Research Proposal Outline Assignment Instructions:

• Download the file entitled, Research Outline Template with Rubric, and complete the assignment based on your selected research topic. The template includes the grading rubric that will be utilized to evaluate your work. Review that rubric, but REMOVE the rubric from the template prior to submitting.

• PLEASE NOTE: The assignment is lengthy. It is strongly suggested that you do not wait to start this assignment on the day it is due.

• Good examples of a Research Proposal Outline as well as a final submission for the Research Proposal are attached. These examples did not receive a perfect score. Both have particular errors or issues; however, both examples did receive high marks. ED504 is not a course where you can simply fill in the blanks. You can use the examples as a guide, but you must invest in the process to question, compare, and critique while learning the many facets of writing, researching, and reporting. The good examples posted in this shell were edited using APA 6th edition. You must follow APA 7th edition formatting.

• Here is a guide to what is new in the APA 7th edition. https://www.scribbr.com/apa- style/apa-seventh-edition-changes/

• Your study has to be an experimental research proposal and you are required to use a quantitative methodology.

• You will prepare only Chapters 1-3 in this course. You will not actually perform the research.

First Submission Assignment Instructions:

• Review the attached Research Proposal Overview and the Good Example to gain a better understanding of what the final submission will require.

• Construct Chapters 1, 2, and 3, your reference list, and any appendicies for your Signature Project Stage 1 Research Proposal. Be sure to review the attached rubric that is aligned with this assignment.

• The assignment must be submitted in Microsoft Word; Times New Roman font; 12 pt font size; margins 1” on all sides; double-spaced (be sure to remove any extra spacing that might be added before or below paragraphs).

• The assignment should be written on a graduate level and references used should be cited using appropriate in-text citations and documented in a reference list using 7th ed. APA Style.

• The originality of your work will be evaluated via SafeAssign. Leave time for revision and resubmission prior to the deadline in the event your originality score is too high. You may resubmit the assignment up to three times prior to the deadline. If your originality score is greater than 25% at the time of the deadline points may be deducted. If your originality score is greater than 50% your submission will not be graded and a zero will be posted.

• PLEASE NOTE — The assignment is rather lengthy, therefore; it is strongly suggested that you do not wait to start this assignment on the day it is due.

• PLEASE NOTE — The assignment is rather lengthy, therefore; it is strongly suggested that you do not wait to start this assignment on the day it is due.

Signature Project Stage 1 First Submission Rubric

Writing Components

CATEGORY Unacceptable

(0 points)

Revisions Required

(2.5 points)

Target

(5 points)

Are the focus and purpose clear and ideas well supported?

Missing thesis; confusion about or misunderstanding of topic; no sense of purpose

Simplistic and unfocused ideas; limited sense of purpose; support is provided, but is not specific; support is only loosely relevant to the main points

Developed thesis; represents sound understanding of the assigned topic; focused support is provided and is sound, valid, and logical

Is the writing structured well organized? Is correct sentence structure and proper mechanics utilized?

No paragraph structure; or single, rambling paragraph; or series of isolated paragraphs; Contains multiple and serious errors of sentence structure: i.e., fragments, run-ons; unable to write simple sentences; numerous errors in spelling and capitalization; intrusive and/or inaccurate punctuation; communication is hindered

Organization structure is present, but is confusing or disjointed; weak paragraph structure; transitions are missing or inappropriate; Formulaic sentence patterns or overuse of simple sentences; errors in sentence structure; contains several punctuation, spelling, and/or capitalization errors (up to 6); errors may or may not interfere with meaning

Clear organizational structure; easily followed; includes transitions; structured format; Effective and varied sentences; errors (if present) due to lack of careful proofreading; virtually free of punctuation, spelling, capitalization errors (no more than 3); errors do not interfere with meaning

Are vocabulary and word usage varied and appropriate?

Vocabulary is unsophisticated; or subject specific vocabulary or sophisticated vocabulary used incorrectly

Proper, but simple vocabulary used;

subject specific vocabulary used infrequently

Vocabulary is varied, specific and appropriate; uses subject specific vocabulary correctly

Is the source requirement met and is APA format followed?

Source requirements for the appropriate level were not met; there are significant format errors present; multiple (more than 6) of APA formatting errors; in the reference list and/or in-text citations

Meets minimum requirements for degree level: Masters – A minimum of 10 sources were utilized; Fewer than 6 APA format errors are present in the reference list in-text; citations; header; headings; page numbers; etc.

Five (5) sources beyond minimum requires were utilized; there are virtually no APA format errors present in either reference list in-text; citations; header; headings; page numbers; etc.

Is proper evidence and support of original work provided in body of the review?

