The Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) results in the chosen school district are below the minimum conditions for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as required by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, that was passed for the purpose of closing the student achievement gaps by ensuring that all children have fair, equal, and significant opportunity to a high-quality education. School and school district officials use the AYP to determine whether schools’ educational systems are effective by measuring students’ annual improvement on standardized tests (Goodman & Goodman, 2004). In the chosen school district, only 48% of the students passed the reading part of the CRCT in 2009. Since 2009, the county school system has made extended efforts to improve processes related to students’ academic achievement, and this has resulted in improvements in performance on the CRCT and EOCT (Performance Matters, 2012). However, the school system remains in the Needs Improvement status, where some schools were shown to be doing well while others were failing (Performance Matters, 2012).

The policy makers of the NCLB Act focused on improving individual educational outcomes by requiring all public school leaders in the state receiving federal funding to develop annual standardized assessments in basic skills. The test scores of students must be better than the previous year to reflect academic improvement as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). If the student population of the school fails to meet the AYP for 4 consecutive years, the school may be labeled as requiring corrective action, which may involve the replacement of staff, a change in curriculum, or the need for students to spend more time in class. If by the fifth year, the student population of the school continuously fails to meet the AYP, the school personnel will create a restructuring plan. If the student population of the school still does not reach the AYP targets by the sixth consecutive year, then the aforementioned restructuring plan may have to be implemented. This action may place the school at risk of closure, privatization, or being turned over to the state education agency for management (Forte, 2010).

The policy makers of the NCLB Act (2001) also require states to provide highly qualified teachers, placing greater accountability on the school and teachers with regards to student academic performance. Following this requirement, much attention should also be given to the continuous professional development of teachers within the school system. Additionally, the impact of instructional methods on student achievement should be analyzed (Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011). Therefore, what is needed is scientifically based research or evidence-based practices—reliable evidence that an educational program or practice works. In the NCLB Act (2001), scientifically based reading research is defined as research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures in acquiring reliable and valid knowledge relevant to reading difficulties, instruction, and development. However, even if one study meets all the scientifically based research criteria, it cannot stand alone as sufficient evidence of effectiveness of specific program. Additionally, due to most research being cross-sectional, researchers only address very narrow questions and their research cannot definitively answer questions on causality (Iutcovich, 2002).

On the other hand, evidence-based practice is the combined use of professional knowledge and skill with the best empirical evidence in choosing methods of instruction (Comings & Sum, 2002, p. 2). It is a teaching strategy, intervention or instructional program that has consistently resulted in positive results in experimental tests (Mesibov & Shea, 2011). In order for such strategies to be considered evidence-based, research that incorporates experimental, quasi-experimental, or single-subject research designs must be replicated multiple times and published in peer-reviewed professional journals. The problem is that despite studies suggesting a correlation between various dimensions of teaching practices and student achievement (Schacter & Thum, 2004), there are still only a few studies that focus on the impact of teaching style on overall student achievement (Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011).

For several years, schools and high schools in a rural school district in Georgia were on the Needs Improvement list because students did not meet state standards or Adequate Yearly Progress. The specific problem to be addressed in this Applied Dissertation is that children in the researcher’s school are not reading at the expected level. In school year 2009-2010, only 15.4% of the students in the chosen school were ranked as “proficient/meets expectations” with regard to their reading scores. This percentage increased to 20.8% in school year 2010-2011, 32.4% in school year 2011-2012, and 31.9% in school year 2012-2013. Despite the increase in the reading scores, the fact still remains that by 2013, 60.9% of the students in the school did not meet expectations with regard to their reading skills. Such failures place this school in the at risk category. If this problem is not addressed, school staff may be up for replacement or state policy makers may place the school under state management or completely shut it down. As such, one proposed option to improve student academic performance in this school is to train reading teachers to implement differentiated instruction. However, before this can be implemented successfully, there is a need to assess what the teachers within the district already know about differentiated instruction and its implementation in the classroom setting, including how the teachers’ experiences with professional development programs on differentiated instruction have affected their instructional methods.

According to Creswell (2007), “the central phenomenon is the single most important concept under examination in the study” (p.104). He adds that a qualitative study should only focus on one concept at the start of the study. However, comparing groups or searching for connections can be part of the study because this allows the researcher to gain experience in the field and to engage at the first stage of investigating the central phenomenon. In this study, the central phenomenon is the use of knowledge of teaching and learning styles in providing differentiated instruction in the reading classroom. School administrators in many districts are wanting to implement a Common Core curriculum that guarantees that all children will have access to the same quality of learning, which necessitates differentiating instruction. Mathis (2010) asserted that in the standards-based classroom that is aligned with the Common Core curriculum, teachers must begin with the end in mind, i.e. that the teachers must make an effort to start with a clear understanding of their end goals—the desired outcome, and why the standards were put in place to begin with. From this mentality, the teachers can move backwards so that their teaching methods and decisions will be in line with their end goals. Furthermore, according to Tomlinson (2005), standards based instruction should stimulate teachers and encourage student-centered classroom participation because this may help students develop coherent goals for learning. Standards based instruction should help teachers make use of different instructional strategies that cater specifically to particular types of students to support students’ varying approaches to learning. Standards based instruction should help teachers to design lesson plans that will enhance the learning of all students regardless of their academic strengths or weaknesses. While there is an increasing demand for teachers to create specially designed instruction that will meet the needs of all learners in the classroom, many teachers still use traditional instructional strategies in their classrooms (Blanchard, Southerland, Osborne, Sampson, Annetta, & Granger, 2010).

While there are studies that show that teaching methods influence student achievement (Al-Duwaila, 2012; Schacter & Thum, 2004), there are mixed findings regarding how teaching methods specifically impact overall student outcomes (McBride, 2004; Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011). Therefore, scholars have, over time, been studying the impact of didactic instruction and differentiated instruction on student achievement (Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011). As a result of these studies, more researchers (Mascolo, 2009; Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011) have perceived differentiated instruction as more effective than didactic instruction This is because traditional instruction does not provide authentic assessment of what the students have really learned in class, and conversely, retention in the traditional classroom is also not encouraged (Mascolo, 2009). On the other hand, teachers who use differentiated instruction do not risk these disadvantages that characterize traditional instruction (Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011).

A differentiated classroom is one in which a teacher tries to understand the specific needs of a learner, and then adapts the curriculum and instruction to cater to those needs (Levy, 2008). When a teacher makes use of differentiated instruction, he or she gets to have the opportunity to meet the personal educational needs for each student involved. Through differentiated instruction, the teacher determines each student’s weaknesses and creates ways to address them. The teacher focuses on the student’s current level and progresses from that point. Differentiated instruction is one method in which an instructor can incorporate a student’s background knowledge, different learning styles, and a variety of learning intelligences (Levy, 2008). There are a broad variety of classroom practices to accommodate differences in students’ different learning styles, interests, prior knowledge, socialization needs, and comfort zones that are associated with differentiated instruction (Hsieh, Jang, Hwang, & Chen, 2011). On the whole, differentiated instruction recognizes and acts upon the fact that children have varying learning styles and starting points. In differentiated instruction, the teacher considers where the students are starting, begins from there and attempts to take them as far as they can go in their learning.

Because of these characteristics, differentiated instruction is also advantageous to students with disabilities. Many general education classrooms make little adaptations to the individual characteristics of students with learning disabilities. It seems adding adaptations, as ‘one more thing you will have to do’ is largely unworkable. Some broader change or restructuring of how classrooms operate seems called for. To be successful in differentiated instruction, teachers must first create an effective learning community (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Tomlinson (2006) asserted that each student perceive the classroom as a venue for growth, self-awareness, and development of specific strengths and interests—and this is where the differentiated classroom has another edge over the traditional classroom.

This is not the case for many students who enter school. Teachers are to nurture and develop the social and emotional learning systems of these students. This requires creating positive, meaningful differentiated activities for all types of social interactions and differentiating instruction. By developing lessons with cooperative learning groups and peer interaction, a school’s classrooms can be the safe haven where academic practices and classroom strategies can provide children with emotional comfort and pleasure as well as knowledge (Tomlinson, 2005). The design of effective differentiated learning environments must address learning goals and curriculum standards for students that take into account how knowledge about learning has changed, how students have changed and the style of each individual’s learning process (Blackwell, Futrell, & Imig, 2003).

This method of pedagogy might prove to be effective in the school district where this study will be conducted, given that for several years, schools and high schools in this rural school district in Georgia were on the Needs Improvement list because students did not meet state standards or Adequate Yearly Progress. One proposed solution to this general problem is to implement differentiated reading instruction to improve student academic performance. However, to successfully implement differentiated instruction, there is a need to assess what the teachers within the district already know about differentiated instruction and its implementation in the classroom setting, including how the teachers’ experiences with professional development programs on differentiated instruction have affected their instructional methods.

Setting.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the 2010 population of the county where the rural school district is located was 64,073. The breakdown of people in the county in terms of ethnicity is: 63% White, 33% Black, and less than 1% Asian and American Indian. According to census data in 2010, 4% of the county’s population reported themselves as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Approximately 75% of citizens in the county ages 25 and older are high school graduates while 14% have earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The median household income for families in the county is $40,231, while 21% of citizens in the county live below the poverty level. The unemployment rate in the county averages around 12.9% as opposed to the state average rate of 9.8%. This elementary school is located in a low socioeconomic neighborhood in a rural county in Georgia. It houses approximately 500 students in Pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. There are twenty teachers, eight paraprofessionals, two office staff personnel, three custodians, one principal, assistant principal, counselor, school nurse, academic coach and media center specialist. Four of the certified staff members have a Doctorate Degree, four have an Educational Specialist Degree, seven have a Masters Degree and five have a Bachelor Degree. This proposed study will be conducted in this school district, to assess what the teachers within the district know about differentiated instruction, how it can be implemented in the classroom setting, and what these teachers have experienced with regard to professional development on differentiated instruction.

As federal state policymakers emphasize the need to establish content standards and to create student assessments that are linked to standards, local educators and decision-makers shifted their focus to curriculum development, selection of curriculum materials, and improvement of instruction toward standards, especially in core academic subjects. With the implementation of the requirements of NCLB (2001), educators and decision makers are facing further priority from federal and state policies on improving curriculum and instruction to increase performance of low achieving students in the highest poverty schools in the nation (Dee, Jacob, & Schwartz, 2013). However, improving instruction can be a problem if there exists very little empirical data on teaching strategies with evident impacts on student achievement (Schwerdt & Wuppermann, 2011), as solid standards for effective or better instruction cannot be formed if there are no proven ways to measure direct instruction-student outcome correlations. Thus, more studies which examine the impact of teaching strategies on student academic achievement are needed (Harris & Sass, 2010).

The findings of this study will be of importance to students, teachers, and school administrators in a rural county in middle Georgia. Additionally, it is asserted that findings of this study will be of interest to the parents of students of the school district.

Achievement gap. The difference in performance on educational measures between groups of students defined by race, gender, and socioeconomic status (National Council of Teachers of Reading, 2011). The disparity is persistent and can be observed on a variety of measures such as standardized test scores and dropout rates.

Adequate yearly progress. The results in an annual test based on the state’s learning standards to measure students’ progress in reading, math, language arts, and science skills (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2008). It is not a new concept as it was introduced into federal law in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1994.

Collaborative inquiry. According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), collaborative inquiry creates a research cycle among four different types of knowledge; propositional knowing (contemporary science), practical knowing (the knowledge that comes with actually doing what you propose), experiential knowing (the feedback in real time about interaction with the larger world), and presentational knowing (the artistic rehearsal process through which one can create new practices).Through collaborative inquiry, educators move beyond passive learning and instead actively construct professional knowledge by treating their classrooms and schools as sites for investigation.

Comprehension. Drawing meaning from words (Peters, Hibbard, Slovic, & Dieckmann, 2007). When applied to the context of reading, it is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning.

Didactic teaching. A teacher-centered, direct instruction, where students are passive receptors of knowledge (Graham & Wong, 1993). It is often referred to as ‘traditional teaching’.

Differentiated instruction. An educational best practice in which teachers adjust the curriculum and their methods of instruction to learners (Levy, 2008). This is done so that students will be provided access to content through different ways, based on their ability levels, interests, and learning profiles.

Evaluation. As defined by Tallerico (2009), it is the process of collecting information to make a determination of the value or lack thereof with regards to provided services. It is the systematic assessment of a subject’s merit through criteria governed by specific standards.

Flexible Grouping. Grouping of students for instruction or completion of a specific task or assignments based on students’ abilities, interests, and/or readiness (Heacox, 2002). In flexible grouping, members of the group frequently change instead of being static.

Fluency. The ability to read accurately, smoothly, and quickly, with expression, proper phrasing, and good comprehension (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). Its several key aspects include accuracy, automaticity and prosody.

Heuristic teaching. A teaching method in which students are placed in the position of discoverers instead of being told facts (Ma, Zhang, Guo, Feng, Sun, & He, 2012). In this method, students are left to find out things for themselves.

Inquiry teaching. A teaching method wherein students’ questions, ideas and observations are placed at the core of the learning experience. Additionally, various best approaches to instructions like explicit instruction and small-group and guided learning are employed to capitalize on students’ interests and ideas, to invite students to explore academic content through questioning arising from curiosity(Kuklthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007).

