A Teacher's Perception Percep PDF

A Teacher’s Perception: Perception of the impact of Differentiated Instruction
By
Donna Latrice Gilbert, Ed.S.
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty

of Jones International University for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Judith Orth, Ph.D. (Chair)
Angela R. Lewis, Ph.D.
Ali Mageehon, Ph.D.
2012
UMI Number: 3508263
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3508263
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI Number: 3508263
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3508263
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2012
Donna Latrice Gilbert, Ed.S.
Abstract
This qualitative case study explored teachers’ perceptions regarding how differentiated
instruction can impact elementary school students’ learning in a school in upper east
Tennessee. When implemented correctly, differentiated instruction enables teachers to
give all students an opportunity to have academic progress within a diverse classroom.
The concept of differentiated instruction has been used since the one room school houses
in the 1600’s (Gundlach, 2011). Teachers have used individualized instruction to meet
the needs of all of their students. This qualitative case study was conducted at one
elementary school that serves approximately 496 students in grades K-4th. Fifteen self-
selected teachers from different grade levels participated in this study. Of which, twelve
participants were female and three were male. Each completed a five-point Likert scale
survey and all participated in either, a face-to-interview, phone interview, or submitted
his or her interview electronically. Two overall themes that were found in the study: (a)
100% (15 out of 15) teachers had a positive response to the question: In your opinion,
does differentiated instruction impact student’s learning? (b) 66.6% (10 out of 15)
teachers agreed that differentiated instruction does have a positive effect on some student
learning. Insight gained from this qualitative case study was used to formulate a
theoretical model that teachers can use to implement differentiated instruction and to
understand the affects that their perceptions about differentiated instruction may have on
their student’s learning. In addition, information gained from the study will inform future
teaching practices and increase the understanding of teaching strategies and the impact
that they have upon student learning.

Dedication
This research study is dedicated to the memory of my great- great grandmother,
Leanna H. Logan, my grandmothers, Lizzie W. Campbell and Corrine Jordan, my
grandfathers, Willie Campbell, Sr., and Clyde Jordan, Sr. They are the ones who paved
the way with their hard work, love and prayers; and who taught me to be committed to
achieve the highest level possible as I continue my path of being a life-long learner. They
also instilled in me that “Education is key” to being successful in life.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians, 4:13).
I give all thanks and glory to God, for all the blessings He gives me each and every day
and the life changing opportunity to be a part of the Jones International University
Program.
Acknowledgements
To all my committee members: Dr. Judith Orth (Chair), Dr. Angela R. Lewis, and
Dr. Ali Mageehon, I would like to thank you all for your expertise, patience, guidance,
and support you have given me throughout this dissertation process.
To my parents, Nathaniel and Mandy Jordan, who taught me that strong work
ethics, faith, to always value education because it is priceless, and determination, would
allow me to accomplish anything I want to do.
To my only sister, Angela Jordan-Jones and her family, thank you all for your
love and support in all my life and educational endeavors.
To my husband, Derrick, thank you for your faith in God,
prayers, unconditional love, support, strength, staying up with me when I had to “burn the
midnight oil” to get my assignments completed, helping me take care of our family, and
being the man of “my dreams”.
To my three sons, Jacques, Jawan, and Jarin “Dominique”, thank you boys for
always believing in your “Mom”, as I have tried to instill in your lives the love of
learning and having core values that are key in whatever path in life you choose.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................ix
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................x
Chapter I: Introduction to the Study ......................................................................................1

Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................3
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................4
Research Question .....................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................5
Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................6
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................7
Assumptions, Limitation, and Scope .........................................................................10
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................12
Conclusion .................................................................................................................13
Chapter II: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................15

Introduction ................................................................................................................15
Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................................17
History of Differentiated Instruction .........................................................................21
Differentiated Instruction Defined Regarding this Study ..........................................24
Challenges with Differentiated Instruction ................................................................26
Teachers’ Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction ..................................................27
Establishing Differentiated Instruction in a School ...................................................29
Success with Differentiated Instruction .....................................................................32
Conclusion and Implications......................................................................................34
Chapter III: Methodology ......................................................................................................36

Introduction ................................................................................................................36
Statement of Methodology .........................................................................................37
Research Question .....................................................................................................38
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................39
vii
Research Setting.........................................................................................................39
Participants .................................................................................................................39
Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................................40
Researcher Bias/Assumptions....................................................................................41
Limitations .................................................................................................................41
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................42
Data Collection Process .............................................................................................43
Data Collection Method .............................................................................................44
Timeline of the Study.................................................................................................45
Validity and Reliability ..............................................................................................46
Survey ........................................................................................................................46
Interview ....................................................................................................................47
Conclusion .................................................................................................................47
Chapter IV : Results................................................................................................................49
Introduction ................................................................................................................49
Survey Analysis .........................................................................................................50
Interview Analysis .....................................................................................................55
Reduction ...................................................................................................................61
Theme Analysis .........................................................................................................62
Synthesis ....................................................................................................................63
Findings......................................................................................................................65
Evidence of Quality ...................................................................................................65
Conclusion .................................................................................................................66
Chapter V: Conclusion ...........................................................................................................68

Overview of Study .....................................................................................................68
Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................69
Significance/Contributions to the Field .....................................................................70
Recommendations for Action/Further Study .............................................................71
Limitations .................................................................................................................74
Conclusion .................................................................................................................75
References ..............................................................................................................................77
Appendices .............................................................................................................................87
Appendix A: Approval to Conduct Research ............................................................89
Appendix B: IRB Approval .......................................................................................91
Appendix C: CITI Certification .................................................................................93
Appendix D: Turnitin Report .....................................................................................95
Appendix E: Jones International University Informed Consent – Teacher ...............97
Appendix F: Survey for Teachers ..............................................................................103
Appendix G: Interview Questions for Teachers ........................................................106
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Howard Gardner's Eight Multiple Intelligences ...................................................18
Table 2.2: Common research-based Differentiated Instructional Strategies .........................31
Table 3.1: Student Population by Ethnic Diversity ...............................................................39
Table 3.2: Demographics of Self-Selected Participants ........................................................40
Table 3.3: Timeline of the Study ...........................................................................................45
Table 4.1: Self-Selected Participant Responses to Questions 1-3 .........................................55
ix
List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Summary of responses for Teacher Survey Question 1 (n=15) ..........................50
Figure 4.10: Summary of responses for Teacher Survey Question 10 (n=15) ......................55
x
1
Chapter I: Introduction
Introduction
Each year as classrooms become increasingly diverse, educators have the
incredible challenge of teaching all students. With the increase in classroom diversity,
school systems have had to meet not only the academic needs, but the emotional and
social needs of students with different degrees of academic diversity (Lenz, Deshler, &
Kissam, 2004). Academic diversity within a classroom refers to the varying range of
academic performance of all the students (Lenz, Deshler, & Kissam, 2004). Diversities,
as well as, the way students learn and process information is a major topic discussed in
education literature. According to Santamaria & Thousand (2004), “a central concern of
U.S. educational stakeholders is to ensure equitable access to the core curriculum for all
children” (p.13). “As a result, school administrators and district personnel are scrambling
to meet the needs of all of their students” (Santamaria & Thousand, 2004, p. 13).
Schools have begun to emphasize accountability and academic progress for all students.
Therefore, professional collaboration is a critical aspect of planning accommodations and
interventions that address the learning needs of diverse learners (Carter, Jackson,
2
Marchant, & Prater, 2009). The use of differentiated instruction is one model that is used
to address the issues of academic diversity and academic progress.
According to Tomlinson (2004), the concept of differentiated instruction is
comprised of the role of teachers in developing effective curriculum and instruction for
students, learner responsibility in differentiation, and the function of an effective
classroom. The richest and most responsive classrooms are those in which responsibility
for developing both the individual and the group is a shared endeavor (Tomlinson, 2004).
Differentiation is an opportunity to model a world in which adults and the young share
responsibility for making things work for themselves and others around them
(Tomlinson, 2004). The concept of differentiated instruction can be defined in many
ways, such as (a) what a student learns, (b) how he or she learns, (c) and how the student
shows how he or she learned based on the student’s readiness level, interest, and
preference of learning mode. Readiness refers to maximizing challenge and growth,
interest refers to heightening motivation, and when learning styles match learning
increases the effectiveness of learning in all students. Also, ongoing assessment of
students needs comes out of effective differentiation (Tomlinson, 2004).
One may think that differentiated instruction is a new concept in
the educational field but it has been around since the 1600’s (Gundlach,
2011). Since the one room school house, teachers have used individualized
instruction to meet the needs of all of their students.
It may seem that differentiated instruction is a new educational
“buzz word” but good teachers have always recognized that “one
size fits all” instruction does not work, especially in today’s world
3
where students are so diverse and have so many needs and teachers
must find a way to reach them all (Strickland, 2004, p. 2).
Tomlinson (2001) states that “in many classrooms, the approach to teaching and
learning is more unitary than differentiated” (p.1). In addition, for some teachers after
experiencing undifferentiated instruction for so many years, it is often hard for teachers to
imagine what a differentiated classroom would look like (Tomlinson, 2001). Teachers
must understand that “simply giving a “normal” assignment to most students and
“different” assignments to students who are struggling or advanced is not differentiated
instruction” (Tomlinson, 2001, p.14).
Statement of Problem
This study will investigate a teacher’s perception about the effective use of
differentiated instruction and the impact that it has on elementary student’s learning. The
investigation will be conducted in one elementary school in east Tennessee. Although
research shows that differentiation instruction has a positive impact upon student’s
learning many teachers do not implement differentiated instruction (Carolan & Guinn,
2007). Many teachers do not implement differentiated instruction because of their
perceptions about the impact that differentiated instruction has upon student learning,
they believe they lack time, professional development resources, and administrative
support. In addition, many teachers mistake what a differentiated classroom looks like
(Carolan & Guinn, 2007); therefore, many teachers often implement and use it
incorrectly. According to Tomlinson (2001) differentiated instruction is not:
1. The “individualized Instruction” of the 1970’s,
2. Chaotic,
4
3. Just another way to provide homogeneous grouping, and
4. Just “tailoring the same suit of clothes” (p. 2 -3).
Nature of the Study
This qualiative case study will explore a teacher’s perception about the effective
use of differentiated instruction and the impact that it has on elementary student’s
learning. One theory that supports the differentiated instruction process is Howard
Gardner’s (1983) theory that states that intelligence is defined as the capacity to solve or
to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural settings (Brualdi, 1996). The
multiple intelligence theory emphasizes the rich diversity of ways in which people show
their gifts within intelligences as well as between intelligences. Using biological as well
as cultural research, Gardner formed a list of seven intelligences (Statewide Parent
Advocacy Network, Inc. (SPAN), 2011). The eight intelligences are: Logical -
Mathematical Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Musical
Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, and
Interpersonal Intelligence. Although the intelligences are anatomically separated from
each other, they rarely work independently. The intelligences are usually used
concurrently and usually complement each other (Gardner, 2011).
Within the classroom, every student comes with his or her own unique set of
intellectual strengths and weaknesses. This set determines how easy or difficult it is for a
student to learn information when it is given in a certain way; therefore, teachers need to
recognize and teach a broader range of talents and skills (Brualdi, 1996). In addition,
teachers should structure the presentation of material in a style which engages most or all
intelligences (Brualdi, 1996). Differentiated instruction means “shaking up” what goes
5
on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information,
making sense of ideals, and expressing what they have learned (Tomlinson, 2001).
Practicing differentiated instruction, matching teaching to the needs of each learner, is an
ideal way to help diversity thrive (Carolan & Guinn, 2007).
Research Question
The research question for this qualitative case study is as follows: What are
teachers’ perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary
school students’ learning in a school in east Tennessee?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to make teachers aware of the need for differentiated
instruction in all classrooms. To make a convincing case for the importance of this study,
teachers must understand that classrooms have an increasing amount of diverse students;
students at different levels within one classroom, varying rates in which students learn,
and differences in how they learn (Tomlinson, 2001). These issues are on-going concerns
of many teachers. In addition, differentiated instruction can help teachers address these
issues. Differentiated instruction allows teachers to teach all students in their classroom.
Therefore, teachers that use differentiation within their classroom must use a wide range
of teaching strategies with their students in order to increase student learning (Tomlinson,
2001). Effective teachers use effective instructional strategies within their classroom
(Marzano, 2003). Research states that an expert teacher has more strategies at his or her
disposal to implement and use to increase student learning (Marzano, 2003). In order to
implement research-based instructional strategies, teachers need to be given an