Safe Assign originality report indicates match percentage of greater than 25 percent

Safe Assign originality report indicates match percentage of 15 to 25 percent

Safe Assign originality report indicates a match percentage of less than 15 percent

Content Components

CATEGORY Unacceptable

(0 points)

Revisions Required

(2.5 points)

Target

(5 points)

Source of data is credible, and data is representative of the scope requirements for the advanced degree being sought

(InTASC 6, 9; CAEP A1.1)

The source of the data is ambiguous or lacks credibility; data does not allow for problem/weakness identification appropriate for required project scope

The source of the data is clear and credible; data does not allow for problem/weakness identification appropriate for required project scope

The source of the data is clear and credible; data allows for identification of an of a classroom, multi- classroom, school or district level problem/weakness appropriate to the required project scope

Signature Project Stage 1 First Submission Rubric

Graphical representation of compiled data allows for easy analysis

(CAEP A1.1)

Graphical format does not present the data in a clear manner; data is only partially presented

Graphical format(s) is appropriate and clearly presents all the collected data

Graphical format(s) is appropriate; clearly presents all the collected data; highlights visible patterns or trends

Identified problem/weakness is supported by trends or patterns seen in the data

(InTASC 6, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Problem/weakness is not clearly identified or does not align with the trends and patterns identified in the data

Problem/weakness is clearly identified; aligns with the type of data collected, but connections between the trends/patterns in the data are not clearly described in the narrative

Problem/weakness is clearly identified; aligns with the type of data collected; clear connections between the trends/patterns are drawn in the narrative

Best practices are identified and supported by the literature as viable responses to weaknesses and problems represented by the data

(InTASC 8, 9, 10; CAEPA1.1)

Best practice(s) are not clearly identified; literature reviewed does not support the identified best practice(s) as a viable option to improve achievement

Best practice(s) are clearly identified; literature reviewed does not support the identified best practice(s) as a viable option to improve achievement

Best practice(s) are clearly identified; literature reviewed supports the identified best practices as viable responses to the problem/weakness identified

Theories and/or trends are identified and connected with best practices in literature

(InTASC 8, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Theory or trend is not identified; theory/trend identified are not connected with the best practice(s) via literature

Theory or trend is clearly identified; literature reviewed does not connect the identified theory/trend with the identified best practice

Theory or trend is clearly identified; literature reviewed connects the identified theory/trend with all identified best practices

Proper level of synthesis is achieved in the literature review

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Summaries were given; are not clear or fail to make clear connections with best practice(s) and/or theory/trend(s) identified as viable responses to problem/weakness

Summaries are clear and concise; clear connections with best practice and/or theory/trend identified as viable response to problem/weakness may or may not be present

Synthesis rather than summaries of content presented in the collection of sources is present, clear connections with best practice and/or theory/trend identified as viable response to problem/weakness present

Description of plan is clear and easy to follow

(InTASC 7, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Action plan is not described; description is not clear; steps in plan are not in a logical order

Action plan description is provided, but additional detail may be warranted; steps in plan are outlined, but additional steps may be needed, or the order could be altered for better efficiency

Action plan description is provided, and sufficient detail is included; steps in plan are outlined; exhaustive list of steps and sequence of steps allows for optimal efficiency and outcome.

Project timeline accounts for all elements in the plan and allocates appropriate amounts of time for each element

(InTASC 7, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Project timeline is missing or incomplete; time allocation is inadequate or too extensive for one or more elements included in the plan

Project timeline is provided; all elements identified in the plan are included, but additional elements might be needed for an improved outcome; timing and/or time allocation could be improved

Project timeline is provided; all necessary elements are included for optimal outcome

Variables are identified and defined

(CAEP A1.1)

Variables are misidentified Variables are identified correctly, but with no clear definitions or explanations as to how they will be measured

Variables are identified correctly, with clear definitions and explanations as to how they will be measured

Signature Project Stage 1 First Submission Rubric

Required data needs are identified and plans for retrieving and protecting that data are clear (i.e., methods)

(InTASC 6, 9; CAEP A1.1)

Data needs are not identified or do not align with the problem; data retrieval plans are missing or inappropriate

Data needs are identified; data retrieval plans are included, but plans for protecting the data and/or student confidentiality are not provided or are inadequate

Data needs are identified; data retrieval plans are included; adequate plans for protecting student confidentiality and/or data are provided

Description of the sample and sampling techniques are provided

(CAEP A1.1)

Detailed descriptions of the participants are not given and/or sampling technique is not provided

Brief overview of the sample is given, and sampling technique may or may not be included

Full descriptions of the participant sample, sampling technique and justifications for both the sample chosen and the sampling technique are given