Learning style. The concept that students vary enormously in the speed and manner with which they pick up new information and ideas, and the confidence with which they process and use them (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004). There exist different models of learning styles, such as the VARK model and the Multiple Intelligence model.

Peer coaching. Many school districts are employing this new concept for providing quality professional development that brings about true change that can strongly influence instructional capacities of schools. Coaching adheres to what the research says about adult learners and effective professional development including inquiry, collaboration, reflection, modeling, sustained, connected to student learning, and best practices (Neufeld & Roper, 2009).

Professional Development. A comprehensive, sustained and intensive approach to developing an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics relevant to the individual’s profession (Avalos, 2011). This development can be influenced in a multitude of ways, either formally or informally.

Professional Development Standards. Benchmarks for high quality personal development (Hill, 2004). These standards help assure learning on the part of the teachers.

Quality Teaching. Professional learning that improves the learning of all students, deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments (Lovat & Clement, 2008). Quality teaching can be understood as teaching that produces learning.

Question-Answer Relationship. A technique to teach readers how to locate answers explicitly stated in the book or text implicated answers. It requires the student to connect two or more pieces of data from the text (Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009). The strategy will help students learn that some answers can be explicitly found in the text, that some answers will need thinking and searching on the part of the reader, and that some answers can only be arrived at on one’s own.

Readiness. Place in development according to ability levels or competencies from beginning reading instruction for a given subject (Webster-Stratton, Jamila Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). It pertains to the child’s attainment of a particular set of basic emotional, cognitive, and behavioral skills needed to learn, work and function successfully in school.

Research-Based. Learning that prepares educators to apply research to decision-making (Zhang, Luo, & Xiao, 2009).Research is regarded as a theme which supports teaching, and research outcomes are incorporated into the curricula.

Socratic Teaching. Teaching style that highlights the teacher’s effort to guide the student from complacently held but not yet adequately examined opinion to a state of humility and perplexity, in the belief that this will contribute to the student’s development. This is to be accomplished through a process of questioning, or cross‐examination, through which the student is brought to recognize that his or her belief‐system is riddled with inconsistencies (Pekarsky, 2006).

Teaching style. Refers to the teaching strategies employed by the teacher (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006). It also involves use of particular types of theories such as constructivist learning theory and theory of didactic learning.

Vocabulary. Words we understand and can actively listen to, speak, read, and write (Biemiller, 2003). Vocabulary is dependent on language, age and familiarization.

Zone of proximal development. The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978). It is basically the difference between what a learner can do with and without help.

The purpose of this research is to determine how teachers’ instructional strategies changed as a result of learning how to implement differentiated instruction in their classroom. The researcher will determine teachers’ knowledge and use of different instructional strategies for teachers who have undergone professional development training. The aim of the study is to enhance student achievement and, it is expected that through this research teachers and school administrators may be informed on how teachers’ knowledge and use of teaching style may be affecting student achievement.

In the proposed professional development program, the researcher will teach and train the teacher-participants about differentiated and constructivist approaches to teaching reading such that they may be able to use these methods and approaches in teaching reading. As previous researchers have enumerated the positive effects of using differentiated instruction and constructivist approaches, the researcher posits that the teachers’ subsequent use of these methods will improve their students’ reading achievement. The research will be conducted in an elementary school in a low-socioeconomic neighborhood in a rural county in middle Georgia, and eight elementary school teachers of reading will be recruited to participate in this study. The proposed study will use a case study approach in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon.

The following review of literature provides a description of the history, principles, and the logic behind differentiated instruction. A description of differentiated learning in the classroom, the various student characteristics that teachers need to determine interests and learning styles, the effective formulation and management of differentiated instruction based on research, as well as a parallel with standards-based classrooms will also be provided. Lastly, the literature will provide a look at context-based assessment procedures for differentiated instruction.

In developing this literature review, guidelines set forth by Galvan (2006) were followed in order to present a concise yet complete discussion of studies on the phenomenon of interest. Scholarly peer-reviewed articles from academic journals, dissertations, and reports were gathered by conducting a search of online databases and websites. References were then scanned and categorized according to the specific issue related to teaching method being addressed (Galvan, 2006). Each category subsequently contained several articles addressing similar issues but using various research methods (Galvan, 2006). Articles were then read and analyzed, i.e. whether quantitative or qualitative, experimental or non-experimental, and theoretical or empirical. Additionally, the sampling technique, method of analysis, the reliability, validity, and consistency of the articles were also considered (Galvan, 2006). Lastly, the articles were synthesized prior to writing the review. The structure of the literature review was set according to the purpose of the study and the research questions being addressed, i.e. the choice of teaching style, the factors that affect it, and how it subsequently affects student achievement.

According to Marshall and Sorto (2012), several factors, such as available resources, effects of peers, family background, teacher capacity, and capacity utilization, affect student learning and academic achievement. In the present study, focus is placed on the teachers’ choice of teaching style (or method), which is a component of teacher capacity, and the effects of such methods on students’ academic achievement. The term teacher capacity encompasses several domains of knowledge that are critical in good teaching, and many researchers have studied and developed conceptualizations about these knowledge domains (Marshall & Sorto, 2012). Following Shulman’s (1986) classification, teacher knowledge can be categorized into three general forms: (1) content knowledge, which refers to the amount and organization of knowledge in the mind of the teacher; (2) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which is the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching: and (3) curricular knowledge, which includes knowledge of alternative curriculum materials for a specific subject or topic, familiarity with topics and issues addressed in the same subject in preceding and later years, and familiarity with curriculum materials in other subjects in the same grade. In the present study, therefore, the focus is on the effects on student achievement of pedagogical content knowledge, which includes knowledge on the different teaching theories and techniques, and the capacity to determine which theory or technique is applicable to each student.

According to the National Reading Panel, children need five specific skills in order to read effectively: phonological awareness or differentiating sounds in spoken language; phonics or sound-to-letter relationship; fluency or the ability to read aloud or silently with speed, accuracy, and proper expression; vocabulary or the acquisition of sight words and inferring new words; and comprehension, including connecting sentences and inference- and meaning-making (Pryor, Akyeampong, Westbrook, & Lussier, 2012). On the other hand, teachers of reading need to acquire a set of basic skills, such as collaborating and scaffolding, and subsequent build on and modify these skills to develop and apply teaching methods that are responsive to the needs of their students (Kindle & Schmidt, 2013). In other words, while teachers were traditionally trained to teach using didactic methods, recent studies have shown that teachers should adjust their instructional methods according to the capabilities and characteristics of their students.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: A model of learning (Marshall & Sorto, 2012)

Many academics have studied and developed different theories on teaching styles and methods. Traditional teaching methods are didactic and have been criticized because the classroom setting is too transmission-oriented and learners are deemed passive recipients of a predefined set of knowledge, which ultimately restricts meaningful learning, deep-level processing, and the application of various learning strategies (Furtak & Kunter, 2012). Many teachers have shifted from the traditional didactic teaching method towards more contemporary teaching techniques that are grounded in constructivist theories (Furtak & Kunter, 2012).

Constructivist theories are based on an epistemology that posits that a person constructs knowledge through the interplay of what they already know or believe to be true and the ideas, events, or activities with which they interact or experience (Furtak & Kunter, 2012; Ültanir, 2012). John Dewey, considered the founder of constructivist theory, endorsed constructivist methods of learning and progressive education (Ültanir, 2012). Specifically, progressive education upholds the principles of individualist development, behavioral freedom, active education, and learning to use one’s skills and techniques to achieve one’s goal (Dewey, 1998). Dewey indicated that one achieves real education through experience; however, not all experiences are educational and indeed some experiences even prevent learning (Ültanir, 2012). It is thus important in progressive education that the teacher maintains an atmosphere conducive to learning and provide appropriate experiences and opportunities for students to learn (Dewey, 1998). Dewey was an important figure in inspiring change in the educational system and influenced other constructivist theorists, including Montessori, Piaget, Vigotsky, and von Glasersfeld.

In the Montessori program, the teacher is no longer the center of the educational process, but assumes the role of facilitator (Montessori, 1912). This decentralization is in adherence to the idea that the teacher is not the absolute authority on the subject matter; rather, authority is shared between the teacher and students, such that students may challenge and critique what they are being taught (Ültanir, 2012).

Jean Piaget built his theories on constructivism in the context of developmental psychology and subsequently applied these to education and pedagogy (Le Moigne, 2011). According to his theory, a person constructs intelligence through adaptation and organization, wherein adaptation is a combined process of assimilation and accommodation. This adaptation process, where a person brings new information into his existing schema, occurs at a different rate for each student or person; thus, the constructivist teacher would need to approximate this rate and provide education opportunities or experiences that would appropriately suit the student’s capability.

Teachers who take constructivist teaching approaches support students by providing them an active role in the learning process, encouraging them to activate prior knowledge, integrating their different perspectives into learning tasks, and providing them opportunities to engage in academic discourse (Furtak & Kunter, 2012). These constructivist teaching methods result in better learning, foster engagement, and increase motivation (Furtak & Kunter, 2012). As there are numerous methods of constructivist teaching, teachers in differentiated instruction classrooms have a variety of teaching methods to choose from in order to ensure that each student has fair and equal access to high-quality education while enabling them to experience active learning and knowledge construction.

There are several teaching approaches that are based on constructivist theories, including constructionism, guided-instruction, and inquiry-based learning. While the actual activities teachers use within these approaches vary across classrooms, the core characteristic is that teachers guide students’ knowledge construction by presenting them with hypothetical situation, giving context clues, or providing them the opportunity to ask questions to arrive at meanings (Fisher & Frey, 2010; Hakverdi-Can & Sonmez, 2012; Li, Cheng, & Liu, 2013). Participants in this proposed study will be trained and allowed to stimulate these various approaches in constructivist learning during the professional development program.

According to Newman, Smith, Allensworth, and Bryk (2001), supportive policies leadership, sufficient resources, and a positive climate play an integral part in curriculum and instructional changes that bring about student learning. The national standard-based reform movement that emerged in the 1990s called for high standards for all students. The standard-based reform movement was centered on more challenging subject matter, acquisition of higher-order thinking skills, and the application of abstract knowledge to solving real-world problems (McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) further promoted this movement and subsequently placed significant attention on the responsibility of school officials and teachers to help all children achieve at high levels. As mandated by the NCLB, all 50 states will implement forms of standard-based assessments to measure how well students are learning. For many states this meant revamping the curriculum to adapt and implement standards that are more rigorous and stimulate student achievement at higher levels than before (Forte, 2010).

However, adhering to the requirements of the NCLB is a complex educational issue. This is because the overall characteristics of a student needed for academic success is not defined by any one factor, but by a number of factors ranging from physical well-being and motor development to language use and cognitive skills (The National Education Goals Panel’s Technical Planning Group on School Readiness, 1993). Language acquisition and vocabulary are extremely important because they are necessary steps toward the mastery of the more advanced and complex skills for reading comprehension. The rudimentary skills for reading include the following items: (a) becoming familiar with the conventions of print, (b) learning to recognize letters by name, (c) associating sounds with letters or letter combinations, and (d) understanding the meaning of many spoken words and phrases (Snow et al., 1998). Most young children learn some of these skills before entering school from interacting with their parents and siblings or in childcare and preschool programs. Consequently, children who have mastered these skills before entering kindergarten are more likely to learn to read more proficiently than those who have not (Siegler & Richards, 1982).

Therefore, building these skills early on is critical to academic success. As such, the Elementary Secondary Act emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high standards and accountability. The ESEA was passed in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty. The War on Poverty was a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, education, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, initiated under President Johnson to reduce rates of poverty and improved living standards for America’s poor (Katz, 1989). Through this law, state education agency leaders were given the authority to administer federally-funded education programs. Congressmen have reauthorized the ESEA several times since its initial passage, most recently in 2001 as the NCLB. NCLB act was designed as the foundation for school reform and focused on student achievement (Georgia Department of Education, 2012a).

Overall, it can be said that more effective learning should encompass the overall population regardless of demographic characteristics. NCLB declared that its main goal is to make schools accountable for increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). The achievement gap in education stems from many teachers considering students incapable of mastering the rigorous Georgia performance standards (Georgia Department of Education, 2012a).

Indeed, many educators tend to grade on a curve and modify course requirements and standards in order to accommodate low-achieving and special needs students (Brady, 2005). However, such practices may be detrimental to the achievement of high-achieving students. The differentiation movement is described to resolve these issues with regards to classroom standards and techniques.

Employers are now demanding a more literate set of workers (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007), and this sets the backbone for the NCLB. The policy makers of the NCLB Act expect schools to progress toward ensuring student proficiency in the major content areas by 2013–2014. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), even in fourth grade where overall student performance is better than the earlier grades, fully 37% of U.S. students failed to meet the most basic reading performance level. By eighth grade, only 32% of students scored at or above the proficiency level, and 26% failed to qualify for the basic reading proficiency (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

Juvenile delinquency has been found to be associated with poor educational achievement, particularly literacy which includes fluency and reading comprehension difficulties (Vacca, 2008). The review of data shows that literacy deficits are a major cause of crime. There is a disproportionate number of the socioeconomic disadvantaged in the prison population. Vacca (2008) provided evidence that even after inmates are released from prison, they become unable to find jobs partly because of their lack of experience, and also because of their deficiency in literacy.