6
instructional framework for lessons and units that use research-based strategies
(Marzano, 2003).
Conceptual Framework
According to Tomlinson (2001) educators “can create a “user-friendly”
environment, one in which they flexibly adapt pacing, approaches to learning, and
channels for expressing learning in response to their students’ differing needs” (p. vii).
Bosier (2007) states that “differentiated instruction allows children to feel comfortable
with what it is you are trying to teach, then sets them up for success” (p. 109). There is a
need for differentiation of instruction in many districts, schools and classrooms
throughout our country and even our world; therefore, this study will be completed in an
attempt to assist districts, schools and classrooms across the world to improve student
learning through differentiated instruction. Hertberg-Davis & Brighton (2006) states that
“in order to respond to the growing academic diversity in classrooms, teachers must
recognize that their students have different needs and commit to differentiating
instruction accordingly…” (p. 90). According to Hall (2002) and Tomlinson & McTighe
(2006), “the goal of Differentiation Instruction is to maximize each student’s learning
potential” (as cited by Bloom, 2009, p. 2).
One way to aid in the maximization of student learning through differentiated
instruction is to use the theory of multiple intelligences. Within this study, the theory of
multiple intelligences gives all students opportunities to develop and show their strengths
by supplying them with multiple techniques and assessments forms (Campbell,
Campbell, & Dickinson, 1999, Gardner, 1999; Green, 1999 as cited by Subban, 2006).
Multiple intelligence theory is relevant to differentiated instruction and the framework of

7
this study because “lessons which incorporate a variety of learning styles allow a greater
range of students to have their learning needs met” (Gardner, 1983; Gregory & Chapman,
2007 as cited by Bloom, 2009, p. 36). The multiple intelligence theory is one of the most
prominent theoretical frameworks for differentiation instruction (Santamaria, 2009). In
addition, the multiple intelligence theory embraces the notion of recognizing different
kinds of intelligences (Santamaria, 2009). Educational literature states that it is clear that
the multiple intelligence theory supports that different people have different strengths
with respect to the different intelligences (Fischman, 2011). In addition, differentiation is
the theory that states that all students are different and, therefore, should be taught
differently (Fischman, 2011).
Definition of Terms
1. Academic Diversity
“A class with significant academic diversity is characterized by student achieving in
the average, above-average, and below range of academic
performance as measured by teacher, school district, or academic standards” (Lenz,
Deshler, & Kissam, 2004, p. 2)
2. Differentiation
Differentiated instruction, according to Carol Ann Tomlinson (as cited by Ellis,
Gable, Greg, & Rock, 2008, p. 32) is the process of “ensuring that what a student
learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has
learned is a match for that student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode
of learning” (p.32). In addition, differentiation stems from beliefs about

8
differences among learners, how they learn, learning preferences and individual
interests (Anderson, 2007).
3. Improve
Webster's Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language (2005)
defines the term Improve: as “to make better; to increase something’s productivity
or value” (p.133).
4. Instruction
Instruction is the clear guidance in which teachers’ uses to teach students,
teachers must use research-based strategies to have effective teaching and
improve student achievement (Marzano, 2003).
5. Instructional Strategies
Teaching that supports student thinking, creativity in teaching, flexible
application of methods and assessment (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk- Hoy,
2001). Instructional strategies that affect student achievement are as follows:
 Identifying similarities and differences
 Summarizing and note taking
 Reinforcing effort and providing recognition
 Homework and practice
 Nonlinguistic representations
 Cooperative learning
 Setting objectives and providing feedback
 Generating and testing hypotheses
 Questions, cues, and advance organizers (Marzano, 2003, p. 80).

9
6. Learning
Danielson (2002) states that “learning is an active process, in which students must
be engaged as genuine participants. And student learning is not limited to the
curriculum: students learn from homework and discipline policies as well” (p.
52).
7. Multiple Intelligences
Gardner (2011) formed a list of eight intelligences. The eight intelligences are:
Logical - Mathematical Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, Spatial
Intelligence, Musical Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Naturalistic,
Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal Intelligence. Although the intelligences are
anatomically separated from each other, they rarely work independently. But they
are used concurrently and usually complement each other.
8. No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) is the reauthorization of a
number of federal programs that strive to improve the performance of America's
primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for
states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility
in choosing which schools their children will attend (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
9. Student Achievement
The Educator Quality Division at the New Mexico Public Education Department
(2011) defines student achievement as “the notion that students have learned
something that they have moved toward fulfilling some predetermined goal,
10
meeting some standard of performance, or acquiring some desired knowledge”
(p.1). In addition, “student achievement is usually determined by comparing a
student product to a desired outcome” (p.1). For example, a student scores on a
non-reference test is compared to the average of all student scores tested or a
teacher uses a rubric to score students’ assignments on a high, mid- range, and low
scale based on the teacher’s expectations and desired outcomes for each
assignment (The Educator Quality Division at the New Mexico Public Education
Department, 2011).
10. Student Learning
The Educator Quality Division at the New Mexico Public Education
Department (2011) states that “the notion that students grow over time, in
their own time, in their own ways. Unlike student achievement, student
learning may not be directly to pre-determined standards or as related to
classroom instruction. It may be highly individualized” (p.1).
11. Teacher’s Perception
According to Bosier (2007) “a teacher’s awareness of his/her role and his/her
perception of what lies in his/her responsibility as a teacher could affect levels of
student achievement as well” (p. 42).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Scope
The scope of this research is that according to Haar, Hall, Schoepp, & Smith,
(2002) teachers must take responsibility for the learning of their students in their
classrooms and purposefully seek out the best ways to reach them. When taking this
responsibility many teachers would agree that even at the same age, students are unique
11
learners with specific academic needs, interests and learning styles (Bloom, 2009).
Researchers and teachers acknowledge that differentiated instruction is a way to reach
learners with varying academic needs (Bloom, 2009). Teachers are obligated by law to
use researched-based methods to increase student learning (Bloom, 2009). Implementing
differentiated instruction gives teachers a variety of researched-based methods by which
all learners can learn, regardless of their academic level (Bloom, 2009). When
implementing differentiated instruction teachers must be willing to learn, to make
adjustments, and continually reevaluate their teaching (Bloom, 2009). No Child Left
Behind (Dept. of Ed., 2004) states that educational leaders and educators must ensure that
all students are educated by using educational practices and programs that are effective
for student learning. No Child Left Behind (2004) and policies like it are relevant to this
study.
One limitation of the study is that it will not address all age groups, grades levels,
different schools with varying populations of schools, and/or schools in different school
districts. Another limitation in this study is limited to one elementary school; it cannot be
assumed that the findings apply to middle or high school teachers or other elementary school
teachers. Participants come from the same school district, and their perceptions about
differentiated instruction may not be representative of teachers elsewhere. The
participants of this study were self-selected volunteers and the small sample size does not
allow a representative sample of the population in general. The self-selected participants
are the teachers of one elementary school so the results were taken from a population that
is reflective of the school demographics. In addition, the study’s data may change due to
students moving and/or teachers withdrawing from the self-selected study that allows
participants to withdraw at any time.

12
Significance of the Study
With current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, increased standards for
assessments and academic achievement in school districts and schools; educational
leaders and educators have a greater responsibility to educate “all” students (United
States Dept. of Education, 2004). “Under NCLB, states are working to close the
achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged,
achieve academic proficiency” (United States Dept. of Education, 2002, p. 1), in addition,
NCLB has emphasis on determining which educational programs and practices have been
proven effective through rigorous scientific research (United States Dept. of Education,
2004). “Federal funding is targeted to support these programs and teaching methods that
work to improve student learning and achievement” (United States Dept. of Education,
2002, p. 1).
Within the current educational system where there is an ever growing diverse
population in which each student grows and learns in different ways and in different
stages, there is a need for differentiation of instruction and assessment in many districts,
schools and classroom throughout our country. Therefore, this study will be completed in
an attempt to inform districts, schools and classrooms across the world to improve
student learning through differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction allows
teachers to teach all students in their classroom. Tomlinson (1998) states that research
clearly tells us to attend to the individual when we teach. There are three broad and
interrelated principles that point out a need for differentiated classrooms, that is,
classroom responsive to students’ varying readiness levels, varying interest, and varying
learning profiles. In addition, Tomlinson (1998) states that when a teacher creates a
13
brain- friendly classroom, he or she builds awareness that says to teach me well, you
must teach the brain. Tomlinson (2001) states that Differentiated Instruction is:
1. Proactive
2. More qualitative than quantitative
3. Rooted in assessment
4. Provides multiple approaches to content, process, and product
5. Student centered
6. A blend of whole-class, group, and individual instruction
7. Organic (p. 3- 6).
Conclusion
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction and
brief overview of the study. Chapter Two presents a holistic and comprehensive review
of current and relevant literature. The literature review includes sections on the
theoretical framework, differentiated instruction defined, challenges when using
differentiated instruction, teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction, and success
when using differentiated instruction. Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the
study. The research question for the study, detailed explanation of the data collection and
method, survey and interview outline, limitations, assumptions and the researcher’s
stance are included in Chapter Three. Chapter Four presents the results and themes that
emerge from the data collected and provides a detailed report of the surveys and
interviews conducted with the self-selected teachers of the study. Chapter Four also
includes graphic representation of the results. Chapter Five identifies the major themes of
the study and explores the implications of the findings and gives an interpretation of the
14
results. In addition, the researcher gives recommendations, actions, and suggestions for
future studies in Chapter Five.
This study will provide research to inform teachers that differentiating instruction
gives them the tools they need to help their student be successful in the classroom.
According to Brimijoin, Marquissee, Tomlinson (2003):
Differentiating instruction and assignments allow a teacher to
modify his/her instruction and/or assignments to help students that
may grasp concepts at different rates. Teachers can help students
build knowledge, refine skills, and apply understanding to skills
that may be taught during day to day instruction or preparing for
standardized assessments (p.72).
In addition, this study will provide information to school systems, educational
leaders, educators, and anyone completing or expanding research on standards-based
instruction and/or differentiation and the effects in has on academic achievement of all
students.
15
Chapter II: Review of Literature
Introduction
This chapter reviews the existing literature on teachers’ perceptions about the
impact differentiated instruction has on student learning and all the information
surrounding this study. Chapter Two is divided into five sections which explore current
and relevant literature.
According to Tomlinson (2004), the concept of differentiated instruction is
comprised of the role of teachers in developing effective curriculum and instruction for
students, learner responsibility in differentiation, and the function of an effective
classroom. The richest and most responsive classrooms are those in which responsibility
for developing both the individual and the group is a shared endeavor. The teacher that
purposefully and persistently guides each learner to share more and more of the
responsibility for making the class work in a way that benefits each learner. Tomlinson
(2004) states that differentiation is an opportunity to model a world in which adults and
the young share responsibility for making things work for themselves and others around
them. Practicing differentiated instruction, matching teaching to the needs of each