Needed resources are identified, justified, and a leverage plan for acquiring resources is clear and supported

(InTASC 5, 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

Resources are not identified or are inadequate; no justification for the resources is provided; unclear how identified resources might be acquired; plan for acquiring resources is inadequate or ill conceived

Resources are identified, but additional resources may be needed; justification for the resources is provided, but leverage plan for acquiring resources is not clear

Exhaustive list of resources is identified; justification for the resources is provided; leverage plan for acquiring resources is outlined

Justification for how the action plan will address the identified problem is clear

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

No connection between the action plan and the identified problem is provided

Connection between the action plan and the identified problem is provided

Connection between the action plan and the identified problem is provided; justification of that connection is included

Connection between action plan and impact on student achievement is clear

(InTASC 9, 10; CAEP A1.1)

No connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided

Connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided; justification of that connection may or may not be included

Connection between action plan outcome and student achievement is provided; justification of that connection is included; limitations or outside interferences to improved student achievement are identified

Do appendices include necessary documentation?

Most items required in the appendices are not presented in the appendices; the plan and necessary steps to protect human subjects in research are not clear

Most required items are presented in the appendices; items and plan for ethical practices in protection of human subjects are weak

All required items are presented in the appendices; items clearly demonstrate ethical practices in protection of human subjects

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 1

The Effects of a Mixed-Ability Classroom on STAR Mathematics Scores

Felisha N. Cleland

University of West Alabama

ED5049621FA1: Tech of Educational Research

Mrs. Annah Rogers, B.A., M.S.

October 4, 2021

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 2

Abstract

Many schools, including Sand Rock High School, track students by ability even before

high school when natural tracking occurs. When this happens, lower-ability students lose the

confidence they need to make progress, and all abilities lose the opportunity to collaborate with

diverse peers. An alternative to this homogenous-ability tracking is to create mixed-ability

classrooms. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of mixed-ability classes on

students of all ability levels. This proposal intends to investigate whether a transition from

homogenous-ability classrooms to mixed-ability classrooms will improve proficiency on the

STAR test in mathematics for 7th-grade students at Sand Rock High School. This project predicts

that this transition from homogenous-ability classrooms to mixed-ability classrooms will

improve student confidence and allow unique learning opportunities such as students being able

to collaborate with diverse peers, which in turn, will increase proficiency levels on STAR

mathematics scores for these students in 7th grade at Sand Rock High School. Data will be

collected at the beginning of the experiment and then every 9 weeks for an entire school year

with the teachers changing mid-year.

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 3

The Effects of a Multi-Ability Classroom on Mathematics Scores

Chapter 1: Research Problem

Introduction

At many schools in the United States, students are tracked or grouped by ability even

before high school. Tracking is the process of grouping students together by ability. According to

data from a 2017-18 National Teacher and Principal Survey, nearly half of middle schools across

the country group students based on ability (Standing et al., 2021). Some schools allow the

teachers do this within a classroom for differentiation purposes, while other schools group entire

classrooms by ability. Entire classes being grouped by ability means that students are labeled by

their perceived ability level as either above average, average, or below average and divided up

into different classes based on these assignments.

At Sand Rock High School, the above-average classes are generally the smallest in

number, whereas the other classes that contain the students that need the most one-on-one from a

teacher have the larger class sizes. This is only one negative from grouping this way. Far too

often, special education students, except for gifted students, get placed in the average or below

average groups. Also, English Language Learner (ELL) students, other minority students, and

low socioeconomic status students, and are too often disproportionately placed in the average or

below average groups (Childhood Education, 2014). This type of grouping is hazardous for all

levels of ability in that each group of students, once tracked, tend to stay with that same group

until graduation, with very limited movement between groups (Harklau, 1994). This deprives all

students of the ability to collaborate with diverse peers. It also puts the lower ability students in a

classroom where the curriculum typically gets watered down due to decreased expectations by

the teacher for that class (Losen, 1999).

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 4

It has also been shown that grouping by ability early on negatively impacts students

psychologically. In a case study of 100 low-ability students in three schools, the students were

asked about their perceptions of their ability to learn. Those students overwhelmingly responded

with emotional words like “shame”, “upset”, and “inferiority” (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2020).

Additionally, many high achieving countries use minimal ability grouping as compared to the

United States.