Currently, schools in the United States are increasingly diverse and there is an increasing demand to address the needs of the changing population. As Kuykendall (2004) reported, Hispanics in the country have increased from 22.4 million in 1990 to 35.3 million in 2000, while the black population has grown from 30 million in 1990 to 34.7 million in 2000. Kuykendall (2004) further asserted that 42% of students in schools today are African-American or Latino. This shift challenges a view about the sameness of students and it creates the need to construct a view of the classroom as a montage of blended and interconnected cultures. While teachers may not be able to understand the personal difficulties or issues faced by their students – what they are experiencing, feeling, or internalizing – teachers can, and should, still show concern about such feelings and willingness to help students achieve academically despite personal difficulties (Kuykendall, 2004).

It is critical that leaders be able to identify instructional strategies that improve instruction. Schools with administrators who simply take in many poor children without letting them take specific standardized entrance tests first cannot ascertain that their students will be brought to proficient reading levels. Simply enrolling a student in a school will not guarantee academic achievement. The schools will need to have specific systems, methods and staff in place because students need an extraordinary level of help, support, and good ideas to meet the challenges they face (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2008).

One way to help educators identify students in need of intervention and implement evidence-based interventions to promote their reading achievement is a framework called response to intervention (Gersten, 2008). Regular progress monitoring is vital to track student growth and determine which students need additional help or interventions (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2008). Data collected through progress-monitoring should provide a clear profile of students’ strengths, weaknesses, and needs, and should be linked with resources for providing targeted follow-up instruction and intervention (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010). Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-level system for maximizing student achievement by integrating ongoing assessment of student progress with increasingly intensive intervention (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). In an RTI program, streamlining the regular collection and examination of data, as well as modifying instruction based on what is learned from student data, can benefit all students and can be a powerful tool to help make a teacher’s job more efficient rather than more difficult (Duffy, 2008). Collecting ongoing data on student progress is vital to documenting student growth, planning instruction, and determining the need for intervention (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2008). Close progress monitoring such as RTI requires can potentially result in fewer students incorrectly identified as having learning disabilities when they may be struggling due to other reasons (Duffy, 2008). Students are included in monitoring their own progress, they better understand their academic growth, gain motivation, and acquire a sense of ownership over their learning (Andrade, 2008). When learning tasks are consistently too hard, students become anxious and frustrated. When tasks are consistently too easy, boredom results (Foucault, 2008). Both boredom and anxiety inhibit a student’s motivation to learn, and eventually harm achievement as well. Hence, there is a need to try a variety of instructional strategies to ensure student engagement in the classroom. One such method is differentiated instruction.

A growing body of research shows positive results for full implementation of differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008). Educators know they must follow a curriculum to deliver authentic instruction; however, the importance lies with improving current standards to accommodate high-poverty stricken students. Primarily, the focus has been on reading. In reading education, standards-based reform typically means the teachers must plan and implement their curriculum and teaching in relation to challenging content standards with high expectations for student knowledge and capacities. A major question for education decision makers is how best to assist teachers in improving their curriculum content and teaching practices, with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement among poverty-stricken students.

Lawrence-Brown (2004) provided evidence that differentiated instruction can enable students with a wide range of abilities from gifted students to those with mild or even severe disabilities to receive an appropriate education in inclusive classrooms. This is particularly important as the No Child Left Behind Act emphasizes the needs of disadvantaged students to be catered to. In response to increased demands for accountability, some schools are using differentiated instruction as one of their initiatives for academic improvement and achievement. Children arrive in class with a wide variety of skills and preferred learning styles, all of which need to be expanded with the help of a classroom teacher who can distinguish students according to their learning styles to make significant differences in their academic performance (Tomlinson, 2005). Many of the traditional modes of instruction currently used by teachers are inadequate to meet the varied needs of learners, especially struggling learners and diverse learners. In fairness to students, differentiated instruction must be employed by teachers to prepare students of all abilities for rigorous testing. When a teacher delivers a lesson in a single manner or using a single instructional strategy, students’ responses will range widely from not hearing to hearing, and from understanding to not understanding (Drapeau, 2004).

Knope (2012) asserted that the problem that exists in a differentiated classroom is its very idealistic concept. It is questionable whether differentiation can be realistically applied to every classroom situation (Knope, 2012). When students in a classroom become very busy, distracted, or if there are too many students, problems may arise. Some students, even high achievers, may lack motivation when the environment becomes too overwhelming or chaotic. For the part of the teacher, a great deal of preparation will be needed, especially if there are a large number of students in the class. The lack of institutional support may also prevent the teacher from properly applying the differentiated approach.

Research has shown that differentiated instruction has done well in improving literacy and overall academic achievement. Indeed, using curriculum-based multi-tiered instruction with constant monitoring of learning progress has been shown to improve literacy instruction and achievement among high-risk preschoolers (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2012). However, it was noted that the success of such process is grounded on the appropriate training of teachers to use such methods, detailed planning, and constant assessment and revision to suit learner needs (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2012). Another case study showed that a special education teacher’s use of differentiated instruction resulted in an increase in the likelihood of academic progress among students with disabilities (Earnest, Heckman, Thompson, Hull, & Carter, 2011). The combined use of pre-assessment, self-assessment, and on-going assessment allowed the teacher to monitor progress, identify each student’s strengths and difficulties, and respond adequately to each student’s needs (Ernest et al., 2011).

Leadership represents a possible set of actions for everyone in the community; anyone can choose to lead (Skerry, Lambert, Powell, & McAuliffe, 2013). Throughout the county there are several organizations, institutions, and entities that provide support to the school district in nurturing the growth and development of children. Most children become at risk of reading failure because they read very little, or have very little motivation to read (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). Therefore, it becomes difficult for these children to be proficient in the area of reading comprehension. Studies show when struggling readers are not motivated to read, their opportunities to learn decrease significantly. This can lead to strong negative feelings about reading and create a vicious circle in which poor readers remain poor readers (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). Especially for groups of students considered at higher risk academically, research suggests that community and parental support and connectedness play crucial roles in preventing drop-out chances and protecting against potentially negative contextual influences (Brewster & Bowen, 2004). A strong base of research evidence demonstrates that student achievement is positively impacted when social support is present (Wilcox, Winn, & Fyvie-Gauld, 2005).

Educators are expected to mold every child into a lifelong learner who will eventually become a successful member of society. In schools, it is becoming important for children to demonstrate a deep understanding of reading (Gallagher, 2004). All struggling readers, particularly students with learning disabilities, require time to read and respond to texts with modeling and corrective feedback (Swanson, Wexler, & Vaughn, 2009). Motivation is a strong predictor of reading comprehension in students with disabilities (Heo, 2007). One of the greatest challenges in education is to prepare for inclusive classrooms with both gifted learners and learners categorized as at-risk or learning disabled (George, 2005).

A curriculum that is designed to help higher-order thinking skills to be developed among students has been found to be related to an increase in reading comprehension scores of economically disadvantaged students substantially (Miri, David & Uri, 2007). More recently, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), where all students are expected to demonstrate mastery of a new, more rigorous set of educational standards, provides an additional justification for a model that encompasses the needs of all learners, regardless of whether they are struggling or have advanced learning needs, and provides a clear, systematic approach for intervention when students are not on track to mastering these standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). Intensive intervention to address the needs of struggling readers is an essential element of preparing all students to meet the increased literacy demands of college, the workplace, and beyond (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010). A report by ACT (2008) highlights the critical need for literacy intervention in the middle school years: the study shows that students’ level of achievement by the end of eighth grade is a much stronger predictor of college and career readiness than anything they do academically during high school.

Results of the 2009 National Assessment of Education Progress (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010) showed significant improvements among eight- and twelve- graders, which shows evidence that recent focus on adolescent literacy in primary and secondary education has indeed been effective (Scholastic Inc., 2011). However, much work still remains to be done to improve grades and maintain high standards. It is critical that leaders be able to identify instructional strategies that improve instruction. Schools with administrators who simply take in many poor children without letting them take specific standardized entrance tests first cannot ascertain that their students will be brought to proficient reading levels. A student simply being enrolled in a school will not guarantee academic achievement. The schools will need to have specific systems, methods and staff in place because students need an extraordinary level of help, support, and good ideas to meet the challenges they face (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2008).

Education is a complex process that requires teachers to continuously acquire high-standard professional knowledge and skills (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann 2002). As education changes, administration, leadership, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents must also change to make sure the process is optimized. Demands on teachers are ever increasing, policymakers are constantly inventing new wheels, and boards continuously prepare addendums. All of these changes are to be carried out immediately. Thus, the role of a teacher changes to suit every demand. Teachers are striving to promote and enhance leadership, while teaching mixed-ability groups and thus, the demand for differentiated instruction. In a quest to bring quality teaching into the classroom, teachers are now expected to be willing to adapt their practices to include new strategies that have demonstrated efficacy in teaching and learning. Similarly, progressive school systems have supported these best practices in the hopes of increasing student achievement. Whenever there are new ideas, change is inherently involved (Tomlinson, 1999).

The transition toward classroom differentiation was a result of increasing academic diversity in primary education classrooms (Tomlinson, 1995; VanSciver, 2005) and the recognition of multiple intelligences, i.e. that each student learns at different speeds and through various methods (Strassman, 2005; Tomlinson, 1995). Provided that students within a single classroom are becoming increasingly diverse, researchers have reported that traditional classroom instruction may not be effective as it is generally assumed in this pedagogy that students have similar knowledge bases, are used to the same language, and are similar in terms of socio-cultural and economic backgrounds (Hoerr, 2003; Strassman, 2005; Tomlinson, 1995). As teachers continue to use traditional pedagogical methods, i.e. teaching facts and concepts didactically, some students may be able to learn adequately, others may excel, while some others may get left behind (Heacox, 2002; Tomlinson, 1995). There was a need to address such differences in the elementary school years because academic achievement in the early levels affects students’ learning outcomes in middle and high school levels (Tomlinson, 1995). More specifically, if students fail to obtain and master adequate reading skills by the fifth grade, it will be more difficult for them to complete and earn the require number of Carnegie units they need to finish high school (Heacox, 2002).

In order to address differences in elementary school learning outcomes, school district officials, principals, and teachers planned on and implemented differentiated instructional techniques that distinguish the learning abilities, language use, psychological abilities, and psychiatric disorders (Heacox, 2002; Tomlinson, 1995; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). In order to engage students from different ethnic groups, language groups, socio-cultural backgrounds, learning abilities, and interests, teachers must design and implement differentiated lesson plans that engage and challenge students, impart appropriate content, and promotes teamwork and collaboration (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Matching the instruction technique to the students’ interests and abilities will ideally increase comprehension and improve learning outcomes. In the face of all this diversity, schools can no longer operate as if one curriculum and way of teaching will fit most of the students. Instead, under differentiated instruction, students can pursue a common set of curricular goals or learning standards, accomplishing them in different ways and sometimes to different degrees of mastery (Heacox, 2002).

Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) described differentiation as an instructional approach that is best described as a cycle of trial, evaluation, and adjustment to the classroom itself. Following this perspective, it is implied that in differentiated instruction, teachers need to regularly identify their students’ interests and the instructional methods they best respond to, and implement pedagogies that would engage the students while learning core curricular content (Chapman & King, 2005; Levy, 2008; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Such differentiated pedagogies would vary the learning environment, the content, the process, or the product of the lesson to meet the identified needs of each learner (Hoover, 2004). Tomlinson and Allan (2000) provided a simpler definition of differentiation as a teacher’s way of meeting a learner’s needs. However, they did emphasize the need to accommodate academic diversity in the entire education system as a whole, not just one or more teachers practicing differentiation while others remain entirely traditional (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). The process of implementing system-wide differentiation in instruction may be challenging and necessitate a large number of resources; thus, education officials, teachers, administrators, and parents must collaborate towards such change (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).

The first step towards the implementation of effective differentiation would be to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the information about the students and relevant resources that would be used in deciding on pedagogical techniques and teaching plans (Bruner, 1996; Sutton, 1995). Such information should be complete and accurate in order to allow teachers and administrators to make informed decisions; hence, this should include information on the students’ strengths, areas in need of improvement, and interests (Anderson, 2007). It is also important in this step that students are made aware that their insights and needs matter and are crucial in the design of differentiated classrooms (Tomlinson, 2001).

The next step would be to plan adequately and agree on the characteristics and goals of classroom differentiation (Hoover, 2004). The teacher would need to establish concise learning outcomes and set standards for measuring achievement of such outcomes (Tomlinson, 2005; Wiggins, & McTighe, 2000). The teacher should adequately inform and explain these outcomes and standards to the students at the beginning of the grading period, and regularly measure student progress according to the set standards (Tomlinson, 2005; Wiggins, & McTighe, 2000). In order to aid their development, it is best that the teacher explains to the students what they would need to do or accomplish to meet the standards. Additionally, the students must be informed of how and when they will be assessed. Results of such assessments would influence the pace and depth of subsequent lessons (Tomlinson, 2005; Wiggins, & McTighe, 2000).