16
learner, is an ideal way to help diversity thrive (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). The use of
informal and formal data about student learning not only shapes the instruction and
assignments but it also determines their effectiveness.
Differentiating instruction and assignments allow teachers to modify their
instruction and/or assignments to help students that may grasp concepts at different rates.
Teachers can help students build knowledge, refine skills, and apply understanding to
skills that may be taught during day to day instruction or preparing for standardized
assessments. However, teachers’ perceptions may influence instructional practice
(Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). Teachers are required to invest additional time to set-up a
classroom that uses this type of instruction. It is important for the administration and
teachers to work together to implement the best practices in each of these areas
(Brimijoin, Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003). According to (Edwards, Carr & Siegel,
2006; Gregory & Chapman, 2007; Heacox, 2002; Loveless, 1998; Stetson, Stetson, &
Anderson, 2007) as summarized by Bloom (2009), while teachers understand all the
benefits of implementing differentiating instruction in their classrooms, challenges still
exist to its implementation. In order for differentiating instruction to work with
classrooms teachers, they must have time set aside to talk through how they categorize
students and to discuss ways on how and why they use this categorization to change or
improve their teaching (Carolan & Guinn, 2007).
According to Hootstein (1998) many teachers do not implement differentiated
instruction because they believe they lack time, professional development resources, and
administrative support (as cited by Carolan & Guinn, 2007). Some teacher mistake what
a differentiated classroom looks like (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). This review explores the
17
literature involved with teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction. Teacher
perception is a powerful tool that has significant implications within the classroom and
school environment (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).
Theoretical Framework
This chapter will address the following aspects of the study: (a) history of
differentiated instruction, (b) differentiated instruction defined regarding this study, (c)
challenges when using differentiated instruction, (d) teachers’ perceptions of
differentiated instruction, (e) establishing differentiated instruction in a school, and (f)
success when using differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction, when effectively
implemented, allows students to work at a level in which they are best challenged
(Tomlinson, 2001). One goal of differentiated instruction is to address range of learners
and their academic needs (Tomlinson, 2001). Researching literature on these topics will
provide research to examine teachers’ perceptions about the impact differentiated
instruction has on student learning.
There are many educational theories that establish a solid theoretical framework
for this study. The first educational theorist connected to this study is Howard Gardner
(1983) as mentioned earlier in this study. Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory aids
differentiated instruction by maximizing student learning by giving students varying
activities that highlight their learning styles and ability (Gardner, 1983). This theory was
first established in Gardner’s book (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. Within this book, multiple intelligences gave a model by which to
understand and teach many views of human intelligence, learning style, personality and
behavior (Gardner, 1983). Gardner initially developed his theory on multiple

18
intelligences as a contribution to psychology but it was quickly embraced by education
and other training and teaching communities (Gardner, 1983). There were originally
seven intelligences but when Gardner revisited and reflected upon his theory, he
expanded the intelligences by three although he ultimately only added one more
intelligence to bring the total to eight (Gardner, 2000).
A summary of Howard Gardner's eight multiple intelligences are shown in Table 2.1:
Intelligence Type Description
Logical - Mathematical Intelligence Logic and Numbers
Linguistic Intelligence Words and Language
Spatial-Visual Intelligence Images and Space
Musical Intelligence Music, Sound, and Rhythm
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence Body Movement Control
Naturalistic Intelligence Natural Environment
Intrapersonal Intelligence Self-Awareness
Interpersonal Intelligence Aware of People's Feelings
Table 2.1: Howard Gardner's Eight Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 2000).
The second educational theory is constructivism. The major theorists are Jean
Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner. The main concept of constructivism is that
students actively construct knowledge by comparing new ideas or concepts with their
current knowledge called the schema (Ozmon & Craver, 2002). Piaget (1973)
summarized his ideas about constructivism as “to understand is to discover, or
reconstruct by rediscovery, and such conditions must be complied with if in the future
19
individuals are to be formed who are capable of production and creativity and not simply
repetition” ( as cited by Classroom Compass,1994, p.2). Vygotsky (1978) “believed that
children learn scientific concepts out of a "tension" between their everyday notions and
adult concepts” (as cited by Classroom Compass, 1994, p.2).
Constructivist Jerome Bruner, states that learning is an active process in which
learners construct new idea or concepts based upon his or her current and past knowledge
(Lewin, 2001). Within the classroom, students make connections through prior
knowledge to what is being taught; therefore, students actively construct meaning
through learning. Instruction is delivered through experiments, real-world problem
solving and the information is presented through concrete, hands-on examples. In
addition, instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the
student willing and able to learn (readiness). Instruction must be structured so that it can
be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization).
Lastly, instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the
gaps (going beyond the information given) by stimulating cognitive skills required for
application (Lewin, 2001). According to Classroom Compass (1994), “the constructivist
teacher sets up problems and monitors student exploration, guides the direction of student
inquiry and promotes new patterns of thinking. Classes can take unexpected turns as
students are given the autonomy to direct their own explorations” (Classroom Compass,
1994, p.1) cites suggestions given by Brooks & Brooks (1993) for a constructivist
classroom to include:
1. Student autonomy and initiative are accepted and encouraged.
2. The teacher asks open-ended questions and allows wait time for responses.
20
3. Higher-level thinking is encouraged.
4. Students are engaged in dialogue with the teacher and with each other.
5. Students are engaged in experiences that challenge hypotheses and encourage
discussion.
6. The class uses raw data, primary sources, manipulatives, physical, and interactive
materials.
The third theory that this study is based on is pragmatism. One main theorist is
John Dewy. An effort to teach all students especially within a diverse population has
been researched and best practices formatted, and proven throughout the last 100 years.
Since the nineteenth century, John Dewey has been an advocate for education of all
students. Dewey stated that each person learns by communicating with others in social
groups. Dewey (1916) stated in his book, Democracy and Education that
“communication is central to the education of an individual” (as summarized by Ozmon
& Craver, 2002, p. 153). For many years, the education of all students has been
embedded in US democracy; and differentiated instruction allows all students to learn
and make progress just as foundation of democracy states. Our country was built on the
ideal that all students are afforded equal rights including an education. John Dewey stated
as summarized by Adler (1982) that “a democratic society must provide equal
educational opportunity not only by giving it to all its children but the same quality of
public education” (p. 4). Pragmatists believe that students learn by doing, therefore
within the classroom, teachers must use cross-disciplinary approaches; problem-based
learning; cooperative learning, and have a child-centered classroom for optimal student
learning. With age appropriate materials, students do work by themselves, and the teacher
21
provides direction as a resource person. Like differentiated instruction, the theory of
pragmatism focuses on education meeting the needs and interest of students as they learn
(Ozmon & Craver, 2002).
History of Differentiated Instruction
According to Gundlach (2011), the idea of using individualized instruction within
the classroom has been in place since the 1600’s when the one room school houses were
a major part of education, even though in the beginning it was not called differentiated
instruction. “Many consider that although differentiation is a new concept, its philosophical
roots run deep in American soil” (Yatvin, 2004 as cited by Dooley, 2009, p. 8). In 1953,
Educational Leadership began to look deeper into this concept. In 1953, it published an
issue, which was devoted to the theme: "The Challenge of Individual Difference"
(Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2009). Within this issue a
feature article by Carleton W. Washburne entitled: "Adjusting the Program to the Child",
was presented in which he took an in-depth look at the history of differentiated
instruction (ASCD, 2009). Washburne’s article, first discussed educator Preston Search,
who as early as 1889, made it possible for every child to learn at his or her own rate in
each subject without the support of textbooks. This program inspired other teachers to
follow the same process until 1912, when achievement test were introduced. These tests
made people realize that the differences in children were much greater. With this
realization, Frederic Burk in the San Francisco Normal School started a movement to
make textbooks self- instructive which gave children the opportunity to progress based on
their ability. The experiments of Burk sparked a nation-wide movement and many school
systems implemented these ideas (Washburne, 1953 as stated by ASCD, 2009).

