DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION
-Does it Affect student’s
Understanding And Outcomes?
Janice Congreaves
ED. 7202T
Fall 2010
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Review of related literature
Results
Method
Participants (N)
Implications
Instruments (s)
Experimental Design
Procedure
Discussion
Threats to Internal
and External Validity
References
With the inclusion of students from non-English backgrounds,
disabilities, diverse cultural backgrounds, in today’s classroom,
educators are looking to teaching and learning strategies that cater
for a variety of learning styles.
As a result, differentiated instruction has been gaining ground in
many educational circles.
Differentiated instruction which has been defined as a philosophy
of teaching that is based on the premise that students learn best
when their differences are accommodated, is an innovative way of
thinking about teaching and learning.
Being able to identify a student’s learning style and to teach to
accommodate these can assist students to achieve better results
academically and improve their attitudes to learning.
Regular classroom teachers make very few
modifications in their instructions to suit the
learning preferences of the students in their
classroom. There is the tendency “to teach to
the middle,” which can result in poor
academic results and attitudes to learning.
Pros:
(Robert Gagne, Dunn and Dunn, Howard Gardner).
Each of these theorist address the idea that
students are not made from the same cookie cutter
mold, and teaching should be adjusted
accordingly.
Gagne in his Condition of Learning stipulates that
there are several different types or levels of
learning. The significance of these classification is
that each different type of learning requires
different type of instruction.
Gardner describes learning differences through his
multiple intelligences theory. According to his
theory, humans have at least eight ways of being
intelligent or talented about the world. (Gardner
1999).
Dunn and Dunn learning styles model is buildt on
the theory that each individual has a unique set of
biological and developmental characteristics. These
unique characteristics impact substantially on how
a person learns new information and skills. (Good
& Brophy ,1986).
Vygotsky stresses the importance of looking at
each child as an individual who learns distinctively.
Consequently, the knowledge and skills that are
worthwhile learning varies with the individual.
(Vygotsky,1962).
Tomlinson, a renown educator states that “the
differentiated classroom balances learning needs
common to all students, with more specific needs
tagged to individual learners” ( Tomlinson, 2001).
Differentiation can liberate students from labels ,
offering students individual opportunities to
perform at their best (Tomlinson, 2003)
Implementing Differentiated instruction exposes
students to a variety of learning strategies and
experiences, which helps them to be successful in
our democratic society. When this happens, the
level of student engagement increases because
students are working at their ability and interest
levels.
Doyle and Ruterford (1984) states that
learners differ in a wide variety of ways and
these differences are likely to influence how
they respond to and benefit from a given
instructional method or program. If
instruction is adapted to specific intellectual
or emotional ‘aptitudes’ then it would seem
that in comparison to standard teaching
situations, more students would reach higher
level of achievement.
Differentiated instruction, when implemented
effectively, can be a solution to managing
mixed-ability classrooms, reducing boredom,
increasing motivation, improving behavior,
and close educational gaps.
Differentiated instruction is a lot of work, but
the students love it, frustration levels are
lowered, and deeper understanding occurs
(Scherer,2000).
Cons:
Many teachers do not feel equipped to differentiate
for a class of diverse needs and disabilities with an
in-service training.
Planning for differentiating instruction is time
consuming.
Few teachers have the time, energy or support for
making substantial changed in how they teach, let
alone the opportunity to arrive at a determination
to do so. (Neely & Alm, 1992).
HR1. Grouping 28 second grade students at
P.S. X in Brooklyn, N.Y. by learning styles
will improve their math score over a four
week period.
Participants
Twenty-eight second grade students at an
elementary school in an urban community in
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Thirteen girls and fifteen boys.
General education classroom.
Instruments:
Consent Form to Principal
Student Survey
Math Assessment - 2 Pretest – 1 without D.I, 1 with
D.I. (using Everyday Math
program).
-1 Posttest (using Everyday Math
program).
Pre-Experimental design: one group pretestPost test design.
Single group pretested (O), exposed to a
treatment (X), and post tested (O).
Symbolic design: OXO.
Groups were not randomly selected.
Students were given a pretest without differentiation at the end
of Unit 1in September. Students were then asked to complete a
survey that best describes how they like to learn.
Based on students responses on the survey, students were
designated as global or analytical learners using the Dunn and
Dunn Learning Style Inventory. There were 17 analytical learners
and 11 global learners.
Students were given a second pretest in October in their
preferred learning style.
Over a four week period, students were taught math concepts
covered in Unit 3 in Everyday Math in their preferred learning
style.
Students were then post tested in December on Unit 3.
All data collected was used in the study.
Student
#
1
2
7
9
13
22
24
25
26
18
Global Learners
Pretest Pretest Posttest
w/o D.I with D.I. with D.I.
67
64
57
37
60
47
47
69
60
60
84
67
90
95
80
60
80
80
73
82
57
33
47
47
43
58
67
73
49
50
100
90
80
70
60
Pretest w/o D.I
50
Pretest with D.I.
40
Posttest with D.I.
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Analytical Learners
Analytical Learners
Student Pretest Pretest Posttest
#
w/o D.I. with D.I. with D.I.
3
40
73
50
4
100
100
80
5
97
93
90
6
73
91
67
8
90
82
57
10
97
82
100
11
93
100
100
12
80
67
60
14
70
73
60
15
33
38
33
16
87
67
55
17
90
84
63
19
100
91
73
20
77
95
100
21
100
100
97
23
100
73
97
120
100
80
Pretest w/o D.I.