As differentiated instruction stemmed from the need to address the various pedagogical needs of nontraditional and disadvantaged learners, much research on the needs of such students already exist, and teachers can revisit such literature in order to gain insight on how to design differentiated lesson plans for such groups. This will allow teachers to make informed decisions on creating differentiated classroom without spending much time and resources. For instance, Hargreaves and Macmillian (1992) reported that the successes of African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups are negatively affected by the stigma on such demographics; hence, teachers in differentiated classrooms may first aim to increase morale and confidence before conducting lessons in order to engage this student group. On the other hand, for low-performing students, pedagogical techniques that enable them to experience curriculum and instruction focused on meaning and understanding subsequently motivate them to increase their skills at least as much as their higher-achieving peers do (Center for Public Education, 2012). This is in contrast to traditional didactic methods. Teachers test on subject matter comprehension only through recall and recognition, and rely on worksheets and other activities that do not require much thought or effort from the students (Elmore, 2002).

Additionally, Keller (2006) reported that teachers in differentiated classrooms should consider and integrate social norms and knowledge that children acquire from their family and neighborhood environments. More specifically, teachers can use knowledge about students’ familial, socioeconomic, and cultural background to connect curriculum content with their experience so that it is better understood and retained.

Designing and implementing differentiated instruction, on the part of the teacher, would necessitate a combination of assessing and understanding students’ needs, interests, and skills, and consulting literature on best practices and empirical evidence on techniques and pedagogies that have already worked. Knowing this information will allow the teacher to lay out a differentiated lesson plan that would suit their students. Following a properly designed differentiated lesson plan, teachers would be able to provide students with greater opportunities to learn and apply knowledge, while consequently assessing student progress based on set standards (Stiggins, 2005). However, teachers must keep in mind that differentiated instruction is a continuous process; thus, teachers must continually assess their students’ learning, determine ways to improve learning outcomes, and implement such techniques and pedagogies as they see fit. Rotating teaching styles within each lesson may enhance students’ learning. Even though students’ learning styles may be ingrained and difficult to modify, they can be expanded to respond to different teaching styles—provided that the instructor understands why a single teaching style cannot address the educational needs of all students (Hsieh et al., 2011).

In order to motivate students to study and perform well, teachers should create a classroom environment that is conducive to learning and ensure that students feel emotionally safe and relevant (Given, 2002). Although each classroom is different in various ways, there are key factors or characteristics that distinguish classrooms wherein learning is facilitated and students are engaged. One such factor is respect for others, which exemplifies healthy social learning system (Given, 2002). It is the teachers’ responsibility to ensure that students’ feel the respect of their teachers, that students respect one another, and that they also respect their teachers. Such respect will allow them to broaden their minds to the possibilities of learning.

Another factor that is critical in differentiated instruction is an atmosphere of effective learning not only in the classroom, but also in the entire school and the community. If students grow up in an environment where they have positive interactions with family, friends, and others, then their school experiences will nurture development. Each student must see the classroom as a venue of opportunities to learn and grow, and the classroom must be designed in such a way to support such developments (Tomlinson, 2005). This requires creating positive, meaningful differentiated activities for all types of social interactions and differentiating instruction. By developing lessons with cooperative learning groups and peer interaction, a school’s classrooms can be the safe haven where academic practices and classroom strategies can provide children with emotional comfort and pleasure as well as knowledge (Gallagher, 2000). However, the large student-to-teacher ratio and lack of resources limit teachers’ capabilities to nurture and develop the social and emotional learning systems of the students.

Another factor is the actual design of effective individualized learning environments. The person who designs the learning environment must address learning goals for students that take into account how knowledge about learning has changed, how students have changed, and the style of each individual’s learning process (Blackwell et al., 2003). When students understand the objectives of what they are doing and learning, they are more likely to maintain focus, monitor their work and progress, and appreciate their achievements as well as their inadequacies (Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt, 2002). Consequently, students become more emotionally stable and are able to learn more effectively and efficiently when their teachers build a positive learning environment that reduces emotional and psychological stress (Given, 2002). In order for students to learn individually, teachers need to emphasize the students’ responsibility for their own learning while participating to some degree in collaborative work with others (Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Tomlinson & Edison, 2003). The role of the teacher is critical in creating a climate of individualized instruction and constructivist learning because students need the teacher’s motivation and guidance in exploring materials and interacting with their peers while keeping their eyes set on a predetermined curricular goal or objective. Additionally, it is the teacher’s role to maintain an organized classroom environment, set high standards, assign appropriate challenges based on student’s interest, and offer encouragement during tasks (Tomlinson & Edison, 2003).

Another key characteristic is the development of the teachers themselves. Hemphill and Duffield (2007) suggested that effective professional development is school-based, largely teacher-driven and directed, standards-based, and related to what teachers do in their schools and classrooms (Hemphill & Duffield, 2007). Professional learning frameworks that are designed through a collaborative effort with input from teachers, administrators and other stakeholders would most likely meet the goals of district and school improvement plans (D’Ambrosio, Boone, & Harkness, 2004).

The professional development of teachers is also a key necessity in the use of differentiation in the classroom. Professional development of a school’s faculty should be: school-based, in order to specifically address the needs of their students; standardized, such that students are able to respond effectively and consistently to their teachers’ pedagogical techniques; and aimed at motivating teachers to consistently assess and modify techniques as seen to fit their students’ needs and capabilities (Hemphill & Duffied, 2007). Additionally, the opinions and input of teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders should be considered in the design of such professional development trainings such that the goals of the school district and the school are met.

Lastly, differentiated instruction ultimately requires teachers to work collaboratively with other staff members. Collaborative environments create positive working relationships and help retain teachers (Tomlinson, 2001). Additionally, collaborating allows teachers to identify instructional techniques and pedagogies that work, and determine best practices for students with specific characteristics or backgrounds. Preparing teachers to work with different cultures and to help close the achievement gap between racial, ethnic, minority and low socioeconomic groups is a high priority among teacher training institutions (Pugach, 2005). Through differentiation of instruction, effective teachers reach their students, know their students, and teach subject matter, while continuing to account for the fact students learn differently and together they enjoy their success.

Traditional approaches to education are basically centered on methods of transferring knowledge from those who have it, i.e. teachers, to those who do not have it, i.e. students (Connell, 2005). However, as students are different in terms of socioeconomic status, cultural background, family issues, learning style, language base, readiness to learn, and confidence (Heacox, 2002), a teacher applying the same traditional approach to education may not be effective in imparting knowledge to all students. Thus, the aim of differentiation is to attend to the learning needs and learning techniques of specific student groups (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). It is important to indicate that differentiated instruction does not imply that students within a class have different course goals; rather, differentiated learning aims to allow students to reach the same course objectives but through different methods and speeds (Tomlinson, 2001).

A differentiated classroom has some obvious differences when compared to a traditional classroom. In terms of approach, differentiated instruction is proactive and, -student-centered (Heacox, 2002), while traditional classroom instruction is didactic, i.e. concepts, ideas, and theories are taught in a consistent manner such as lecture (Strassman, 2005). There are also differences in the perceived manner of knowledge transfer. In traditional classroom instruction, students learn from the teachers without the help of other persons while in a differentiated classroom, learning is not unidirectional, i.e. students learn from the teacher and from each other, and the teachers learn from the students as well (Hoerr, 2003). In terms of objectives, traditional education is more concerned with preparation for the next grade level and in-school success, while differentiated education is focused on teaching students life-long learning skills (Hoerr, 2003).

Differentiated instruction challenges traditional teaching because focus is shifted towards equity in educational access and opportunity and academic excellence, instead of concentrating on traditional methods of teaching and assessment. Differentiated instruction also increases the responsibility of individual schools, teachers, and parents in student learning, and changes centralization of curriculum assessment schemes (Earl, 2003).

Several researchers have conducted studies to identify learner types and to determine which teaching methods work best for each type. Tulbure (2011) reported that each learner type responds best to certain teaching methods. More specifically, accommodators worked best with debates and problem solving, cooperative learning and investigation were most effective on convergers, and graphical organization helped assimilators the most. In another study, Wilson and Conyers (2003) identified that only a small number of students, i.e. those who are auditory and usually left-hemispheric dominant, are able to succeed using lectures and worksheets. Such outcomes support the need for differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching methods should be specifically tailored to match the capabilities and needs of the students, such as at-risk and struggling students are able to catch up and succeed while overachievers do not feel that they are not learning anything new (Tomlinson, 2000; Wilson & Conyers, 2003).

Academic and knowledge skills assessment in different classrooms are also markedly different from that in the traditional classroom. In essence, assessments in traditional classrooms are designed to test students’ retention of information and concepts, as questions are aimed at determining what has been learned (Anderson, Heibert, Scott, & Wilkerson, 1985; Popham, 2001). On the other hand, assessments in different classroom gauge how students meet standard goals set forth throughout the school and school district, which are often set to determine how students are able to comprehend and analyze. These same standards also guide the design and course of instruction. Problems arise, however, as many teachers are not well-trained in the design of such standard-based assessment (Emberger, 2007; Lewin & Shoemaker, 1998); thus, professional development courses should also include training on the design of such assessments.

Another difference between traditional and differentiated classrooms is the ultimate purpose or goal of instruction. Traditional teachers often use the same technique to impart knowledge to their students, and the aim of education has been to create graduates with the same knowledge and skills, which are believed to be needed for them to participate and contribute to society (Cuban, 1984). Teachers who use differentiated instruction, on the other hand, hold the primary aim of training students to become lifelong learners such that they are able to perform best in the field or area they choose as their livelihood.

In response to Durkins findings, much research in the 1980s was devoted to discovering how to teach comprehension strategies directly while varying strategies across specific student groups. Children from nonmainstream backgrounds responded well when their mainstream teachers explicitly directed them in reading and comprehending texts (Delpit, 1988). On the other hand, less-able readers were able to catch up with their peers when provided added opportunities to read text (Stanovich, 1986). The use of cooperative learning not only eliminated racial and socioeconomic segregation, but also allowed students to learn from each other (Slavin, 1987). These researchers provided evidence of the positive outcomes of using different teaching techniques to respond to individual students’ needs and abilities.

There are some researchers, however, who contest the need for differentiated instruction. The advantages of differentiated instruction do not outweigh the costs entailed of using such methods. One study showed that there are no differences between traditional and differentiated learning on certain aspects of performance and academic achievement (Beers, 2005). Another study showed that there may be a way to integrate the authoritarian didacticism approach with the democratic facilitator’s approach (Jarvis, 2002). One researcher, (Majumder, 2004) reported that while differentiated learning may benefit more in terms of leaning and knowledge retention, it does so at the price of added financial cost, especially for teacher training, the creation of differentiated instruction plans, and production of added teaching materials.

Overall, while the shift from traditional to differentiated systems do not benefit learning of students on all aspects, it seems that the gains from the movement from the traditional classroom into the differentiated type is a change that is not only generally beneficial, but necessary. However, the first task towards fully realizing this shift is to persuade people to see its necessity (Evans, 1996).. Although humans know we must change, and life requires change, people resist and cling to things as they are. Living in the past where everyone learns the same is not working anymore. Every child deserves the opportunity of a high quality curriculum geared toward that child’s individual learning goals. Learning should be made relevant to students. Adequate preparation is necessary to make sure all students are engaged with authentic differentiated assignments to increase and improve learning. Too often teachers do not prepare enough or have sufficient class work by either choice, default, or inexperience and this can lead to a breakdown in discipline as students may become restless or ill behaved (Tomlinson, 2001). Modern teachers must be knowledgeable in curriculum development, methods of instruction, and forms of assessment in order for them to properly assess their students’ capability and interests, determine and apply appropriate teaching techniques, and develop adequate assessment tools and standards to ensure improvements in student learning and overall academic performance (Elmore, 2000).

An aspect that goes with differentiated learning is the ideology of standards-based classrooms. Similar to differentiated learning, standards-based classrooms are in contrast with the traditional classroom. Being that they are standards-based, they are different from traditional classrooms, which are typically norm-based. Standards-based education is focused specifically on continuous student achievement for all students regardless of gender, race, or socioeconomic level. In the standards-based classroom, learning outcomes for students are aligned to content or performance standards. Students are no longer being held accountable to minimal levels of competency. In the standards-based classroom, curriculum frameworks lay out the academic content students should know in each subject area (Reeves, 2004).The standards-based classroom recommends developing and using realistic contexts and applications as well as pictorial models, appealing more to students’ initiative sense. Therefore, meaning is constructed out of prior knowledge and experiences. Students should be encouraged to assess their own learning and progress on a daily basis, teachers should ensure that every effort is made to provide equitable learning opportunities for each student (Kohn, 2001)

An early study initiated the idea that there was a need to integrate and adjust curricular standards according to different abilities as opposed to competition with grades in this case. Tjosvold et al. (1977) mentioned that cooperative learning promoted positive reactions to both didactic and inquiry methods, and that students benefitted more from cooperative than competitive learning. The study showed that most teaching methods benefit when the students collaborate with each other to learn subjects.

Curricular differentiation is adjusting to the different learners not just in academic aspects, but also as a whole. Involvement in differentiated curricular activities also helps at-risk students. Mahoney and Cairns (1997) reported engagement in school-differentiated activities is linked to decreasing rates of early school dropouts for both boys and girls. Mahoney and Cairns discovered such participation provides marginal students an opportunity to create a positive and voluntary connection to their school. Conversely, other strategies typically used to address the needs of at-risk students, such as school-dropout prevention programs and remedial education, focus on the deficits of students, and serve as a catalyst in the formation of deviant groups. Mahoney and Cairns believed involvement in differentiated curricular activities might support the at-risk student by maintaining, enhancing, and strengthening the student-school connection.