22
In 1919, the program began to move to the public school sector and under the
guidance of Burk’s staff member, teachers of Winnetka, a suburb of Chicago, developed
the self-instructive materials into workbooks based on children’s maturity and readiness
level. This material became known all over the world as the “workbooks,” that students
still use today along with textbooks that also changed to be more self-instructive
(Washburne, 1953 as stated by ASCD, 2009). Just as it seemed that schools were
beginning to fit their programs to children, the Project Method, which was a movement
with the idea that there should be no fixed curriculum for children, was discussed and
accepted by schools and teachers. School systems and teachers began to return to their
former programs and began to ignore individual differences (Washburne, 1953 as
reported by ASCD, 2009).
With the diminished practice of individualized instruction, during the 1890’s,
some schools started their own experiments with ability groups. After many years of
different types of ability groups, schools realized that many aspects of this practice
resulted in different curricula that did not require common mastery for all students.
Therefore Wasburne stressed the implementation of a flexible program that incorporates
common core standards for each subject matter (Washburne, 1953 as reported by ASCD,
2009). As school systems and teachers reflected upon their practices, there was a change
to many textbooks, workbooks and subject area materials. These changes included
individualized and individual work for students to practice self-correction in their daily
work and to promote increased learning for each student. According to Washburne
(1953) “the job of a school is to provide a simulating, interesting environment, a wide
variety of experiences suitable to children of the range of maturity with which we are
23
dealing” (p.144). Washburne (1953) stated that his main purpose for his work was to
point out to the education community that “there are techniques that make it possible to
individualize these common essential skills in a classroom” (p.146).
According to Yatvin (2004) “differentiated instruction was conceptualized in the
1960’s and took off in several directions at once” (as cited by Dooley, 2009, p.8).
Throughout the 1970’s, Ankrum, & Bean (2007), state that the concept of ability
grouping moved towards “differential, rather than differentiated type of teaching that
occurred within such grouping arrangements” (p. 135). In these types of groupings, some
teachers spend a lot of time structuring the groups based on the level of the learner. For
example, struggling students would be only given lower-level material and by contrast
some teachers would structure higher-level material for skilled learners (Ankrum & Bean,
2007). During the 1980’s, a debate begin to occur about the effectiveness of ability
grouping. Due to this debate, whole group teaching begins to emerge in many
classrooms. Whole group teaching encourages using the same materials, lessons, and
pacing for all students in the classroom. In order to give equal access to learning to all
students teachers present the same information to the whole (entire) group of students.
Whole group instruction led to simplified classroom management for teachers but do not
give an opportunity for the needs of individual students to be met (Ankrum & Bean,
2007).
From the 1980’s to its present form, differentiated instruction has two
frameworks, first is the complex instruction and the second is parallel curriculum.
Complex instruction framework is a cooperative learning strategy that requires students
to work independently within varying intellectual groups (Dooley, 2009). “Complex
instruction was developed by Elizabeth Cohen (1986) at Stanford University and the latter
24
was conceptualized by Carol Ann Tomlinson, Sandra Kaplan, Joseph Renzulli, Jeanne
Purcell, Jann Lappien, and Debhorah E. Burns” (Tomlinson et al., 2001 as cited by Dooley,
2009, p. 10). Complex instruction deals with the varying range of diversity in a
heterogeneous classroom focusing on the use of small groups engaged in open ended
tasks and intellectually challenging materials. The teacher moves around to each group,
asking questions in order to deepen student thinking. This strategy allows each learner to
add his or her contribution to the class and gives each student a sense of responsibility for
his or her learning (Tomlinson, 1999).
Parallel curriculum framework focuses on four important aspects of curricula:
core, connections, practice, and identity which help teachers understand comprehensive
curriculum to improve the learning of all students (Dooley, 2009). Within the framework,
“all learners must be flexible enough to address the broad range of needs within a grade
level” (Tomlinson et al., 2001, p.18). Students learn by understanding their preferences,
values, strengths, and commitment by developing interest and goals in their field of study
(Tomlinson et al., 2001). Parallel curriculum can aid teachers in finding a connection to
the curriculum by helping students discover their interests or ability or in response to
their interests or ability. The goal of this model is for educational leaders and teachers to
concentrate on three types of learning: mastery, organic, or enrichment (Tomlinson et al.,
2001). “The contemporary approach to differentiating has been shaped by the growing
research on learning – drawing on the best practices from special education, gifted
education, and multi-age classrooms, as well as recent research on the brain and multiple
intelligences” (Rutledge, 2003, p. 1).
Differentiated Instruction Defined Regarding this Study

25
Within the educational system there is an ever growing diverse population in
which each student grows and learns in different ways and in different stages. According
to Lawrence-Brown (2004), “given the availability of strategies such as differentiated
instruction, responsible pedagogy no longer allows us to teach as if students all learned in
one way, and at the same pace. If we are to maximize achievement of general curriculum
standards, we must increase our efforts to differentiate instruction” (p.36). Differentiated
instruction, according to Carol Ann Tomlinson (as cited by Ellis, Gable, Greg, & Rock,
2008, p. 32), is the process of “ensuring that what a student learns, how he or she learns
it, and how the student demonstrates what he or she has learned is a match for that
student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning” (p.32).
Differentiation stems from beliefs about differences among learners, how they learn,
learning preferences and individual interests (Anderson, 2007). Tomlinson (2001) states
that “a differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquiring content, to
processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can
learn effectively” ( p. 1). In addition, Tomlinson (2001) states that Differentiated
Instruction is:
1. Proactive
2. More qualitative than quantitative
3. Rooted in assessment
4. Provides multiple approaches to content, process, and product
5. Student centered
6. A blend of whole-class, group, and individual instruction
7. Organic (p. 3- 6).

26
Differentiated instruction has two main goals:
1) To maximize mastery of the grade-level general curriculum standards for all
learners; and
2) To provide modified and/or accommodated curricula for any student who needs it
(Lawrence-Brown, 2004).
According to Santamaria (2009) “recognition of student differences and the
response to them are socially constructed phenomena. As a result, differentiated
instruction is considered as much a philosophical orientation as it is a best teaching
practice or theory” (p.217). According to Bloom (2009), as summarized by (Boaler,
2002), “differentiated instruction includes the use of rich and open-ended curriculum,
with activities providing different entry points for students” (p. 26).
Challenges with using Differentiated Instruction
Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams & Pierce (2009) state that in order for
differentiated instruction to be successful teachers must grasp the concept. In addition,
even though the implementation is important, educators are still not implementing it on a
regular or daily basis. Bloom (2009) states as cited by Edwards, Carr, & Siegel (2006)
that “teacher may be particularly unprepared to use complex methods of instruction, such
as tiered assignments, cultural perspectives in planning and delivering instruction, and
technology in order to differentiate instruction” (p. 39). Bloom (2009) states as cited by
Shubert (1986) that “even when methods such as differentiated instruction are modeled in
teacher programs, such instruction may not translate into practice if, during student
teaching, new teachers meet resistance to change from practicing teachers” (p.39).
27
Bloom (2009) states as cited by Stetson, Stetson, & Anderson (2007) that
“another challenge to implementing differentiated instruction is the time and resources
that are required to develop lessons geared to multiple learning” (p. 39). Some teacher
mistake what a differentiated classroom looks like (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). According
to Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce (2009) teachers do not differentiate
because:
1) They do not receive administrative support.
2) They fear that straying from the mandated curriculum may result in
lower standardized test scores.
3) They have classroom management or student behavioral problems.
4) They are resistant to long-term changes in teaching style.
5) They do not have time to plan for differentiation.
6) They fear that students’ parents may not agree with the practice (p. 27-
28).
Teachers’ Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction
A teacher’s perception about the effective use of differentiated instruction, just as
any other method, strategy, or educational concept within a district, school, and/or
classroom, plays a major role in its success. If teachers are not willing to implement
differentiated instruction in his or her classroom due to these perceptions then it will not
be implemented correctly or at all. According to Hertberg-Davis & Brighton (2006),
“changing practices to differentiate curriculum, instruction, and assessment, research
suggests that factors internal to the teacher… may inhibit a teacher’s willingness and
28
ability to differentiate instruction to meet learners’ diverse academic needs” (p.91). In
addition, Hertberg-Davis & Brighton (2006) state that some teachers perceived that:
Attempting to differentiate instruction was
perceived as just another burden that they had to
bear. School staff members felt that most of their
energies were devoted to attending to the needs of
their student population—often, needs unrelated to
academic issues—which made attempting to
differentiate instruction a near impossibility (p. 98.).
Brighton, Hertberg, Callahan, Tomlinson, & Moon (2005) as cited by Hertberg-
Davis & Brighton (2006) states that “teachers tend to perceive differentiation as
overwhelming initially, believing that it takes a great deal of time to plan and implement
and recognizing that it requires new and complex classroom management skills” (p. 99).
According to Bosier (2007) negative perception when coupled with irregular
implementation of differentiated instruction has an adverse effect on student
achievement. In order for differentiating instruction to work with classrooms teachers,
they must have time set aside to talk through how they categorize students and to discuss
ways on how and why they use this categorization to change or improve their teaching
(Carolan & Guinn, 2007). According to Bloom (2009):
If students are to achieve high standards, be those
standards set by caring teachers or by high-stakes
tests, then it is important that schools provide
teachers with meaningful opportunities to

29
collaborate, as professionals and as experts, on
strategies and methods which engage all learners in
the mixed-ability classroom (p.153).
Establishing Differentiated Instruction in a School
Every child can be taught with appropriate strategies, concepts, and methods.
According to Adler (2002), “there are no unteachable children” (p.8), therefore “if all
children are educable, all are justified in aspiring to become educated persons” (p.9). One
way that is proven to make a great impact upon student learning is differentiated
instruction. A differentiated classroom gives different paths to acquiring content, to
processing, and to developing products so that each student can learn (Tomlinson, 2001).
Implementing differentiated instruction in a school can be difficult but if done correctly it
can make a positive impact upon student learning. One issue that can be difficult when
implementing differentiated instruction in a school is the amount of time it takes to
implement and use. Hess (2009) states that “It’s not a lack of desire on the part of
teachers, but a time issue (p.2). Another difficulty is that teachers may feel unprepared to
use such a complex method of instruction due to planning, delivery, and subject matter
(Edwards, Carr, & Siegel, 2006). Even though methods like differentiated instruction are
modeled in teacher training programs, in practice it may be difficult to translate into
practice with diverse students. Teachers discovered a mismatch between what they
learned in their teacher training programs and pre-service programs and what they
actually needed to teach their diverse students (Manson, 1999). When implementing
differentiation of instruction teachers must be willing to learn, to make adjustments, and
continually reevaluate their teaching. Teachers must:

30
1) Offer personalized scaffolding.
2) Use flexible means to reach defined ends.
3) Mine subject-area expertise.
4) Create a caring classroom in which differences are seen as assets (Haar,
Hall, Schoepp, & Smith, 2002).
Once the correct training is given to teachers for implementing differentiated
instruction, a teacher can take advance of the benefits of using differentiated instructional
strategies within his or her classroom. Once implementation is achieved and student
learning is increased in the classroom, differentiation is not seen by the teacher as just
another strategy, but a way of life in the classroom (Manson, 1999).
The educational leader has a major impact upon how successful differentiated
instruction is within his or her school. Principals are a key factor in teachers’ success with
implementing differentiation in their classrooms (Hertberg-Davis, & Brighton, 2006). A
school that has established differentiated instruction would first be child-centered. A
major component of differentiated instruction is the students are placed at the center of
teaching and learning within the classroom (Tomlinson, 2001). Teachers can help
students build knowledge, refine skills, and apply understanding to skills that may be
taught during day- to-day instruction or preparing for standardized assessments
(Brimijoin, Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003). Differentiating classroom assignments is
key to student success. Teachers need to use questioning and observing to differentiate
instruction and ensure their instruction matches the varied needs of their students
(Brimijoin, Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003).