60
Pretest with D.I.
Posttest with D.I.
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Averages
Pretest w/o
D.I
Pretest
with D.I.
Post test
with D.I.
GLOBAL
60%
66%
58%
ANALYTICAL
81%
81%
73%
The data was analyzed by looking at the overall
change in student’s pre-post test scores.
Analytical learners did not show any
improvement in math scores . There was a
decrease in their post test scores. Their pretest
scores were 81% and their posttest scores were
73%.
Global learners also did not show any increase in
math scores. Their pretest scores were 60% and
66% and their posttest scores were 58%.
Correlation of students sitting on cushions or on the floor when they work
and test sores
.
Survey Question 11:
I like sitting on cushions
or on the floor when I work.
90
M
a
80
t
70
h
60
S
50
c
40
Series1
o
30
Linear (Series1)
r
e
s
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
Global Learners
Correlation was found between students lying on cushions or on the floor when they work
in math and test scores. There was a positive correlation rxy =0.126.
Correlation between students who like to work at a desk.
Survey question5:
I like to work sitting
at a desk.
120
100
80
y
60
Linear (y)
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
Correlation was found between students who like to work sitting at
their desk.
There was a positive correlation of rxy = 0.112
The Dunn and Dunn Learning Inventory used in this
research project was an abbreviated one and was
hand scored by the researcher. As such it may not
be as accurate as the complete survey.
When student responses to the survey indicated
opposite answers to what was in effect the same
question, the researcher had no basis for
determining which response was a true
representation of the students’ preference.
This research project sought to examine the
effectiveness of learning styles on the
improvement of math scores.
The findings did not support the
hypothesis- that learning styles had an
effect on math scores.
The research possibly requires a longer
period of study to truly investigate whether
learning styles has an effect on math
scores.
Internal Threats to Validity
External Threats to Validity
History
Ecological Validity
Maturation
Selection Treatment Interaction
Testing
Experimenter Effects
Instrumentation
Reactive Arrangements/
Participants Effects
Statistical Regression
Differential Selection
Anderson, K.M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Journal of School Failure, 57(2), 49-54.
Retrieved February 23, 2010, from ERIC database.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S., M. (2008). Closing the gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: one school ‘s story.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from ERIC database.
Cox, S. (20080. Differentiated instruction in the elementary classroom. Education Digest, 52-54. Retrieved February 23,
2010 , from ERIC database.
Cuthbert, P.F. (2005). The student learning process: learning styles or learning approaches? Teaching In Higher
Education, 10(2), 235-245. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning Styles: an overview of theories, models and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.
Retrieved April 07, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Dembo, M.H., & Howard, K. (2007). Advice about the use of learning styles: a major myth in education. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 101-109. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from ERIC database.
Doyle, W., Ruterford, B.(1984). Classroom research on matching learning and teaching styles. Theory and Practice, 23(1),
20-25. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: practical approaches
for grades 3-6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Olson, J., Beasley, M. & Gorman, B.S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn
model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362. Retrieved April 13, 2010,
from JSTOR database.
Dunn, R., Honnigsfeld, A., Doolan, L. S., Bostrom, L., Russo, M.S, Schiering, B.S., & Tenedero, H., (2009). Impact of
learning-style instructional strategies on students’ achievement and attitudes: perceptions of educators in diverse
institutions. The Clearing House, 88(3), 135-140. Retrieved April 13, 2010, from ERIC database.
Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on effective teaching practices to meet
the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education, 126(3), 580-592. Retrieved April 13,2010, from ERIC database.
George, P.s. (2005). A rational for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 185-193.
Retrieved April 13, 2010 from ERIC database.
Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to implementing differentiation: lack of confidence, efficacy and perseverance. The NERA
Journal, 44(2), 11-16. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Wilson database.
Keefe, J. W. (1985). Assessment of learning style variables: the NASSP task force model. Theory into Practice, 24(2), 138 144. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Klien, P.D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternatives to
“learning styles” and “multiple intelligences”. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 45-81. Retrieved April 13, 2010,
from JSTOR database.
Levy, H. (228). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction; helping every child reach and exceed
standards. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies; Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161-164.
Neely, R.O., Alm, D. (1992). Meeting individual needs: a learning styles success story. The Clearing House, 66(2).109-113.
Retrieved April 13, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Pierce, R. L., Adams, C., M., (2004). Tiered lessons: one way to differentiate mathematics instruction. Gifted Child Today,
27(2), 58-65. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from Wilson database.
Pitts, J., (2009). Identifying and using a teacher- friendly learning-styles instrument. The Clearing House, 82(5), 225-231.
Retrieved April 27, 2010, from Eric database.
Rock, M. L., Gregg M., Ellis E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: a framework for differentiating classroom instruction.
Journal of School Failure, 57(2), 31-47. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from ERIC database.
Reynolds, J., Gerstein, M. (1992). Learning styles characteristics: introductory workshop. The Clearing House, 66(2), 122126. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from JSTOR database.
Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (1995). The importance of learning styles: understanding the implications for learning, course
design and education, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms, 2nd ed, chapter 2. Retrieved
February 22, 2010, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101043/chapters/
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: one school’s journey. Gifted Children
Quarterly of the Gifted, 39(2), 77-87. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://gcq.sagepub.com
Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.M., Moon, T.R, Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A., & Reynolds, T.
(2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically
diverse classrooms; a rewiew of literature. Journal for the Education of theGgifted, 27(2/3), 119-145. Retrieved
February 22, 2010, from Wilson database.