Curriculum integration has also been considered in research as the most appropriate means to teach the skills and knowledge that are considered essential for all members of the democratic society to learn. Such a curriculum focuses on teaching people how to apply important knowledge and skills learned from multiple subjects in managing or addressing real-life problems, situations, and issues (Beane, 1997) This process is assumed to eventually help students participate in democracy by applying lessons learned in personal experiences (Beane, 1997). In this manner, schools can teach students the necessary knowledge and skills they need to be part of, and contribute to society, while also matching state-mandated standards on learning and achievement levels (Beane, 1997). This outcome was also supported by more recent studies (National Association for Core Curriculum, 2000; Vars, 1996, 1997; Arhar, 1997) that showed that students in any type of integrative curriculum are a part, and often higher than, students on a conventional departmentalized program.

When teachers incorporate course objectives, learning outcomes, homework, and classroom activities into their planning process, it is likely instruction based on such planning would facilitate students’ perception of the coherence of the information and would optimize learning (Panasuk & Todd, 2005). Differentiating instruction requires giving and differentiating homework on a daily basis and also checking and reviewing it regularly. The basic purpose for homework is to practice what has already been previously learned. Practice-based homework is the reinforcement of familiar concepts that need to be redefined. Feedback on homework is important. Teachers should provide feedback in a timely manner and ensure that it relates specifically to the criteria of the task. Students need feedback for them to identify where and what they are lacking and to act towards closing this achievement gap (Wiggins, 1998; Stiggins, 2008).

A major role of the teacher in a differentiated instruction learning process is to provide the kind of feedback to students that encourages their learning and provides signposts and direction along the way, conforming student work to the standard (Earl, 2003). Preparing lesson plans that meet each student’s needs, providing instruction, diagnosing strengths, weaknesses and assessing what has been learned are daily activities for teachers. Students must know the standard of the adequate demonstration of learned concepts, if they are heading toward that goal, and what they must do to achieve the goal. Consistent feedback allows for the development of learning to mastery. Timely feedback completes the learning process (Earl, 2003).

Teacher feedback is neither correcting mistakes, providing guidance, judgmental, nonspecific advice, praise, blame, nor a grade (Wiggins, 1998). It is how teachers communicate to students the degree of compliance and evaluation. Good quality feedback provides concrete, clear direction for improvement allowing for reflection and response to suggestions. Feedback should mirror learning and the needs of the learner focusing on quality not quantity (Earl, 2003). Feedback can be administered during performance task and after the performance. Feedback coexisting with performance activities allows for error analysis, which can be done by the teacher or with the assistance of the teacher. Feedback can also be received from students to teacher to enhance communication about the work (Davis, 2000). Journal writing, student evaluation, student completed rubrics, assignment feedback forms, and student created word problems or test questions are examples of providing this medium of communication. Teachers can confirm comprehension of various concepts and provide feedback by upholding the standard.

The most effective feedback is specific and describes what actually occurred and clearly articulated to the student what the expectations are for improvement with differentiated instruction activities (Wiggins, 1998). A safe classroom environment that fosters learning and supports achievement includes a corrective and timely feedback mechanism that is focused on criteria and course objectives and that includes students in the feedback process (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012). Formal and formal feedback should be constructive and present in every classroom. Providing feedback for students is active, ongoing, assessment during differentiated instruction. Too often tradition learning dictates uses of evaluative feedback in the form of grades, praise, or short comments of acceptance offering no opportunity to move learning forward (Earl, 2003). Descriptive feedback is connected to the standard of excellence sought. Students observe models of outstanding work and information on steps needed to reach mastery. The timeliness of feedback is essential for maximum benefit, and the best time to provide such feedback is directly following instruction, while concepts are still in the developmental stage and stimuli are focused (Davis, 2000).

As teachers transition from traditional instruction to differentiated classrooms, their assessment techniques must also shift from traditional methods, i.e. focusing not only on what was learned, but how new knowledge was acquired and how it may be used in the future. Educators must implement a balance of assessments and testing to monitor, evaluate, and enhance students’ performance. This balance should encompass an array of varied assessments from standardized achievement testing, periodic assessment, product assessment to ongoing assessment (Popham, 2003).

Testing has traditionally been used to sort and rank students according to their abilities. Traditional standardized tests attempt to gauge a student’s capability based on rigid and specific variables (Popham, 2003). Traditional testing practices have increased inequities in education by referring many students to low-level education, which limits their learning opportunities and life choices (Popham 2003). The accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind hold schools accountable for the educational results of all children, including specifically those with disabilities. In the past, students with disabilities were excluded from assessments and accountability systems, and the consequence was they did not receive the attention they deserved. Access and exposure to the general curriculum for students with disabilities often did not occur, and there was no external measure to indicate whether they were learning enough to attend post-secondary educational institutions or enter the workforce. Many school systems came to rely upon the uses of high-stakes testing for school accountability, and educators felt this trend came to have an undue amount of influence on teaching and learning in the classroom. Teachers felt pressured to prepare their students to do well on tests and accordingly modified their approach focusing instruction on acing tests and not on ensuring learning (Tomlinson, 2005).

Using multiple methods of differentiated assessments contribute to a more comprehensive interpretation of students’ individualized achievement. By integrating both traditional and authentic assessment into the instructional curriculum, teachers will have the information needed to plan the most effective instructional learning for their students. The extent of implementation of these tests is as varied as the differentiated learners in the classrooms (Popham, 2003). Assessment must be tailored to meet the needs of each individual student. The implementation of both traditional and authentic assessment, as one supports the other, will provide educators with information that should be used to improve instruction and students’ understanding.

People of the nation’s leading advocacy organizations are focusing on infusing 21st century skills into education, by partnering with schools to bring globally competitive 21st century teaching and learning skills to its schools, educators and students. In the global economy of the 21st century students will need to understand the basics, think critically, analyze, and make inferences. Many skills needed to function in today’s competitive world are not being taught in schools (Popham 2003). Therefore, reform efforts are defining the education standards critical for all students. School leaders can set clear, high expectations and create a standard of education that does not deny students of the chance to study a challenging curriculum or to have access to good jobs or further education when they finish school by publicly defining standards for all students. In addition to higher learning standards, school and school district officials also develop new assessment systems to measure the achievement of higher-order cognitive abilities. By seeking new assessment systems that will allow all students to demonstrate their ability to engage in complex tasks, policymakers and educators hope to foster the development of higher-order thinking skills, build upon the strengths and needs of individual learners, and encourage students to perform real world tasks. This promotes challenging authentic educational assessments and values (Chappuis, 2009). Carol Ann Tomlinson, a leading educator in the field of differentiated instruction, indicated that only by providing students complex learning situations will they be able to retain, understand, and use ideas and knowledge (Tomlinson, 1999).

By implementing a differentiated framework and concepts, each unit builds upon each grade level’s standards and provides the scaffolding for new learning. This guide determines the acceptable evidence, moving toward planning learning experiences and instruction for the interaction of the student (Tomlinson, 2006). According to McTighe and Wiggins (1999), assessment is the collecting of information through many methods on the achievement of meeting desired outcomes. Assessment and evaluation requires accurate planning of instruction such that more students are able to reach great achievement levels through differentiation strategies (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). It is important to incorporate a variety of authentic assessments that are ongoing and diagnostic for both the students and professionals in order to understand how to make instruction more responsive to each learner’s needs (Tomlinson, 1999).

Teachers’ instructional plans and strategies should be tailored in such a way that their students are able to respond and comprehend to the lessons (Popham, 2003). In other words, the chosen instructional strategy should match the students’ learning style (Popham, 2003). With the many ongoing, product, periodic, and standardized tests, the teachers in the target school have a vast array of tools to measure students’ mastery of understanding through their application of their knowledge and skills. Darling-Hammond (2007) speculated the changes in teaching and assessment strategies needed to attain new content and performance standards require increased knowledge and skills on the part of teachers. Teachers need deep understanding of subject matter, student learning approaches, and diverse teaching strategies to develop practices that will allow students to reach these new standards.

Motivation can be preserved and improved by assessment methods that protect the learner’s autonomy, provide some choice and useful feedback, and create opportunity for self-direction (Wiggins, 1998). For effective learning to take place learners need to grasp what it is they are trying to achieve and want to succeed at it. Knowledge and commitment follows when learners have some part in deciding goals and identifying criteria for assessing progress. Conveying assessment criteria involves discussing them with learners using terms they can understand, providing examples of how the criteria can be obtained in practice and engaging learners in peer and self-assessment (Davis, 2000).

The most obvious reform has been to devise more open-ended performance tasks to ensure students are able to reason critically, to solve complex problems, and to apply their knowledge in real-world contexts (PARCC, 2012). Assessment is changing mainly because students face a world that will demand new knowledge and abilities. Changes in the skills and knowledge needed for success, in the understanding of how students learn, and in the relationship between assessment and instruction are changing the learning and instructional goals for students, teachers and schools through differentiation. To keep up with the changes, assessment strategies should be joined to assessment design and content to new outcomes and purposes for assessment. The content of assessments should match challenging subject matter standards and serve to instantiate what it means to know and learn in each of the disciplines. Therefore, a broader range of assessment tools is needed to capture important learning goals and processes and to more directly connect assessment to ongoing instruction.

Periodic assessments are administered to the students as end of the unit tests, quizzes, and skill reviews. These assessments are almost always standardized and administered at the same time across school districts within a given county or state (Stiggins, 2005). However, such tests are often limited in the sense that they attempt to categorize students within a fixed hierarchy of achievement scores and status, which leaves little room to gauge other skills, knowledge, and capabilities (Popham, 2003). In a differentiated classroom, multiple methods of differentiated assessments are used in order to btter gauge students’ performance and to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of their progress and achievement. In order for the teachers to do this, they would need adequate knowledge about their students such that tests are tailored to adequately assess each student’s progress. Tests, exercises, and project requirements should be regularly assessed and modified to serve such purpose of differentiated assessment.

At the state level, tests are used to monitor academic progress, increase student efficiency, and assess effective teaching. However, in a vicious cycle, districts, schools, and individual teachers supplement these tests with additional assessments to ensure their students will perform well on the state tests. While there is undeniably some merit to the testing, it seems the situation has gotten out of control. Certainly, there are some subjects and activities, not part of the test, that are still interesting and valuable. Yet, last year the teachers at my school were convened in a faculty meeting and clearly admonished that if something is not part of the Georgia Performance Standards, then we had better not be teaching it in our classrooms. Teachers, as those described by Lieberman and Miller (2004), are instructed to teach for the test rather than to the children. However, this trend is reductionist as it limits variation and depth in both instruction and learning (Popham, 2003). In fact, research proves over-emphasis on standardized testing leads to the decline of higher-order cognitive skills because teachers tend to postpone teaching thinking and reasoning skills and concentrate only on the basic traditional skills covered on the required tests. The unfortunate result of continuous drill and practice of only the most rudimentary skills increases rather than decreases the achievement gap (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

Schools must expand the opportunities for students to demonstrate what they have learned through a variety of modes, not always with paper and pencil (Lewin & Shoemaker, 1998). Because there is so much testing required, teachers need to incorporate more projects in class and devise methods of assessment that do not solely rely on norm referenced high stake tests. Furthermore, they should arise naturally from differentiated lessons. It is important to provide diverse assessment techniques other than emphasizing on structuring all tests like the norm referenced high stake test format. One obvious reason the teachers do not choose to rely so heavily on multiple-choice questions is students may be able to recognize answers but cannot actually generate them and they not be able to synthesize content. Students must be taught and trained to construct answers and responses rather than merely selecting one from a fixed set (Popham (2003).

In other research findings, curriculum integration has long been proposed as a way of organizing the common learnings or life skills considered essential for all citizens in a democracy. Curriculum is organized around real-life problems and issues significant to both young people and adults, applying pertinent content and skills from many subject areas or disciplines (Beane, 1997). The intent is to help students make sense out of their life experiences and learn how to participate in a democracy (Beane, 1997). Beane’s (1993, 1997) reported how middle level schools can, at the same time, reap both the benefits of genuine student-centered, integrative curriculum and instruction and also develop student competencies in state-mandated standards so students can make acceptable scores on typical standards-based tests. However, recent analyses of studies pointed to the same general conclusion: Almost without exception, students in any type of interdisciplinary or integrative curriculum do as well as, and often better than, students in a conventional departmentalized program. These results hold whether the combined curriculum is taught by one teacher in a self-contained or block-time class or by an interdisciplinary team.

Bean (1997) mentioned that for the most part, these results were obtained using standardized achievement tests designed for a conventional separate-subjects program. Most standardized tests are normed – scores of individual students are compared with the mean or average of whatever group is considered “normal.” In contrast, current state tests may have arbitrary cut-off scores that all students must meet in order to acquire a passing grade or be considered “competent.” In other words, the rules of the assessment game have been changed radically. Furthermore, the quality of many statewide assessment measures has been widely criticized, raising serious questions about the morality of using them to determine a student’s grade promotion or high school graduation (Beane, 1997). It will probably be many years before problems in the assessment of student performance are solved. In the meantime, educators considering curriculum integration will need to proceed carefully and take full advantage of the decades of research and experience with this potentially powerful way of designing and carrying out education (Vars, 1993; Beane, 1997).