31
Since differentiating can be performed in a variety of ways, if teachers use this
philosophy in their classrooms, they will be selecting a more effective practice that
acknowledges the needs of diverse learners (Tomlinson (2005) as cited by Subban, 2006).
The following fundamental tenets are needed for the successful use of the differentiated
instruction model within schools:
1) Engaging students
When student actively engage in the learning process, this allows them
to see patterns develop which positively influence students’ levels of
motivation which increases student learning (Subban, 2006).
2) Catering for interest, learning profile, readiness
Differentiated instruction creates an environment in which all students
can be successful. By students differing in three ways: readiness,
interest, and learning profiles within a differentiated classroom, the
teacher must structure his or her classroom to maximize the learning
potential of each student by zoning in on these differences (Subban,
2006).
With the wide variety of researched-based differentiated instructional strategies
that a school can implement, teachers can use one or any combinations of these strategies
to increase student learning. Some commonly used research-based differentiated
instructional strategies are listed in Table 2.2:

32
Collaborative Learning Mentoring/Peer Teaching
Group Investigation Literature Circles
Portfolios Reading Buddies
Creative Problem Solving Readiness/Ability
Tiered Assignments Independent Study
Acceleration/Deceleration Learning Centers
Flexible Grouping Inquiry Based Learning
Learning Profiles/Styles Tic-Tac-Toe Choices
Table 2.2: Common research-based Differentiated Instructional strategies (Theroux, 2004
and Marzano, 2003).
Success with using Differentiated Instruction
Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce (2009) states that “classroom
differentiation is necessary to enable all students to maximize their gains” (p. 27).
Differentiating instruction and assignments allow a teacher
to modify his/her instruction and/or assignments to help
students that may grasp concepts at different rates.
Teachers can help students build knowledge, refine skills,
and apply understanding to skills that may be taught during
day to day instruction or preparing for standardized
assessments (Brimijoin, Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003,
p.72).
33
Hertberg-Davis & Brighton (2006) state that “principals seemed to be a key factor
in teachers’ success with implementing differentiation in their classrooms” (p. 100). One
way to enhance differentiated classroom instruction and/or assignments is to implement
cooperative learning thoughtfully and differentiate tasks within it. Teachers can
personalize student learning, help students collaborate while challenging each individual
in the context of a group effort, and encourage students to appreciate their peers' diverse
abilities and experiences (Schniedewind & Davidson, 2000). In addition, teachers must
be taught how to differentiate learning within heterogeneous cooperative groups. Within
a heterogeneous cooperative group, every student learns something that he or she doesn't
already know; all students contribute to a common goal. Many different academics, as
well as social and emotional learning, occur during cooperative learning groups
(Schniedewind & Davidson, 2000).
Carolan & Guinn (2007) states that when implementing differentiated instruction,
teachers need to tap into the wisdom of the experts by observing how skilled teachers
practice differentiation and address the needs of all students. Teachers can learn from
expert teachers through professional development and mentoring relationships by pairing
a novice teacher with an expert teacher in the same subject area. Teachers can view
examples of differentiation through observing video or digital tapes of good
differentiation practice; teachers can zoom in on specific teacher actions and discuss the
purposes behind those actions (Carolan & Guinn, 2007). Tomlinson (1998) states that
research clearly tells us to attend to the individual when we teach. There are three broad
and interrelated principles that point out a need for differentiated classrooms, that is,
classroom responsiveness to students’ varying readiness levels, varying interest, and

34
varying learning profiles. In addition, Tomlinson (1998) states that when a teacher creates
a brain-friendly classroom, he/she builds awareness that says: to teach me well, you must
teach the brain. Beecher & Sweeny (2008) state as cited by Dee (2009) that
“differentiation can and does make a difference in student achievement in the area of
writing, math and reading” (p. 26). According to Hertberg-Davis & Brighton (2006),
“despite what teachers may perceive, classroom differentiation actually benefits all
learners and lowers classroom behavioral problems since students are more engaged in
subject matter” (p. 28).
According to Levy (2008), differentiated instruction is a set of strategies that
helps teachers meet the needs of all children. Whenever children enter into the
classrooms differentiated instruction helps teachers progress them as far as possible on
their educational journey. Lawrence-Brown (2004) states that by using differentiated
instruction “all students benefit from the availability of a variety of methods and supports
and an appropriate balance of challenge and success” (p.36). In addition, “this makes
differentiated instructional strategies a must, especially given the simultaneous push for
all students to achieve high standards” (p.37). Differentiated instruction supports the
classroom as a community in which age peers belongs and can/should be strengthen as
individuals. With differentiated instruction and the right support in place, students with
and without disabilities can be included in the class (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). According
to Anderson (2007) as cited by Dee (2009) states that “the teachers who take the time to
differentiate instruction are those who honor the uniqueness of each child and excludes
no one” (p. 28).
Conclusion and Implications

35
Santamaria & Thousand (2004) state that “differentiated instruction involves
instructional practices and teaching strategies that are inclusive in nature; and practices
that enable all children including those with disabilities to access and succeed in the
general education classroom and curriculum” (p. 15). This review explored the impact of
internal and external factors and the role they play upon teachers’ perception of
differentiated instruction and student learning. According to Hertberg-Davis & Brighton
(2006), “changing practices to differentiate curriculum, instruction, and assessment,
research suggests that factors internal to the teacher may inhibit a teacher’s willingness
and ability to differentiate instruction to meet learners’ diverse academic needs” (p.91).
Through research it is proven that when differentiated instruction is used, all students
benefits as well as the teacher. Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams & Pierce (2009) state that
“despite the importance of differentiation, teachers are still not implementing it on a
regular basis” (p. 27). In addition, the research shows that the principal of the school
plays a major role on the perception that teachers possess. According to Hertberg-Davis
& Brighton (2006), “principals seemed to be a key factor in teachers’ success with
implementing differentiation in their classrooms” (p. 100).
In the spirit of these findings or the lack of, this study is being conducted.
Through surveying and interviewing classroom teachers in an elementary school in east
Tennessee, the researcher hopes to identify some themes and/or teachers’ perceptions
regarding how differentiated instruction can impact students’ learning. It is the
researcher’s hope to make teachers aware of the need for differentiated instruction in all
classrooms and their perception plays a part in the use of and implementation. With this
36
awareness, it is the hope of the researcher that teachers will be willing to implement
differentiated instruction within their classrooms.

