocks.” The English teacher commented on the low-level English class having more movement involved. She also indicated that the class was more student-centered and project based. She went on to say that due to some extra time given in the AP classes, she was finally forced to move to student-centered activities in the AP classes.

Of the five teachers that discussed student-centered activities, two of the teachers that team teach a class indicated using more hands on activities with lower kids to get them more engaged. They explained that in their lowest level class, they incorporate more hands-on activities that are student interest based. One of the team teachers indicated that she likes to incorporate topics of interest to engage them including quad riding and tractor pulls.

Upon looking at the remaining three teachers, who were a mix of English and math teachers, two of the teachers co-teach a class, and they did not specifically mention student- centered activities, one of the co-teachers noted not giving very many “project things.” While these teachers’ mindset scores ranged from 2.62 to 3.4, it is important to note that the teacher with the highest mindset score (leaning toward a fixed mindset), noted using more teacher led instruction because “they don’t have the ability to learn independently.” These comments from

the remaining three teachers coincide with the information found in the literature review. Worthy (2010) found that teachers generally provide honors classes with creative instruction and sophisticated materials giving them freedom to work interactively, while regular classes focus on isolated and basic skills and use simple materials.

The teachers were asked about the types of activities planned at each level. The term “group work” was not specifically mentioned by the researcher; however, five of the eight teachers discussed the use of “group work,” one teacher spoke about students working together, stating two different times, “weaker kids will work with someone who is stronger that helps them out.” In looking at the statements made by the five teachers that mentioned the term “group work,” each of the five teachers that discussed group work remarked about the difficulty of giving group work in lower level classes. Comments were made regarding the productivity of smaller groups in the lower level classes, and three teachers indicated that smaller groups work best with lower levels. One teacher explained that he gives less group work in his lower period because of behavior issues which corresponds with Kelly and Carbonaro’s (2012) study noting that low track students are frequently inattentive and disruptive. One teacher noted that there is more group work for upper level kids; however, in the lower level, “working in groups of two is best.” She went on to explain, “After the content has been taught the students will work individually to gauge where each student is. Then we can more accurately group them. Groups are never the same. In the lower level, groups are chosen for them, but the higher level choose the groups themselves.”

When the teachers were asked how they planned and prepared for each class, four of the eight (two math teachers and two English teachers) noted that they plan the same types of activities for each class. One teacher stated that he incorporates AP strategies into the lower

level, noting, “I’ve found that they’ve actually worked very well.” Another teacher discussed challenging the students, “they’re rising to the challenge.” He went on to say, “I’m in front of the classroom and I’m lecturing, but it’s not really lecturing, it’s a mix of the two. I’ll go through examples and I’ll show them and I’ll point out things that are going to be stumbling blocks. I’ll go through an example, but I make them give me what to do next.” This teacher also noted that he plans the same for each level; however, the pacing is different as he gives basic examples to lead them into more difficult material expecting them to be able to do the same stuff as the upper levels. Two other teachers noted that they did more modeling with their lower level kids, and one explained that she uses ideas that her other periods come up with to help with her lower kids. Gutshall (2013) found that classroom teacher’ mindset views may remain the same in spite of learning disability, status, or gender. The teachers that plan the same regardless of tracked level support the findings of this research.