Overall, this review has extensively discussed differentiated learning from its history and bases – typically as a movement of “change” into something that is not only new, but is a marked improvement from its predecessor or traditional teaching. Differentiated learning is defined as accommodating a wide range of learners and learning to be sensitive to the demographics of students whether it be race or socioeconomic factors. We also saw that aside from curricular and instructional differences, differentiated learning also requires other characteristics such as sensitivity from teachers and a positive environment that is geared towards learning.

Differentiated learning is also seen as a stark contrast with traditional teaching which allows not just teachers but education as a whole to accommodate for critical learning ages, such as building reading skills in kindergarten to accommodating for socio-economic difficulties. And while there are some disadvantages such as not having a significant difference on certain factors and added cost, it must still be concluded that this shift has benefits that far outweigh its consequences.

Although teachers and policymakers have identified the need to shift to differentiated learning while using reform-based teaching methods such as discovery learning and constructivism, they have also found it difficult to successfully implement consistently across classes and schools (Furtak &Kunter, 2012). One perceived challenge to adapting this approach is the lack of precision in the identification of student interests and learning style, and in the choice of teaching style or pedagogy appropriate for such students. Further research is necessary to determine teachers’ understanding of various learner-oriented teaching styles and their benefits, the learning styles that responds well to such teaching, and the subsequent effect on overall student achievement. The present study aims exactly to fill this gap in research, i.e. determining teachers’ knowledge of teaching styles based on previous and current professional development programs and its effect on students’ achievement in reading. While many researchers have explored the effects of differentiated learning and learner-centered teaching methods (e.g. Marshall & Sorto, 2012: Levy, 2008), both quantitatively and qualitatively, the present study is necessary as it is aimed at not only gauging teachers’ understanding and use of certain teaching methods, but also to increase their awareness about the various techniques and how they may increase the precision of their choice of technique.

Similar to other studies, the present study will be conducted using qualitative methods in order to develop a deeper understanding of pedagogical techniques and choices from the teachers’ perspectives, and to identify a pattern among teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools in a rural county in Georgia. While quantitative methods may be a better option for determining differences in academic achievement, it was not chosen for the present study because previous quantitative research had strong shortcoming in assuming that differentiated instruction and assessment have been consistently implemented across schools; hence, a qualitative case study is better suited to explore the current issue. Additionally, quantitative methods are best conducted using both pre- and post-testing (e.g. Marshall & Sorto, 2012), which the researcher cannot conduct due to limited resources.

The problem to be addressed in this Applied Dissertation is that children in the researcher’s school are not reading at the expected level. As such, it is proposed that the implementation of differentiated instruction may be a way to address this problem. However, before differentiation can be successfully implemented, there is a need to assess what the teachers within the district already know about differentiated instruction and its implementation in the classroom setting, including how the teachers’ experiences with professional development programs on differentiated instruction have affected their instructional methods. In line with this, the purpose of this research study is to describe the effects of professional development training on elementary teachers’ use of differentiated instruction in teaching reading. In line with this purpose, the overarching question that may be answered in this study is:

How have teachers’ instructional strategies changed as a result of learning how to implement differentiated instruction in their classroom?

The following sub-questions were also formulated:

RQ1: How have teachers’ instructional strategies changed as a result of learning how to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms?

RQ2: How well are teachers able to transfer the theory of differentiated instruction, learned through professional development training, into classroom practice?

RQ3: How comfortable are teachers with changing from their traditional instruction practices to instructional practices based on constructivist approaches to teaching and learning?

The purpose of this research is to determine how teachers’ instructional strategies changed as a result of learning how to implement differentiated instruction in their classroom. The researcher will determine teachers’ knowledge and use of different instructional strategies for teachers who have undergone professional development training. The aim of the study is to enhance student achievement and, it is expected that through this research teachers and school administrators may be informed on how teachers’ knowledge and use of teaching style may be affecting student achievement.

For this proposed study, the most appropriate method to use is a qualitative case study approach because a qualitative study is used to understand the lived experiences of individuals (Polkinghorne, 2005). The case study method was specifically chosen for the following reasons: (a) the focus of the study is to answer how questions; (b) the researcher cannot and will not manipulate the behavior of the research participants; and (c) the researcher takes into account the contextual conditions because they are perceived to be relevant to the case, i.e. the characteristics of the students and the resources of the school, for example influence teachers’ instructional methods as well (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The specific case in this study – the unit of analysis – is the teaching methods of reading teachers before and after undergoing professional development on the different teaching and learning styles. More specifically, this case study will describe if and how teachers use differentiated instructional approaches to teaching after undergoing training.

Compared to quantitative studies wherein researchers assume that what one sees in the field can be described with already-developed measurements (Stake, 1995), this qualitative approach will require the researcher first to see, and then measure. The researcher will first try to understand the situation and issue, and then make an interpretation about what they mean, as case studies are characterized by rich description and interpretation of circumstances and events (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The analysis of qualitative data is inductive; it will begin with recognizing and coding broad themes, and then proceed to the more specific building of connections between the collected data and the research questions at issue.

The researcher aims to determine how teachers apply knowledge gained from professional development on learning and teaching styles in the reading classroom and how such use of differentiated instruction can enhance student achievement in reading. In order to achieve these objectives, the researcher will conduct a case study of elementary reading or literacy school teachers in a rural county in Georgia. Creswell (2007) asserted that for qualitative inquiries that seek to answer explanatory and descriptive research questions, a case study approach is an apt methodology to use.

The choice of research approach and design depends largely on the purpose of the research and the research questions (Creswell, 2007). A search of published doctoral dissertations and theses in the area of education, specifically on teaching styles, confirmed this assertion. For example, Al-Duwaila (2012) used quantitative data collection and analysis in their study because the objective of their inquiry was to measure the extent of use of specific teaching methods, the differences between government and private schools with respect to environment and resources, and the effects of these factors on students’ academic achievement as evidenced in their scores in the final mathematics exam for the fifth grade. Additionally, a quantitative method was also used in a study by Mitchell-Barrett (2010). The aim was to measure students’ levels of intrinsic motivation as resulting from the use of the Scottish storyline method for primary schools.

In another unpublished PhD thesis, Alkhars (2013) used a mixed methods approach to determine differences in the choice and use of teaching style or method as influenced by the teacher’s perceived creativity. In the initial part of the study, in-depth interviews and participant observation were conducted to determine perceptions on creativity in teaching method and to identify the factors that affect creativity (Alkhars, 2013). Qualitative approaches were appropriate for that segment of the study because the aim was to provide breadth of research and depth of understanding of participants’ perceptions of creativity and its effect on their teaching (Alkhars, 2013). In the second part of the study, teachers were surveyed to determine if they agreed with the findings in the first part regarding the definition and expression of creativity as classroom teachers, and the factors that influenced creativity. By taking a mixed-methods approach, Alkhars (2013) was able to measure extent of use and perception based on context-based, i.e. dependent on culture and local practice, definitions and perceptions, which would not have been possible if taking only either one of the two approaches.

The mixed methods approach was also used by Gaikwad (2013): quantitative statistical analysis to compare the scores of students who were taught through two different teaching methods and qualitative interviews to determine the effect of a specific teaching method on their conceptual understanding and writing development. By using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, Gaikwad (2013) was able to compare scores to identify any differences and subsequently identify how students arrive at different conceptual understandings as a result of the teaching method used. It is evident that the use of mixed-methods approach allows for a greater understanding of the relationship between two or more variables as the researcher is able to answer what, how, and how much questions using quantitative analysis, and why questions using qualitative analysis.

Qualitative methods are often used when the aim of the study and the research questions are directed towards exploring phenomena or practices, identifying perceptions and opinions, and determining rationales behind such phenomena, practices, and perceptions. The case study is used when the aim is to study an issue or practice through a specific case within a bound system, that is, a setting or a context (Creswell, 2007). The procedure involves in-depth data collection using various techniques such as observations, interviews, and analysis of archival documents. In terms of intent, there are three types of case studies: (1) a single instrumental case study is where the researchers chooses an issue, a problem, or a phenomenon, and selects as single case to explore this issue; (2) in a collective case study, one issue or problem is still chosen, but is explored through multiple cases; and (3) the intrinsic case study is one wherein the focus of the research is the case itself, not an issue or problem it experiences or embodies, because the case presents an unusual or unique situation (Creswell, 2007).

Taking a mixed methods approach helps researchers gain depth and breadth of understanding while also allowing them to measure the extent of the effects of specific stimuli and compare these across groups (e.g. Alkhars, 2013; Gaikwad, 2013). However, such an approach will not be appropriate for this proposed study because the purpose is only to understand and described the effects of professional development on instructional methods, which only requires qualitative data. While it would be desirable to measure the effect of the professional development on the students of the participants, this is beyond the scope and resources of the researcher.

The advantage of using the case study method is that it allows the researcher to cover contextual conditions that are perceived to be pertinent and significant to the phenomenon of interest (Creswell, 2007). The case study results in an in-depth understanding of the case and is often used in the fields of psychology, law, political science, and medicine (Creswell, 2007). Case studies are also often employed when the investigator or researcher has little or no control over the events and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin, 2003). Nonetheless, case study research has been widely critiqued in the field of research. One disadvantage of doing case study research or any qualitative research in general, however, is that it has long been stereotyped as a weak research method that has insufficient precision, objectivity, or rigor (Yin, 2003).

While there are several perceived disadvantages of the case study design, such as a lack of generalizability and perceived researcher bias, these are often misconceptions stemming from the belief that the aim of all research is generalization (Flyvbjerg, 2004). Additionally, the case study method is critical in providing exemplars and generating hypotheses that may be subsequently tested in succeeding studies (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Thus, researchers often use the case study method in providing first insights about a particular phenomenon and determining critical variables and actions that can be further studied by other researchers.

Quantitative methods, on the other hand, are deemed inappropriate for the present study because the researcher aims to determine how teachers apply knowledge gained from professional development on learning and teaching styles in the reading classroom and how such use of differentiated instruction can enhance student achievement in reading, which would be best represented and analyzed using detailed information gathered through qualitative methods. This is supported by Yin (2011) who reported that while quantitative methods are perceived to be more objective, such methods cannot yield the same in-depth contextual detail that can be achieved using qualitative methods. Quantitative research often makes use of closed-ended questions and aims to confirm or deny pre-determined hypotheses (Bryman, 2012; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011), which is not the objective of the present study. Additionally, quantitative research methods are used to answer questions about relationships between measurable variables with the purpose of explaining, predicting, or controlling a phenomenon, which, again, is not the objective of the present study. Lastly, a quantitative method would not be adequate or appropriate for the present study because a deductive approach would limit the emergence of opinions and perceptions that are necessary in analyzing the issue and in developing and possible solutions.

The case study method aims for in-depth understanding of a situation, issue, or phenomenon. Thus, the case study method is deemed best suited for the present study because the aim is to understand one issue – the experience of reading teachers on modifying instructional strategies in teaching reading after undergoing professional development on the different teaching and learning styles – through the exploration of a single case, i.e. literacy teachers in a chosen county. The researcher’s collecting and analyzing explanatory data will help the researcher understand how teaching style may be involved in improving student performance; the study may focus more on the advantages that go beyond just the numbers.

            The participants will be assessed and chosen, through convenience sampling, according to their expertise and their appropriateness to represent the population of the study (Cassell & Symon, 2004). In convenience sampling, the researcher chooses participants according to specific criteria or characteristics (Acharya, Prakash, Saxena & Nigam, 2013). The assessment will be based upon the potential for the research participants to provide valuable information on the concept of different teaching styles used in the classroom because of their personal lived experience. The lived experience is based on their tenure of teaching and encountering different students every school year. Since the study will take place in one school, eight teachers in an elementary school located in a low socioeconomic neighborhood in a rural county in middle Georgia will participate in the study. Each teacher will be treated as one case in the study. As such, each case described below, is based on the demographic data collected from the participants.

1. Teacher A is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended workshops on differentiated instruction.
2. Teacher B is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
3. Teacher C is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
4. Teacher D is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
5. Teacher E is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
6. Teacher F is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
7. Teacher G is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.
8. Teacher H is female, currently teaching in the primary level and she possesses a post-graduate degree and has attended courses on differentiated instruction.

In this proposed study, the researcher will gather data by conducting semi-structured interviews and by classroom observation. The researcher will conduct two interviews with each of the participants – once before the conduct of the professional development program and once more thereafter. The researcher will utilize an interview protocol based on a study conducted by Baxter (2013) to identify teachers’ attitudes towards differentiated instruction and to determine the effects of teacher training or professional development on the implementation of differentiated instruction.

The researcher will also observe teachers in their classrooms before and after undergoing professional development. The researcher will use the checklist for observing differentiated instruction at work as developed by Subban (2014), based on Tomlinson (2013). Using both data collecting methods will allow the researcher to determine the effects of the professional development on the participants’ instructional method while also comparing the participants’ perceived effects with those observed by the researcher. All interviews will be conducted face-to-face.  As the proposed study is qualitative in nature, the researcher will maintain reliability and validity by identifying and addressing potential bias. The purpose of using qualitative interviews for data gathering is to acquire an overall description and interpretation of the phenomenon from the point-of-view of the participant (Cassell & Symon, 2004).