36
Chapter III: Methodology
Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology that will be employed in researching the
question for this qualitative case study which was, “What are teachers’ perceptions
regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary school students’ learning
in a school in east Tennessee?” This chapter is divided into eleven sections for a detailed
overview of the methodology of the study. The sections include research question,
hypotheses, research setting, participants, ethical considerations, limitations, data
collection, validity and reliability, survey, interview, and a conclusion of chapter three.
Triangulation of the data will be used to identify connections and/or themes to determine
the significance of the study. The qualitative component of the study examined the
comments made by the participants during the interview and compared them to existing
literature. The survey and interview results will be used as sources of information for
triangulation. In addition, the researcher will present the data in narrative, table, and
figure form to give different forms of documentation of the data.
Marzano (2003) states that more effective teachers use more effective
instructional strategies. An expert teacher has more strategies at his or her disposal. In
37
order to implement research-based instructional strategies, teachers need to be given an
instructional framework for lessons and units that use research-based strategies. When
targeting learner needs through differentiated instruction the teacher must be aware of
each student’s needs (Brimijoin, Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003)
There is significance for this study because there is very little research on this
topic. In addition, educational leaders and educators have a greater responsibility to
educate all students and within any educational system there is an ever growing diverse
population in which each student grows and learns in different ways and in different
stages. Therefore differentiated instruction allows teachers to teach all students in their
classroom. According to Tomlinson (2004):
While the concept of "differentiated instruction can be
defined in many ways, as good a definition as any is
ensuring that what a student learns, how he or she learns it,
and how the student demonstrates what he or she has
learned is a match for that student's readiness level,
interests, and preferred mode of learning. A readiness
match maximizes the chance of appropriate challenge and
growth. An interest match heightens motivation. A learning
profile match increases efficiency of learning. Effective
differentiation most likely emanates from ongoing
assessment of student needs (p. 1).
Statement of Methodology
38
The study will report the findings using a qualitative research method and
triangulation to determine the significance of the study. This study will address the
following aspects of the study: (a) history of differentiated instruction, (b) differentiated
instruction defined regarding this study, (c) challenges when using differentiated
instruction, (d) teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction, (e) establishing
differentiated instruction in a school, and (f) success when using differentiated
instruction. Researching literature on these topics will provide research to examine
teachers’ perceptions about the impact differentiated instruction has on student learning.
This is a qualitative case study. The study will be conducted within an action research
project. The research question for this qualitative case study: What are teachers’
perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary school
students’ learning in a school in east Tennessee?
This is a qualitative case study. This study will be conducted within an action
research project. Sagor (2000) states that “practitioners who engage in action research
inevitably find it to be an empowering experience” (p. 3). Greenwood & Levin (2006) as
cited by Rudestam & Newton (2007) states that action research is “a form of research that
generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote social
change and social analysis” (p.56). In addition, “action research is never done “to”
someone but is done by or in collaboration with insiders from the organization or
community (Greenwood & Levin (2006) as cited by Rudestam & Newton, 2007, p. 56).
Research Question
39
The research question for this qualitative case study: What are teachers’
perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary school
students’ learning in a school in east Tennessee?
Hypotheses
Teacher perceptions regarding differentiated instruction will impact elementary
school student’s learning in a school in east Tennessee.
Research Setting
The study was conducted in one public elementary school, which is located in
upper east Tennessee. The school serves five hundred and twenty-one students in the
kindergarten – fourth grade. Student diversity includes two hundred and sixty-one
females and two hundred and sixty males with an ethnic breakdown of 20.0 % Asian,
19.6% African-American, 7.3 % Hispanic, 0.4 % Native American/Alaskan, and 68.9 %
Caucasian. A summary of student population ethnic diversity is shown in Table 3.1:
Student Population Ethnic Demographics
Category Percent
Asian 20.0 %
African- 19.6 %
American
Hispanic 7.3 %
Native American 0.4 %
/ Alaskan
Caucasian 68.9 %
Table 3.1: Student Population by Ethnic Diversity
Participants
The participants were recruited from forty-one teachers teaching kindergarten-
fourth grade. Fifteen self-selected teachers participated in the study. Of which, twelve
40
were female and three were male with an average of 21 years of teaching experience. In
addition, the participants have worked an average of 11 years at the school. The rate of
response was 36.6% of the forty-one teachers invited to participate in this study. A
summary of self-selected participant demographics is shown in Table 3.2:
Self-Selected Participant Demographics
Participant’s Gender of
randomly Participant
selected number
for the study
(#1 – #41)
2 M
5 F
6 F
9 F
17 F
18 M
24 F
26 F
28 F
30 F
31 F
36 F
37 F
38 M
40 F
Key: M = Male, F = Female
Table 3.2: Demographics of Self-Selected Participants
Ethical Considerations
The primary ethical consideration of this study is the protection of the participant
confidentiality. Each participant was given an informed consent form to sign (see
Appendix E for informed consent form). Necessary contact information was included on all
forms. For confidentiality, the names of the participants discussed in this case study were
41
replaced with an appropriate randomly selected coded number. Any electronic data
collected from surveys and interviews will only be accessible by the researcher through a
password-protected computer. Confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to
withdraw from the study were offered to all participants involved. In addition, only coded
number hard copies of the surveys and interviews of the participants will be stored in a
locked filing cabinet at the researcher’s home office. No information about any of the
participants was revealed and all information will be discarded five years.
Researcher Bias/Assumptions
The researcher has worked in special education and with at-risk students for 13
years; and working with a diverse population of students, due to personal classroom
instruction, the researcher is a supporter of differentiated instruction. The researcher’s
current school system has a component for differentiated instruction within its evaluation
process. The researcher is a part of the research setting district due to the researcher’s
current teaching position. In addition, the researcher will be mindful that being an
employee of the district of this study has the potential of changing the current point of
view or behavior of the teachers.
Limitations
One limitation of this study is the research is limited to one elementary school;
therefore, the results of may not reflect the perception of other teachers who teach within
other grade levels or teachers at other schools or even the same grade level. The
participants come from the same school system, and their attitudes may not be
representative of teachers elsewhere. Another limitation is that the participants, as
volunteers were recruited from the school population, are a self-selected sample. In
42
addition, in the event that a participant becomes ill or needs to drop out of the study, the
researcher will make adjustments and changes as needed.
Data Collection
Upon approval of the Director of Schools, Assistant Director of Schools, Director
of Pupil Personnel Services and the site principal, each teacher was sent a letter inviting
him or her to participate in the study. All the participants were offered the opportunity to
be included in the study. This study was a self-selected sample. The participants of the
study were teachers from one upper east Tennessee elementary school. Once the teacher
agreed to participate in the study, each teacher was given a consent form to sign (see
Appendix E for informed consent form); the researcher hand delivered each survey (see
Appendix F for teacher survey questions). Due to the sensitive nature of this study,
neither the school system nor school taking part in the study has been identified;
therefore, all teachers were assigned randomly selected coded numbers (#1 - #41). All
teachers participating were given an appropriately coded consent form and survey (See
Appendix E for informed consent form and Appendix F for teacher survey questions).
The survey took about 5 - 10 minutes to complete which was completed in the teacher’s
classroom. Once surveys were collected, each participant was invited to be interviewed
face-to-face, by phone, or electronically (see Appendix G for interview questions). The
interview took 10 – 15 minutes to complete. In addition, the participant’s interview was
assigned the corresponding coded number (#1 - #41) from the consent form and survey
that he or she completed. Randomly selected times were given to participants for face-to-
face interviews and phone interviews. The researcher asked questions and allowed time
for each participant to ask questions to the researcher. Also, participants who chose to
43
submit his or her interview electronically were given a window of time to return
interview questions (see Appendix G for interview questions). Once all the data is
collected, the researcher will report the detailed findings in this chapter four.
Data Collection Process
The collection process for this study is as follows:
1. Teachers must be surveyed and interviewed during the school year
therefore the researcher begun with seeking approval to conduct
research, completion of the informed consent (see Appendix E for
informed consent form) and beginning gathering data in August 2011.
2. After each participant was given a consent form, the form was signed
by each self-selected participant, and then the researcher hand
delivered each survey. The survey was completed by the teacher in his
or her classroom (see Appendix F for teacher survey questions).
3. Once the survey was completed, the researcher invited each participant
to participate in an interview. Participants were given the choice of a
face-to-face interview, phone interview, or completing his or her
interview electronically (see Appendix G for interview questions).
Randomly selected times were given to participants for face-to-face
and phone interviews and participants who chose electronic interviews
where given a window of time to complete his or her interview. Once
interviews were scheduled, they took place during the participant’s
planning time, lunch time, before or after school. During the face-to-
face and phone interviews, the researcher asked questions and allow
44
time for participant to ask questions to the researcher. In addition, the
researcher took notes during the interview for clarity and
comprehension.
4. For confidentiality, the names of the participants discussed in this case
study were replaced with an appropriate randomly selected coded
number. Any electronic data collected from surveys and interviews
will only be accessible by the researcher through a password-protected
computer. All items were color-coded and randomly selected. Only
coded number hard copies of the surveys, interviews, and all materials
saved on a jump drive back-up system will be stored in a locked filing
cabinet at the researcher’s home office. No information about any of the
participants was revealed and all information will be discarded five
years.
Data Collection Method
After each participant was given the consent form (see Appendix E for informed
consent form) and the form was signed by self-selected participant, the researcher hand
delivered each survey (see Appendix F for teacher survey questions). Randomly selected
times was given to participants who chose face to face and phone interviews (see
Appendix G for teacher interview questions). In addition, instructions were emailed to
participants who chose to electronically submit his or her interview (see Appendix G for
interview questions). During the face-to-face and phone interviews, the researcher asked
questions and allow time for participant to ask questions to the researcher. Once
scheduled, the interviews took take place during the participant’s planning time, lunch
45
time, before or after school in the teacher’s classroom. All self-selected participants
completed the interview. For confidentiality, the names of the participants discussed in this
case study were replaced with an appropriate randomly selected coded number. Any
electronic data collected from surveys and interviews will only be accessible by the
researcher through a password-protected computer. All items were color-coded and
randomly selected. Only coded number hard copies of the surveys, interviews, and all
materials saved on a jump drive back-up system will be stored in a locked filing cabinet
at the researcher’s home office. No information about any of the participants was revealed
and all information will be discarded five years. A timeline of the study is shown in Table
3.3:
Timeline of Study
Task to be Completed Start Date Completion Person/s

Date Responsible
Obtain approval to Oct. 17, 2011 Nov. 29, 2011 D. Gilbert,
conduct research administrators
Obtain system-wide Dec. 1, 2011 Dec. 5, 2011 D. Gilbert,

surveys about DI to school system DI
researcher specialist
Gain approval from site Dec. 5, 2011 Dec. 5, 2011 D. Gilbert,
principal site principal
Deliver Consent forms Dec. 7, 2011 Dec. 7, 2011 D. Gilbert,

teachers
Return of Consent forms Dec. 8-9, Dec. 9, 2011 D. Gilbert,
2011 teachers
Deliver of Surveys Dec. 9, 2011 Dec. 9, 2011 D. Gilbert
Return of Surveys Dec. 9-23, Jan. 3, 2012 D. Gilbert,
2011 teachers
Deliver of Interview times Dec. 12- 14, Dec. 14, 2011 D. Gilbert,
2011 teachers
Interviews Dec. 13, Jan. 4, 2012 D. Gilbert,
2011 teachers
All data collected Dec. 9, 2011 Jan. 4, 2012 D. Gilbert
All data analyzed Dec. 9, 2011 Jan.6, 2012 D. Gilbert
46
Table 3.3: Timeline of Study
Validity and Reliability
Triangulation of the data will be used to form connections and/or themes to
determine the significance of the study. Golafshani (2003) states that “triangulation is
typically a strategy (test) for improving the validity and reliability of research or
evaluation of findings” (p. 603). The survey and interview results will be used as
sources of information for triangulation. The use of interviews and surveys with the
fifteen participants with various backgrounds provided the opportunity of data
triangulation for this study. According to Patton (2002) “triangulation strengthens a
study by combining methods, this can mean using several kinds of methods or data,
including using both quantitative and qualitative approaches” (p. 247). The qualitative
component of the study examined the comments made by the participants during the
interview and compared them to existing literature. In addition, the researcher will
present the data in narrative, table, and figure form to give different forms of
documentation of the data. With the results of this study, the researcher hopes to
publish, share with the participants, and school officials in several ways. A summary of
the research findings was sent to all participants, the superintendent, assistant
superintendent, building level principal, and the director of curriculum.
Survey
Upon completion of the informed consent form, (see Appendix E for informed
consent form) each of the fifteen self-selected participants received a hand-delivered
survey to complete (see Appendix F for teacher survey questions) and a timeframe in
which the survey was to be returned to the researcher. The survey took approximately 5 –
47
10 minutes to complete. The survey was completed in the teacher’s classroom. Each of
the fifteen participants of the study answered each survey questions completely. The five-
point Likert scale with reverse coding had the descriptors as follows: strongly disagree
(1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5) (with a range from top
choice = 5 points to the fifth choice = 1 point). As completing the survey was optional,
participants indicated on their survey if they were willing to be interviewed by the
researcher.
Interview
Once the survey was complete, the researcher invited each participant to
participate in an interview (see Appendix G for interview questions). Participants were
given the choice of a face-to-face interview, phone interview, or completing his or her
interview electronically. Once the face-to-face and phone interviews were scheduled,
these interviews were conducted during the participant’s planning time, lunch time,
before or after school. The researcher asked questions and allowed time for each
participant to ask questions to the researcher. In addition, the researcher took notes during
the interview for clarity and comprehension. For confidentiality, the names of the
participants discussed in this case study were replaced with an appropriate randomly
selected coded number. All items were color-coded and randomly selected. Only coded
number hard copies of the surveys, interviews, and all materials saved on a jump drive
back-up system will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at the researcher’s home office.
No information about any of the participants was revealed and all information will be
discarded five years.
Conclusion
48
This chapter reviewed the methodology used within this qualitative case study.
This study explored the research question: “What are teachers’ perceptions regarding
how differentiated instruction can impact elementary school students’ learning in a
school in east Tennessee?” Triangulation of the data will be used to form connections
and/or themes of the study. This qualitative case study will use the survey and interview
results for data triangulation. In addition, the researcher will present the data in narrative,
table, and figure form to give different forms of documentation of the data. Chapter Four
will present the results and themes that emerge from the data collected and provide a
detailed report of the surveys and interviews conducted within qualitative case study.
Chapter Four also includes graphic representation of the results.