Statement of the Research Problem

Despite the expansive research that shows the harmful effect on students in lower tracks

and shows no significant advantages for higher-tracked students, homogenous-ability classrooms

continue to be a widely used practice in American schools (Childhood Education, 2014). One

reason for the continued use is the fact that many teachers find that not grouping by ability is

difficult to do (Ambreen & Conteh, 2021). It has also been shown that politically vocal parents

of the would-be higher-tracked students, who are disproportionately likely to be white and well-

educated, stand in opposition to moving away from the status quo of homogeneous ability

grouped classrooms (Childhood Education, 2014). Sand Rock High School is no different in

terms of parents wanting to keep the status quo and keep their students in the higher ability

grouped, nor in the fact that many teachers are fearful of the required work needed to maintain a

successful classroom that is not grouped by ability.

Regardless of the above-mentioned roadblocks to change, data from STAR scores at

Sand Rock High School show that change needs to be made. Proficiency scores on the STAR

test show that the methods used currently at Sand Rock High School are ineffective. Also, as a

teacher at Sand Rock High School, I have seen the negative effects on students who are tracked

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 5

before high school. Lower-ability students lose the confidence they need to make progress, and

all abilities lose the opportunity to collaborate with diverse peers.

Teachers across the country have been making changes to their ability grouping practices

to be able to meet the needs of all learners without grouping them by ability (Spear, 1994). The

purpose of this study is to determine the effect of mixed-ability classes on all students and to

determine if there is a link between mixed-ability classrooms and increased student achievement.

It is hypothesized that students placed in mixed-ability classrooms will outperform students who

are separated by ability.

Data Graphic and Discussion

The following table of data shows proficiency and non-proficiency, as a percentage, in

mathematics at each grade level, 1st grade through 8th grade at Sand Rock High School for the

2020-2021 school year. This data comes directly from STAR reports. The data shows that there

is a noted drop in proficiency percentages in grades who initiate the participation of the

technique of grouping students by ability, i.e., 4th and 7th grades. It is also interesting to note that

beginning in 4th grade, more students are non-proficient than are proficient. Prior to this, the

pattern is reversed. This shows that after tracking begins, proficiency rates drop.

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 6

STAR Data (End-Of-Year) FY21

GRADE Students Proficient on

STAR

Student NOT Proficient on

STAR

1st 78 22

2nd 69 31

3rd 63 37

4th 43 57

5th 48 52

6th 55 45

7th 32 68

8th 35 65

Impact on Student Achievement

According to research and personal experience, there are many reasons as to why a

mixed-ability classroom would be preferable to a homogeneous-ability classroom for all students

involved. The main topic of opposition to the previous statement pertains to the high-ability

students in mixed-ability classrooms. Many educators claim that their desire to not have mixed-

ability classrooms is that these high-ability students will not make as much progress as they

would in a classroom of just other high-ability students. Research shows, however, that even

though high-ability students initially perform slightly better in homogenous-ability classrooms,

the effects are temporary and are diminished in subsequent years (Abadzi, 1985).

Many researchers discourage homogeneous-ability grouping since it heavily limits

opportunities for students of all abilities to be able to “enjoy the cognitive and social benefits of

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 7

group work despite sitting in groups for most of the time during their lessons” (Ambreen &

Conteh, 2021). When students are not diversely grouped, they lose the opportunity to have

conversations with peers who likely come from differing backgrounds and may have different

opinions. In a Learner’s Perspective Study in which students from 14 countries were asked to

identify the main event in a lesson from which they learned the most. The most common

response from 13 out of the 14 countries was “something another student said” (Clarke, 2021).

This is an important statement coming from students themselves. This means that without this

interaction between abilities, lower ability students miss having the quality of explanations that

come from their peers. Also, as said in many mathematics classrooms, “If you don’t know it well

enough to explain it, then you don’t really understand it”. This is a skill that the high-ability

students miss as it is unnecessary to try to teach another person how to do a skill or how to

understand a concept if everyone around them is learning as fast as they are.

Research Methodology

The experimental research plan involves creating three classes of 7th-grade students at

Sand Rock High School. One class will be selected by random sampling to create the mixed-

ability class. The sample chosen was because the 7th-grade year was shown to have a large

decrease in proficiency levels on the STAR test from the previous year. It was also chosen as the

sample since my position as the math department chair for Sand Rock High School will enable

me to monitor the validity of the experiment without directly affecting it as I do not teach 7th-

grade. The sampling technique is stratified random to ensure the correct proportions of different

ability ranges be included in the mixed-ability class. The mixed-ability class is pulled first from

each ability grouping randomly. Then remaining students will be divided equally down the

middle of performance level on the previous year’s STAR test to ensure two homogeneously

THE EFFECTS OF A MIXED-ABILITY CLASSROOM 8

grouped classes by ability. Each student in 7th-grade will be taught by the same teacher for the

first semester and then transition to a different teacher the second semester. This will help to

ensure that any differences in proficie

Related Tags