This case study will explore the effects of providing teachers professional development on learning styles and teaching styles on their teaching practice in reading. Specifically, this case study will determine how teachers’ use of various enhanced reading styles can be transferred from theory to practice within the reading classrooms. The researcher will provide a professional development program on teaching styles, specifically contrasting didactic teaching and constructivist teaching, to the same teachers. Four professional development sessions will be scheduled for three hours each once a week at the end of the school day. The first session will focus on describing differentiated instruction, the contexts wherein it can be used, examples of its application, and its outcomes as evidenced in research and practice. The second session will focus on training teachers to use the various differentiated instruction tools, such as tiered activities, choice boards, experimental learning lab, and others. The third session will focus on assessments in differentiated classrooms, including how to design assessments, the forms or kinds of assessments, when to carry out assessments, and how to effectively provide feedback to students. The last session will be a workshop and presentation of teacher-participants original lesson plan for differentiation.

To answer the first research question on how teachers’ instructional strategies changed as a result of learning how to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms, the researcher will use data collected from the classroom observations. Two classroom observations will be conducted, once prior to the implementation of the training sessions, and once after the teachers have completed the training sessions. As part of the data analysis procedures, the researcher will compare the data on the Tomlinson-based observation checklist, included as Appendix B, -and identify whether there are changes in the usage of differentiated instructional strategies.

To answer the second research question, which looks at how well the teachers are able to transfer the theory of differentiated instruction, learned through professional development training, into classroom practice, the researcher will again use data collected through the classroom observations. The researcher will also use data from the pre- and post-training interviews, specifically the responses to questions 5, 6, and 7 on the interview guide and compare the two sets of responses to identify any changes. The interview protocol is attached as Appendix A. The data from these two sources will be triangulated and used as the basis to address the second research question.

To answer the third research question on how comfortable teachers are with changing from their traditional instructional practices to instructional practices based on constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, the researcher will use the data collected from the post-training interviews with the teachers. Additionally, the researcher will also compare the pre-training and the post-training interview responses to identify any changes.

Among the most common techniques for analyzing case study data are pattern-matching, explanation-building, time-series analysis (Yin, 2003). For the purposes of this proposed study, the researcher will use the pattern-matching analytic strategy, wherein the researcher will compare an empirically based pattern with the predicted pattern (Yin, 2003). Specifically, the researcher will analyze whether the assumption or proposition that undergoing professional development on teaching and learning styles enhances reading teachers’ instructional strategies. If teachers who have undergone such professional development indicate and exhibit enhanced instructional strategies and methods in teaching reading, then the proposition or assumption is supported. Similarities or correspondence between the emerging pattern and the predicted pattern subsequently increases the study’s internal reliability (Yin, 2003).

Data analysis for the first research question of the study will use pre-training and post-training classroom observation data. To address the first research question, the researcher will compare the two sets of data to identify changes in the usage of differentiated instructional strategies. The pattern-matching analytic strategy will be used to analyze the qualitative data.

The second research question will be addressed using data from the pre- and post-training classroom observations, and the pre- and post-training interview data. As with the first research question, the pre-training and post-training data will be compared to identify changes, and pattern-matching analysis will be implemented to determine whether the emerging pattern matches the predicted pattern. Triangulation between the interview and classroom observation data will also be conducted to determine whether the observations based on the interview data will be supported by the classroom observation data. Lastly, to address the third research question, the researcher will use data primarily from the post-training interviews with the teachers, to be followed up by a comparison of the pre-training and post-training interview data to identify changes. Content analysis will be used to analyze this data.

The analysis of qualitative data will follow this procedure. First, the data will be processed and recorded immediately. This will be done by taking notes during each interview and observation. For the interview, the researcher will take notes for data collection and analysis purposes. Secondly, during the observation, data will be recorded using the validated checklist for observing classes implementing differentiated instruction. Using a validated observation checklist allows the researcher to collect a standard set of observation points. At the same time, taking notes while the interview or observations are occurring allows the researcher to record fresh impressions at every instance of data collection. After each interview and observation, the researcher will immediately review the notes taken during these instances of data collection to conduct a preliminary analysis of dominant themes. During these reviews, the researcher will also conduct data reduction to eliminate non-significant data.

The significance of the data will be evaluated based on the research questions and the overall purpose of the study. Data reduction will continue throughout the process as the researcher identifies meaningful patterns and themes within the data. As stated in the previous paragraph, a pattern-matching analytic strategy will be used to analyze the collected data. Pattern-matching involves comparing two patterns to determine if they are the same or different. Pattern-matching is usually conducted to match observed patterns with expected patterns (Hak & Dul, 2009). Yin (2001) describes pattern matching as the most desirable analytic strategy in case study research. In this study, the expected pattern would be that professional training would result in a change in the teachers’ attitudes on differentiated instruction, and therefore, result in a change in their classroom instructional methods as well. Data analysis will involve using the data collected through the interviews and observations to determine if the observed data matches the expected pattern.

Data analysis will involve two phases for triangulation. The first phase will concentrate on the content analysis of the transcripts from the interviews. Based on the interview transcripts, the researcher will extract themes representing the attitudes of teachers on differentiated instruction. Content analysis will be conducted twice, once before the teachers undergo training, and once after the training has been implemented. The researcher will use pattern matching analysis to determine whether participation in the teacher training program has resulted in the expected pattern of a positive change in the attitudes of teachers with the regard to differentiated instruction. Based on the results of the content analysis, the researcher will determine whether participation in a teacher training program had an effect on teacher attitudes on differentiated instruction.

The second phase of the data analysis will involve corroborating the statements of the teachers based on the data collected through classroom observations. The same procedure used on the interview transcripts will be followed. Data through classroom observations will be collected twice, once prior to the implementation of the program and once after the implementation of the training program. The post-training observation will be conducted two weeks after the training program. The researcher will identify changes in the classroom observation data and conduct a pattern matching analysis to determine whether the professional development training resulted in changes in the implementation of differentiated instruction among the teachers who will participate in the study. Data triangulation will occur with the use of classroom observation data to support or corroborate the results of the content analysis of the interview transcripts. For instance, teachers expressed changes in their views on differentiated instruction after the training program. The researcher will use the data from the classroom observations to confirm or refute these assertions.

Based on the results of the analysis, the themes drawn from the analysis will then be graphically represented using frequency tables. Additionally, the patterns that will emerge from the data will be compared with the predicted pattern (Yin, 2003). The last step in the process involves drawing conclusions and supporting these conclusions using the data collected from the study participants.

The results of the data analysis will be used to address the research questions of the study. The first and second research questions will be addressed based on the identified changes in the classroom observation data. The third research question will be addressed based on the results of the content analysis of the interview transcripts.

The involvement of human participants in the study requires the consideration of ethical academic standards. Permission will be asked from the superintendent to conduct the study and observations. Likewise, IRB approval will first be obtain prior to conducting any recruitment or data collection procedures. Participants will be given an informed consent form that outlines the policies and procedures that will be implemented in the study to protect participant privacy and data confidentiality. Participants will be required to sign the inform consent forms prior to participation. The researcher will also assure participants that the data collected will only be used for this study and no other purpose. While anonymity cannot be achieved in this study, participant privacy will be protected by using pseudonyms, such as “Teacher A” or “Teacher B.” No names will be used in this study, including drafts and the final version of the dissertation. The participants will also be informed that the current study poses no foreseeable risks for participating in the study. The voluntary nature of participation will also be emphasized to the participants.

In qualitative studies, trustworthiness is the counterpart of validity in quantitative studies, while dependability is the counterpart of reliability in quantitative studies. Trustworthiness will be achieved in this study by implementing the procedure of member checking, where the study participants will be asked to review the transcripts of their interviews. This step allows participants to make corrections or clarification to ensure that the transcripts accurately represent their views. Dependability of the study findings will be enhanced by using the results of the classroom observation to support assertions regarding the changes, or lack thereof, in the beliefs, attitudes, and instructional methods on differentiated instruction. This will serve as a form of data triangulation to enhance the validity and reliability of the study findings. Lastly, the use of an empirically tested interview protocol and previously validated classroom observation checklist should also contribute to the overall trustworthiness and dependability of the study findings.

The researcher’s experiences as an educator have resulted in having personal opinions and beliefs about the ideal instructional methods for teaching reading and literacy. As such, there is a potential for research bias that may result from the researcher’s orientation and experience. To address this concern, the researcher will utilize a qualitative analysis software program called NVivo v. 8.0 to process the data. The use of the software may help with conducting an objective analysis of qualitative data. The use of multiple sources of data, in the form of interview transcripts and observation checklists, will help with ensuring that the study conclusions are supported by empirical data collected for the study. Similarly, the researcher is also acquainted with the school where the study will be conducted. As such, there is a risk of coercion for potential study participants. To address this risk, the researcher will clarify that participating in the study will strictly be on a voluntary basis, and that there will be no negative social or job-related consequences for declining to participate in the study.

There are several limitations that must be considered for this study. First, since this study will be conducted in just one school, it should be considered that the findings of this study may not necessarily be generalizable to other areas. The social and economic circumstances of the school may also play a role in influencing the attitudes of the teachers with regard to implementing differentiated instruction. Similarly, the resources available to each school also differ, which can also have an effect on the feasibility of implementing differentiated instruction in the classroom. Also, the small sample size of the study also limits the generalizability of the study findings. Third, it should also be noted that while the Tomlinson observation checklist has been used in research studies (Baxter, 2013) and an assessment of the instrument’s face and content validity indicates that it is acceptable for collecting data for this study, the reliability of the tool has yet to be established. This will be discussed as such in the final chapter of the study and addressed with specific recommendations.

Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and How of it? Indian Journal of Medical Specialities, 4(2), 330-333. doi:10.7713/ijms.2013.0032

Al-Duwaila, A. (2012). A comparative study between Kuwait’s government and private sector primary schools in methods of teaching and pupils’ achievement in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation). Brunel University, London.

Alkhars, D.A.M.A. (2013). Creativity in English language teaching in Kuwait: a TESOL study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, Devon.

American Federation of Teachers. (2011). Where we stand: Standards-based assessment and accountability. Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, A.G. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Andrade, H. (2008). Self-assessment through rubrics. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 60–63.

Allington, R.L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. Elementary School Journal 83: 548-559.

Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York, NY: Longman.

Arhar, Joanne M. (1997). The effects of interdisciplinary teaming on students and teachers. In Judith L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 49-56). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. ED 427 847.

Avalos, M. A. (2006). No two learners are alike: Learners with linguistic and cultural differences. In J. S. Schumm (Ed.), Reading assessment and instruction for all learners (pp. 59–86). New York: Guilford.

Bailey, D., & Paisley, P. (2004). Developing and nurturing excellence in African American make adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 10–17.

Banks, J. A. (2003). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 242–261). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The truth about the male and female brain: The essential difference. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Baxter, J. D. (2013). How teacher training affects the implementation of differentiated instruction at the elementary level (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (3551590).

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

Bean, T.W. (1997a). Preservice teachers’ selection and use of content area literacy strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 154-163.

Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Beers, G.W. (2005). “The effect of learning method on objective test scores: Problem-based learning vs lecture.” The Journal of Nursing Education (44), 7, p305-309

Benjamin, A. (2002). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: Best teaching practices for general and special educator. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Bharuthram, S. (2012). Making a case for the teaching of reading across the curriculum in higher education. South African Journal of Education, 32, 205-214.

Blackwell, P. J., Futrell, M. H., & Imig, D. G. (2003). Burnt water paradoxes of schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 286–289.

Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science: results from survey of enacted curriculum project. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Brady, P. (2005). Inclusionary and exclusionary secondary schools: The effect of school culture on student outcomes. Interchange, 36, 295–311.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18–24.

Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, J., & Shavelson, R. (1994). Does your testing match your teaching style? Instructor 103(7), 86–89.

Bruner, J. (1996). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Burke, B., Arkowitz, H., & Dunn, C. (2002). The efficacy of motivational interviewing. In W. R. Miller & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., pp. 217–250). New York: Guilford Press.

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Cassell, C.M. and Symon, G. (2004) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in

Organizational Research. London: Sage.

Center for Public Education. (2012). The United States of education: The changing demographics of the United States and their schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Clark, R.E. (Ed.). (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). Eleven practical ways to guide teachers toward differentiation. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 20–25.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cole, D. J., Ryan, C. W., & Kick, F. (1995). Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the common core state standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved July 23, 2013 from http://www.achievethecore.org/stealthesetools

Comings, J., Reder, S., & Sum, A. (2002). Building a level playing field: The need to expand and improve the national and state adult education systems. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Compass Learning (2000). Compass Learning Odyssey. Austin, TX: Author. eTech Ohio (2008). Enhancing education through technology new grant recipients. Request for proposals. Columbus, OH: Author.

Connell, J. D. (2005). Brain-based strategies to reach every learner. New York, NY: Scholastics.

Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects—Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf

Covey, S.R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill/Pearson Education.

Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 1149-1157. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0319

Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980 (1^st ed.). Research on Teaching Monograph Series.

D’Ambrosio, B.S., Boone, W.J., & Harkness, S.S. (2004). Planning district-wide professional development: Insights gained from teachers and students regarding mathematics teaching in a large urban district. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 5-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb17977.x

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Standards and accountability movement needs to push, not punish. Journal of Staff Development, 28(4), 47–50.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat world of education: How America’s commitment to equality will determine our future: New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Davis, A. (2000). Making classroom assessment work. Courtenay, British Columbia: Connections Publishing.

Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silence dialogue: power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review 58, 3: 280-298.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(8), 600-615

Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and Education: The 60th anniversary edition, lecture part. Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Durkins, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 15: 481-533.