49
Chapter IV: Results
Introduction
This chapter presents the themes and findings that emerged from the data
collected and provide a detailed analysis of the surveys and interviews conducted with
the self-selected teachers of one elementary school in upper east Tennessee. The chapter
is divided into seven sections that fully explain and describe the themes and findings of
the study. The sections include survey analysis, interview analysis, reduction, theme
analysis, synthesis, findings, evidence of quality, and a conclusion which includes a
summary of the findings of the study. Chapter four also includes graphic representations
of the findings.
This study was conducted to examine and compare teacher perception regarding
how differentiated instruction can impact students’ learning in a school. Insight gained
from the study was used to formulate a theoretical model that teachers can use to
implement differentiated instruction and to understand the affects that their perceptions
about differentiated instruction may have on their student’s learning. In addition,

50
information gained from the study may inform future teaching practices and increase the
understanding of teaching strategies and the impact that they have upon student learning.
Survey Analysis
The data for the surveys include the responses for the fifteen self-selected
participants (n=15). Figures 1- 10 show a summary of each teacher survey question:
Question #1: School gives adequate pre-service and in-service for Differentiated
Instruction (DI).
Pre-service and In-service for DI

9
3
Pre-service and In-service
2 for DI
Figure 4.1: Summary of responses for Teacher Survey Question 1 (n=15)

51
Question #2: I understand fully how to use DI in my classroom.
Understand DI Fully
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Understand DI Fully
1
0
Participant #37: Disagrees that she fully understands DI in her classroom in every
subject except math.
Question #3: I need more support to use DI successfully within my classroom.
Need more Support to use DI

7
6
5
4
3
2 Need more Support to
1 use DI
0

52
Question #4: DI doesn’t work as other instructional strategies I have used in the past.
DI doesn't work as other

8
7
6
5
4
3
DI doesn't work as
2
other
1
0
Question #5: I collaborate with colleagues about DI.
Collaborate with Colleagues

12
10
4 Collaborate with
Colleagues
2

53
Question #6: I have adequate time to collaborate with colleagues about DI.
Adequate Time to Collaborate

8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Adequate Time to
Collaborate
1
0
Question #7: I use DI daily in my classroom.
Use DI Daily
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Use DI Daily
2
1
0

54
Question #8: DI impacts the learning of some students.
DI impacts some Students

12
10
4 DI impacts some
Students
2
Question #9: DI impacts the learning of all students.
DI impacts all Students

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
DI impacts all Students
2
1
0

55
Question #10: Using DI requires a lot of planning for me.
DI Requires a lot of Planning

9
8
7
6
5
4
3 DI Requires a lot of
2 Planning
1
0
Interview Analysis
The questions and responses to the open-ended interview questions answered are:
Question 1: What subject do you teach?
Question 2: How long have you being teaching?
Question 3: How long have you been teaching at your school?
In order to protect the identity of the participants, the responses are reported only using
the assigned coded number (#1 - #41) for each participant and only question 2 was
reported. In addition, this table gives a summary of the survey and interview questions
answered by the participants. A summary of the responses of questions 1-3 is shown in
Table 4.1.
56
Self- Selected Participant Responses to Questions 1-3
Participant’s Years of Answered Answered

randomly Teaching All All
selected number Survey Interview
for the study Questions Questions
(#1 – #41)
2 13 Y Y
5 22 Y Y
6 16 Y Y
9 30 Y Y
17 23 Y Y
18 11 Y Y
24 25 Y Y
26 22 Y Y
28 26 Y Y
30 17 Y Y
31 15 Y Y
36 19 Y Y
37 18 Y Y
38 27 Y Y
40 37 Y Y
Key: Y = Yes, N = No
Table 4.1: Self-Selected Participant Responses to Questions 1-3
Question 4: Briefly describe what differentiation instruction is to you
as a teacher.
Participant # 2 stated: “Providing on level practice and re-teaching for the varying levels
within a classroom.” Participant # 5 stated: “Providing needed support to students and
meeting the needs of each individual to help them succeed.” Participant # 6 stated:
“Tailoring instruction to meet individual’s needs, interest, and learning styles.”
Participant #9 stated: “Meeting each student individual needs as determined by
formative assessment.” Participant #17 stated: “Modify adapt instruction to meet the
needs of all students for their improvement and success in school.” Participant #18
57
stated: “Every student, everyday gets the lesson on their level.” Participant # 24 stated:
“Meeting the individual needs.” Participant #26 stated: Varying instruction and activities
according to students ability and interest.” Participant #28 stated: “Differentiated
Instruction is a process to address the same concepts with students of differing abilities in
the same class.” Participant #30 stated: Each kid is taught the core curriculum on their
level, in the way they learn best.” Participant #31 stated: “Personalized instruction that
ensures students opportunities to succeed because implementation (benchmarks, pre-
assessment, formative and summative assessment) identifies their needs and employs
their strengths.” Participant #36 stated: Meeting individual needs while teaching
standards.” Participant #37 stated: “I mainly use DI in reading/writing; I really want
more training on how to use it in Math.” Participant #38 stated: “Instruction that meets
the needs of all students – high, middle, and low.” Participant #40 stated:
“Differentiation instruction is providing instruction and classroom environment to meet
the needs of individual students. The teacher assesses students’ learning and knowledge
of skills taught, and then, provides individualized, small group and classroom instruction
based on student’s results.”
Question 5: Have you used differentiation instruction in your
classroom?
Participant #2, #5, # 6, #9, #17, #18, #26, #28, #37, and # 38 answered: “Yes” to this
question. Participant #24 answered: “Everyday” to this question. Participant #30
answered: “Listening Center, computer, manipulatives, small group, peer tutors, music,
and visual aids.” Participant #31 answered: “Loosely.” Participant #36 answered:
“Yes, to my best ability.” Participant #40 answered: “No, not in the formal sense of DI.
58
I have continued to provide individualized, small group, and whole group instruction, in
addition to ability grouping with assessment.”
Question 6: In your opinion, do you think your school is doing a good
job with training you on how to differentiate instruction? (Pre-service
and/or in-service)
Participant #30 and #38 answered: “Yes” on this question. Participant #9 answered:
“No.” Participant #36 answered: “No- None.” Participant #17 answered: “Need more.”
Participant #2 answered: “No, not necessarily our fault, the district that responsibility.”
Participant #5 answered: “Not really, our system began this initiative at the same time it
began several others, so none of them got the attention it required. We’re half-way doing
a bunch of stuff but not fully doing anything.” Participant #6 answered: “No, due to my
subject area.” Participant #18 answered: “No, no consistent professional development,
do not know how to make it a part of the Professional Learning Communities (PLC).”
Participant #24 answered: “The system has provided me with the opportunity for
excellent ongoing training through Reading Recovery.” Participant #26 answered: “No.
there is no practical application instruction only lots and lots of theory. We do in reading
but no other areas.” Participant #28 answered: “In the view of the other District
initiatives, I believe I’ve gotten as much training as our in-service schedule allows.
Participant #31 answered: “We’ve had a few in-services over the years but insufficient
to ensure full implementation.” Participant #37 answered: “No, they have attempted,
but it doesn’t seem to reach enough individual classroom teachers!” Participant #40
answered: “Yes, It is formerly and structurally being presented this year.”