Drapeau, P. (2004). Differentiated instruction making it work: A practical guide to planning, managing, and implementing differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all learners. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Duffy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Elmore, R. (2002). Leading Learning Communities: Set High Expectations and Standards. [Video presentation]. Collaborative Communications Group. Retrieved from http://programs.educationalimpact.com/topics/index.cfmses =881754&&videoNum=1&CFID=153177&CFTOKEN=82541151

Elliott, Jane (2005) Using narrative in social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches London : Sage , 2005

Ernest, J. M., Heckaman, K. A., Thompson, S. E., Hull, K. M., & Carter, S. W. (2011). Increasing the teaching efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: A case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191-201.

Falk, B. (2002). Standards-based reforms: Problems and possibilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 612–620.

Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88. doi:10.1080/00461521003704738

Foucault, A. (2008). Differentiation tips for parents. Retrieved from http://comunityed. stma.k12.mn.us/curriculum/Differentiation_Tips_for_Parents.php.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2010). Guided instruction: How to develop confident and successful learners. Alexandira, VA: ASCD.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case study research. In C. Seale., G. Gobo., J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 390-404). London, UK: Sage.

Furtak, E., & Kunter, M. (2012). Effects of autonomy-supportive teaching on student learning and motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3). 284-316. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.573019

Gaikwad, V. (2013). The impact of a visual approach used in the teaching of grammar when embedded into writing instruction: A study on the writing development of Chinese first year university students in a British university in China (Doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, Devon.

Gallagher, C. (2000). Teaching elementary gifted students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302–308.

Gallagher, K. (2004). Deeper reading: Comprehending challenging texts, 4–12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Garnet, K. (1996). Thinking about inclusion and learning disabilities: A teacher guide. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED396486)

Gartin, B. C., Murdick, N., L., Imbeau, M., & Perner, D. E. (2002). How to use differentiated instruction with students with developmental disabilities in the general education classroom. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 96–101

Georgia Department of Education. (2012a). About the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2013.aspx?PageReq=About NCLBAYP2013

Georgia Department of Education. (2012b). Adequate yearly progress: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2010.aspx

Georgia Department of Education. (2012c). Curriculum frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastandards.org/faqs .aspx#q4

Georgia School Council Institute. (2012). Reports. Retrieved from http://www.gsci.org/ ReportCenter/reportcenter.jsp

Gersten, R. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publicationspracticeguides/

Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and differentiated instruction with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33(1/2), 11-46. doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.630605

Given, B. (2002). Teaching to the brain’s natural learning systems. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (2008). Making data-driven decisions: How to use data to select second indicators for adequately yearly progress. Retrieved http://reprtcard2007.gaosa.org/k12/reports.aspX?ID=715:ALL&TESTKEY=C*8&TestType=qcc

Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. M. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-based classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Grobe, W.J. & McCall, D. (2004). Valid uses of student testing as part of authentic and comprehensive student assessment, school reports, and school system accountability. Educational Horizons, 82(2), 131-142.

Graham, L. & Wong, B.L.W (1993). “Comparing two modes of teaching a question-answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and self-instructional training.” Journal of Learning Disabilities (26), 4, p270-280

Guskey, T. R. (2005). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–758.

Hakverdi-Can, M. & Sonmez, D. (2012). Learning how to design a technology supported inquiry-based learning environment. Science Education International, 23(4), 338-352.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

Hargreaves, A., & Macmillian, R. (1992). Balkanized secondary schools and malaise of modernity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123–144.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 8–12.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Hemphil, S. & Duffield J. (2007). Nuts and bolts of a district improvement in Maryland centers on the staff development teacher. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 50-54.

Henriquez, A., & Riconscente, M. (1998). Rhode Island teachers and technology initiative: Findings from the pilot implementation year. New York, NY: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.

Heo, Y. (2007). The impact of multimedia anchored instruction on the motivation to learn of students with and without learning disabilities placed in inclusive middle school language arts classes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 2007). Dissertations Abstracts International, 6812A, 5031.

Hoerr, T. (2003). It’s no fad: Fifteen years of implementing multiple intelligences. Educational Horizons, 81(2), 92–94.

Hoover, J. J. (2004). Differentiated standard-based education for students with diverse needs [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 25(2), 74–78.

Howard, P. J. (1994). The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from the mind brain research. Austin, TX: Bard Production.

Iutcovich, J. (2002). What is scientifically based research? Footnoes: Newsletter of the American Sociological Association, 30(4). Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/apr02/fn2.html

Jarvis, P. (2002). The theory & practice of teaching. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Johnson, J. (1989). Or none of the above. The Science Teacher 56(4), 57–61.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.

Kaftan, J., Buck, G., & Haack, A. (2006). Using formative assessments to individualize instruction and promote learning. Middle School Journal, 37(4), 44–49.

Kamil, M. L., (2003). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. ,Kamil, P. B.,Mosenthal, P. D.,Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 771–788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From the war on poverty to the war on welfare. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Keller, B. (2006). Payne’s pursuit. Education Week, 25(34).

Kindle, K. J., & Schmidt, C. M. (2013). Developing preservice teachers: a self-study of instructor scaffolding. Reading Improvement, 50(3), 83-100.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K. & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation’s future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service

Kuykendall, C. (2004). From rage to hope. (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the test. Phi Delta Kappan, 28(5), 348–360.

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards based learning that benefits the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34–62.

Le Moigne, J. (2011). From Jean Piaget to Ernst von Glasersfeld: An epistemological itinerary in review. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 152-156.

Lennon, C. & Burdick. H. (2004). The Lexile Framework as an approach for reading measurement and success. MetaMetrics, Inc.

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81, 161–164.

Lewin, L., & Shoemaker, B. (1998). Great performances. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Li, Z., Cheng, Y., & Liu, C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game-like learning systems: Its effect on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 208-224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01305.x

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lieberman, J. M., & Wilkins, E. A. (2006). The Professional Development Pathways Model: From Policy to Practice. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(3), 124–128.

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Statement for the Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http.www.plato.com/pdf /teleconference _session3_lyon1.pdf

Mahoney, J., & Cairns, R. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 241–253.

Majumder, A.A.M (2004). Pros and Cons of Problem-based learning. Bangladesh Medical Journal, 33, 67-69.

Mapp, K. L. & Henderson, A.T. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from http://www.sedl.org

Marsh, H. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 553–562.

Marshall, J., & Sorto, M.M. (2012). The effects of teacher mathematics knowledge and pedagogy on student achievement in rural Guatemala. International Review of Education, 58, 173-197, doi:10.1007/s11159-012-9276-6

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Maton, K. I., Hrabowski, F. A., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Preparing the way: A qualitative study of high-achieving African American males and the role of the family. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4), 639-668.

McBride, B. (2004). Data-driven instructional methods: “One-strategy-fits-all” doesn’t work in real classrooms. T.H.E Journal, 31(11), 38–40.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Shephard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards based reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.

McMillian, M. (2003). Is No Child Left Behind wise schooling for African American male students? The High School Journal, 87(2), 25–33.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across the ages and genres. In J. P. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1999). The understanding by design handbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Meier, D. (2002). Standardization versus standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 190–198.

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Mitchell, R. D. (1998). World class teachers: When top teachers earned National Board certification. The American School Board Journal, 185(9), 27–29.

Mitchell-Barrett, R. (2010). An analysis of the storyline method in primary school: Its theoretical underpinnings and its impact on pupils’ intrinsic motivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University, Durham.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. (A. E. George, trans). New York: Stokes.

Morgan, P.L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s reading skills and reading motivation? Council for Exceptional Children, 73,165–183.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Association for Core Curriculum. (2000). A bibliography of research on the effectiveness of block-time, core, and interdisciplinary team teaching programs. Kent, OH: National Association for Core Curriculum.

The National Education Goals Panel’s Technical Planning Group on School Readiness (1993) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

National Council of Teachers of Reading. (2011). Closing the achievement gap. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/about/content .aspx?id=6350

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2008). Adolescent literacy and older students with learning disabilities: A report from the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved September 7, 2013 from http//www. ldonline.org/njcld.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2009). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from http://www .annenberinstitute.org

Newman, F. M. Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: what it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods. Pearson Education.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003)

Novak, J. (1998) Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; New Jersey, pp 24-25

O’Conner, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 43–54.

Olson, K. (2009). Wounded by school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Panasuk, R. M., & Todd, J. (2005). Effectiveness of lesson planning: Factor analysis. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(3), 215–232.

Pearson, P.D., and Fielding, L.G. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. II, edited by R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Peason New York: Longman.

Performance Matters. (2012). Griffin-Spalding County Schools closes gaps and achieves CRCT and EOCT gains with Performance Matters. Retrieved from http://www9.performancematters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KB-New-Format-Griffin-SpaldingGA_v2.pdf

Perin, D. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing to adolescents. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 242-264). New York: Guilford.

Piaget J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pogrow, S. (2005). HOTS revisited: A thinking development approach to reducing the learning gap after grade 3. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 64–67.

Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College Careers. (2011). PARCC model content frameworks: English language arts/literacy grades 3–11. Retrieved from http://www.parccolin.org

Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93.

Pryor, J., Akyeampong, K., Westbrook, J., & Lussier, K. (2012). Rethinking teacher preparation and professional development in Africa: an analysis of the curriculum of teacher education in the teaching of early reading and mathematics. Curriculum Journal, 23(4), 409-502. doi:10.1080/09585176.2012.747725

Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27, 303–311.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Making standards work: How to implement standards-based assessments in the classroom, school, and district. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning.

Rhodes, L. K., & Shanklin, N. L. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learners, K–8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E. & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACG: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2): 31–47.

Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieved practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27.

Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schnick, T., & Knickelbine,M. (2000). The lexile framework: An introduction for educators. Durham, NC:MetaMetrics.

Scholastic Inc. (2011). Read 180° next generation: Research foundation paper. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/read180/pdfs/READ180_ResearchFoundation_NextGeneration_2011.pdf

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 339–349.

Siegler, R.S. & Richards, D.D. (1982). The development of intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning in the cooperative school. Educational Leadership 45, 3: 7-13.

Slavin, R., Cheung, S., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.

Song, M., & Miskel, C. (2002). Interest groups in national reading policy: Perceived influence and beliefs on teaching reading. CIERA Report. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading failure in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360-407.

Stiggins, R.J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.

Strassman, B. K. (2005). Differentiated instruction in the English classroom: Content, process, product, and assessment. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 358–359.

Subban, P. (2014, September). Differentiated instruction at work: The creation of a checklist for beginning and pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the South Africa International Conference on Education, Pretoria, South Africa.

Sutton, R. (1995). Assessment for learning. Salford, UK: RS Publications.

Swanson, E.A., Wexler, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Text reading and students with learning disabilities. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 210-230). New York: The Guilford Press.

Theroux, P. (2001). Comparing traditional teaching and student centered, collaborative learning. Retrieved September 1, 2013 from www.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/collaborative.html

Tjosvold, D., Marino, P.M., & Johnson, D. (1977). The effects of cooperation and competition on student reactions to inquiry and didactic science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14( 4), 281-288.

Thompson, S. (2001). The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 358–362.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff development: Teacher leaders can help educators hurdle four key barriers to implementation. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 8–12.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.

Tulbure, C. (2011). “Do different learning styles require differentiated teaching strategies?” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 155-159.

Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195-212.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). State and country quick facts. Retrieved from http://www .quickfacts .census.gov/qfd/states/13/13233.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). State and country quick facts. Retrieved from http://www. quickfacts .census.gov/qfd/states/13/13233.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010).Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf.

Valentino, C. (2000). Flexible grouping. Retrieved from October 7, 2013 from http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/valentino.html#author

Van Sciver, J. H. (2005). NCLB fitfully fits differentiated instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 534–535.

Vars, Gordon F. (1993). Interdisciplinary Teaching: Why and How: Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Vars, Gordon F. (1996). Effects of interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction. In Peter S. Hlebowitsh & William G. Wraga (Eds.), Annual Review of Researchers for School Leaders. (pp. 147-164). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals and Scholastic Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481–546.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(2). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Developing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: ASCD.

Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: the role of social support in the first‐year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707-722. doi: 10.1080/03075070500340036

Wilson, M. (2012). Students’ Learning Style Preferences and Teachers’ Instructional Strategies: Correlations between Matched Styles and Academic Achievement. SRATE Journal, 22(1), 36-44.

Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2003). Courageous Learners: Unleashing the brainpower of students from at-risk situations. Orlando, FL: BrainSMART Publishing.

Wolfe, P., & Nevills, P. (2004). Building the reading brain, Pre-K–3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zill, N. (1996). Family change and student achievement: What we have learned, what it means for schools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Appendix A

Interview Protocol (Based on Baxter)

1. How would you define differentiated instruction?
2. Can you describe your training background with regard to differentiated instruction?
3. How do you use differentiated instruction in your classroom?
4. How often do you differentiate in your classroom?
5. How did your training background influence your implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom?
6. How comfortable are you with differentiated instruction and your ability to implement it in your classroom?
7. Do you feel that differentiated instruction helps struggling students or higher achieving students most? Explain.
8. Do you believe that differentiated instruction can help with discipline issues in the classroom? Explain.

Appendix B

Observation Checklist

Appendix C

Permission to Use Tomlinson’s Observation Checklist