59
Question 7: In your opinion, does differentiated instruction impact
student’s learning?
Participant #2, #9, #18, #24, #26, #30, #31, #36, #37, and #38 stated: “Yes.” on this
question. Participant # 5 stated: “Absolutely.” Participant # 6 stated: “Yes, it can.”
Participant #17 stated: “Very much so”. Participant #28 stated: “Yes, especially in an
elementary classroom. Most of the lessons are hands-on.” Participant #40 stated: “Yes, it
is an excellent strategy for tracking and guiding students learning.”
Question 8: In your opinion, does using differentiated instruction help
“all” students?
Participant #5, #6, #17, #18, #24, #28, #30, #31, #36, and #37, stated: “Yes” on this
question. Participant #2 sated: “It can.” Participant #38 stated: “No” on this question.
Participant #9 stated: “I think it may not be enough research to determine how.”
Participant #26 stated: Maybe, but mostly benefits the high and low.” Participant #40
stated: “That is certainly the goal to help “all” students. Assessment drives and directs
individualized and small group instruction.”
Question 9: Does using differentiated instruction make teaching
concepts easier or more difficult?
Participant #2 answered: “Depends and it varied.” Participant #5 answered: “More
difficult due to the amount of time required to do it correctly.” Participant #9 answered:
“More difficult at times - other times easier.” Participant #17 answered: Time to prepare
more difficult.” Participant #18 answered: “Easier.” Participant #24 answered: “Takes
more time to prepare and present adequately to all students.” Participant #26 answered:
“Easier in practice, but way harder to plan and implement.” Participant #28 answered:
60
“Using differentiated instruction makes teaching concepts easier. However, it takes time
to plan and develop ideas for all students.” Participant #30 answered: “Much more
difficult.” Participant #31 answered: “Easier in the sense that students are more receptive
to learning when they feel successful.” In addition, “More difficult in sense that
identifying each students needs and meeting those needs is time consuming.” Participant
#36 answered: “More difficult in planning but better results for students.” Participant
#37 answered: “Easier because students learn on their level.” Participant #6 and #38
answered: “More difficult.” Participant #40 answered: “Because of time restraints, DI
presents a challenge, on some days it is difficult to provide immediate feedback, effective
re-teaching, and adequate assessment.”
Question 10: How could your school administration and leadership
team better assist you with learning how to differentiate instruction?
Participant #2 stated: “That is a good question!, Not sure.” Participant #5 stated: “By
letting us focus only DI for a year and nothing else so we can immerse ourselves in it.” In
addition, “Somebody could make a lot of $ if they could develop some preplanned lesson
with about 3 differing levels for each lesson.” Participant #6 stated: “Show examples
(modeling), In-service with hands-on experiences, In-services for art or ways I could use
DI effectively with 536 students.” Participant #9 stated: “We all need to be trained – not
one who brings info.” In addition, “There is a huge disconnect in the training and
implementation phase.” Participant #17 stated: “Ongoing in-service – We have too many
initiatives and do not do many very well.” Participant #18 stated: “Expect to happen,
Observations make note of it, System-wide or building-wide training (not train the trainer
and a few staff members going), and adopt a progress monitoring method.” Participant
61
#24: Did not have a comment for this question.” Participant #26 stated: “I need to be
shown how.” In addition, “I need to observe someone and talk about how to be practical
and do it; I have got the theory stuff and research.” Participant #28 stated: “The
administration and leadership team could better assist me with learning how to improve
differentiated instruction by providing time for me to collaborate with my team in order
to develop plans (ideals) in the content areas. Working as a team, teachers can help share
the load by working together.” Participant #30 stated: “On-going training, not a one-shot
deal; not “go read this book.” Participant #31 stated: “Modeling – support through DI
intervention techniques activities, identified personnel who could provide “scaffolding”
for teachers.” Participant #36 stated: “By providing training.” Participant #37 stated:
“More meaningful in-services on DI for all classroom teachers.” In addition, “books
study on Literacy/Math framework.” Participant #38 stated: “More time to plan and
implement DI.” Participant #40 stated: “By providing more in-service opportunities – as
with most initiatives, the program will evolve with practical implementation of the
routine and strategies.”
Reduction
In order to structure the data collected within this study, the researcher has coded
and chunked the data together in a way that the researcher may draw conclusions and/or
themes among the data.
According to Namely, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson (2007) the researcher’s
decisions—which data chunks to code and which to pull out, which
evolving story to tell—are all analytic choices. Data reduction is a form of
analysis that sharpens sorts, focuses, discards, and organizes data in such a
62
way that “final” conclusions can be drawn and verified (p. 139). In
addition, Namely, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson (2007) simplification allows
researchers to focus their attention on the rich, descriptive, and expressive
details of qualitative data, without getting lost among those details (p.
158).
Within this study, the researcher coded and chunked the self-selected participant
demographics in table 4.1 and responses to questions 1-3 in table 4.2 (See Table 4.1 and
Table 4.2), in order to protect the participants’ identity due to the 36.6 % participant rate
out of forty-one teachers invited to participate in the study. The researcher believes that if
the answers were revealed for questions 1-3 the identity of the participants would be
comprised. In addition, the researcher chunked the survey and interview questions by
response in order to draw conclusion and/or themes from the data collected in the study.
Also, the researcher used tables and figures to visually document the chunked data for the
reader.
Theme Analysis
The data gathered in this study gives a unique and holistic view of how a
teacher’s perception about differentiated instruction can impact the learning of his or her
students. Some themes that have emerged from this study include the following, but are
not limited to:
1. Many teachers disagree that their school gives adequate pre-
service and in-service for Differentiated Instruction (DI).
2. Many teachers disagree that they understand fully how to use
DI in their classroom.
63
3. Many teachers agree that they need more support to use DI
successfully within their classrooms.
4. Many teachers disagree that DI doesn’t work as other
instructional strategies that they have used in the past.
5. Many teachers agree that they collaborate with colleagues
about DI.
6. Many teachers disagree that they have adequate time to
collaborate with colleagues about DI.
7. Many teachers agree that they use DI daily in their
classrooms.
8. Many teachers agree that DI impacts the learning of some
students.
9. Many teachers agree that DI impacts the learning of all
students.
10. Many teachers strongly agree that using DI requires a lot of
planning.
Synthesis
According to Education Commission of the States (ECS) (2004):
“Research synthesis reviews and integrates the findings from prior
empirical research” (p.2). In addition, ECS (2004) states that “a narrative
review is a qualitative method that involves summarizing the results of the
study through narrative description. Also, “sometimes narrative reviews
report the number of positive and negative findings among studies” (p.3).
64
The study connects to the research findings in that many of the participants
commented that they felt like they lack the time to implement differentiated instruction,
lack training resources, and lack support from their administrator. The participants’
comments were coded, as participant #1 - #41 with the same self-selected participants’
numbers were used in this study. Participant #40 answered: “Because of time restraints,
DI presents a challenge, on some days it is difficult to provide immediate feedback,
effective re-teaching, and adequate assessment.” Participant #28 stated: “The
administration and leadership team could better assist me with learning how to improve
differentiated instruction by providing time for me to collaborate with my team in order
to develop plans (ideals) in the content areas. Working as a team, teachers can help share
the load by working together.” Participant #30 stated: “On-going training, not a one-shot
deal; not “go read this book.” Carolan and Guinn (2007) states that many teachers do not
implement differentiated instruction because they believe they lack time, professional
development resources, and administrative support. According to Bloom (2009) as cited
by Stetson, Stetson and Anderson (2007) that “another challenge to implementing
differentiated instruction is the time and resources that are required to develop lessons
geared to multiple learning” (p. 39). Participant #37 stated: “I mainly use DI in
reading/writing; I really want more training on how to use it in Math.” In addition, many
participants reveled that that they felt like differentiated instruction did have a positive
impact upon student learning. When asked if differentiated instruction impact student’s
learning? Participant #40 stated: “Yes, it is an excellent strategy for tracking and guiding
students learning.” Research states that differentiated instruction improves student
learning but teacher still neglect to use it. Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams and Pierce
65
(2009) states that, “despite the importance of differentiation, teachers are still not
implementing it on a regular basis” (p. 27).
Findings
The researcher reported the findings of the study in a direct and clear manner.
Within this study all the data collection, processes and procedures were completed. Out
of the forty-one teachers that were invited to take part in the study, fifteen teachers
consented to participate in this study. This is a 36.6% of all the teachers invited to
participate in the study. One hundred percent of the fifteen self-selected participants
completed the survey and 100% of the fifteen self-selected participants completed the
interview.
Overall the study revealed that teachers feel they need assistance from their
administrator as they implement and use differentiated instruction. Participant #26
stated: “I need to be shown how.” In addition, “I need to observe someone and talk about
how to be practical and do it; I have got the theory stuff and research.” In addition, the
teachers feel they do not have enough time to use differentiated instruction within their
classes. Many teachers stated that they did not use differentiated instruction daily in their
classroom. Nor did they feel they had the right and/or adequate pre- or in-service in
differentiated instruction. Lastly, the teachers; feel the perception they have about
differentiated instruction played a role in student learning.
Evidence of Quality
The researcher believes this is a quality study, has validity, and is transferable due
to the nature of the study and the data gathered. The researcher believes all the
participants gave quality and creditable answers when completing the informed consent
66
form, survey, and interview questions. In order to validate this study the researcher used
reduction and triangulation. The researcher chunked the survey and interview questions
by response in order to draw conclusions and/or themes from the data collected in the
study. In addition, triangulation of the data was used to form connections and/or themes
of the study. The survey and interview results were used as sources of information for
triangulation. The fifteen participants seemed excited about being a part of the
researcher’s study. The researcher can safely say every participant correctly answered the
questions to the best of his or her ability, given the fact that each participant was aware
that a number code system within the study would not reveal the participants’ identities.
The study group seemed very interested in the results as well as the principal since the
school’s teacher evaluation process has a component which scores differentiated
instruction
Conclusion
The findings of this study were proven to be positive and consistent with current
research in that teachers’ perception does play a role in student learning. In this chapter
the researcher discussed the themes that emerged from the study. It was found that, not
only do teachers play a major role, but his or her administrator’s support in the
implementation, use, and pre- and in-service affect the perception of teachers thus
affecting student learning. This study revealed that teachers feel they lack the time to use
differentiated instruction, not having the time to meet with other teachers to collaborate
about differentiated instruction. In addition, teacher feel differentiated instruction does
impact some students learning. The use of a survey and interview presents the data in a
different way that produced some of the same connections and/or themes and gives an
67
opportunity for triangulation of the data. In addition, the researcher presented the data in
narrative, table, and figure form to give different forms of documentation of the data.
Based on the data gathered the researcher believes that this study is creditable, valid,
reliable, and can be transferred to other schools, schools systems, different grade levels,
and size of sample.
Santamaria and Thousand (2004) state that “differentiated instruction involves
instructional practices and teaching strategies that are inclusive in nature, practices that
enable all children including those with disabilities to access and succeed in the general
education classroom and curriculum” (p. 15). Differentiated instruction is a strategy that
has been proven to help all students to be successful, if implemented correctly. In order to
move forward with differentiated instruction teachers must have the support they need
from the school administration and leadership team. In addition, the teachers’ overall
perception of differentiated instruction was differentiated instruction does positively
impact some students’ learning.

68
Chapter V: Conclusion
Overview of Study
Chapter Five presents the detailed inferences of the findings of the study and what
they suggest in relation to the qualitative case study’s research question: “What are
teachers’ perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary
school students’ learning in a school in east Tennessee?” This chapter is divided into five
sections that give a full summary of the study findings and recommendations based on
the findings. The chapter starts with an overview of the study, then moves to
interpretation of findings, significance/contributions to the field, limitations, and ends
with a conclusion of chapter five.
The purpose of the study was to make a case that teachers’ perceptions
differentiated instruction can impact elementary school students’ learning. The study
examined the range of perceptions of the participants. The quantitative component of the
study, measured teacher perceptions using a five-point Likert scale survey with reverse
coding (top choice = 5 points and fifth choice = 1 point). Participants were allowed to
comment freely about their personal opinions about all the interview questions in
69
conjunction with their experiences with differentiated instruction. As all perceptions were
analyzed, distinct themes emerged and they were analyzed and compared to prior
research.
Interpretation of Findings
One theme that emerged in the study is that teachers’ perception of
differentiated instruction plays a role on student learning. When asked, in your
opinion, does differentiated instruction impact student’s learning? Participant #2,
#9, #18, #24, #26, #30, #31, #36, #37, and #38 stated: “Yes.” on this question.
Participant # 5 stated: “Absolutely.” Participant # 6 stated: “Yes, it can.”
Participant #17 stated: “Very much so”. Participant #28 stated: “Yes, especially
in an elementary classroom. Most of the lessons are hands-on.” Participant #40
stated: “Yes, it is an excellent strategy for tracking and guiding students
learning.” All fifteen participants (100%) had a positive response to this question.
This is a significant theme due to all participants felt that differentiated instruction
has an impact on students’ learning.
Another theme that emerged is teachers believe strongly about having the
time to implement, use, and collaborate about differentiated instruction is
essential for the student success. Based on the data gathered, eight out of fifteen
teachers (53.3%) strongly agree that differentiated instruction requires a lot of
time to plan. And eight out of fifteen teachers (53.3%) agree that they use
differentiated instruction in their classroom daily. In addition, ten out of fifteen
(66.6%) agree that they collaborate with colleagues about differentiated
instruction. Another theme is teachers express a need for more pre-service and in-
70
service to help support their understanding of differentiated instruction. When
asked, in your opinion, do you think your school is doing a good job with training
you on how to differentiate instruction? (Pre-service and/or in-service),
participant #5 responded to the question: “Not really, our system began this
initiative at the same time it began several others, so none of them got the
attention it required. We’re half-way doing a bunch of stuff but not fully doing
anything.” Participant #6 stated: “No, due to my subject area.” Participant #18
stated: “No, no consistent professional development, do not know how to make it
a part of the Professional Learning Communities (PLC).” Participant #37 stated:
“No, they have attempted, but it doesn’t seem to reach enough individual
classroom teachers!” Eight out of fifteen teachers (53.3%) disagree that the
school gives adequate pre-service and in-service for differentiated instruction.
Eight out of fifteen teachers (53.3%) agree that differentiated instruction impacts
all students. The most powerful theme that was revealed from the study was ten
out of fifteen teachers (66.6%) agree differentiated instruction impacts some
student. In addition, seven out of fifteen teachers (46.6%) disagree that
differentiated instruction does not work as other instructional strategies they have
used in the past. Lastly, some teachers stated that they did not fully understand
how to use differentiated instruction within their classrooms. Seven out of fifteen
teachers (46.6%) disagree that they fully understand how to use differentiated
instruction in their classroom.
Significance/Contributions to the Field

71
This study is significant to the field due to the study findings revealed a positive
connection between teacher perception and student learning; therefore, it helps to support
the prior research. Santamaria & Thousand (2004) state that “differentiated instruction
involves instructional practices and teaching strategies that are inclusive in nature; and
practices that enable all children including those with disabilities to access and succeed in
the general education classroom and curriculum” (p. 15). According to Hertberg-Davis &
Brighton (2006), “despite what teachers may perceive, classroom differentiation actually
benefits all learners and lowers classroom behavioral problems since students are more
engaged in subject matter” (p. 28).
This study suggests that support the need for collaboration of colleagues, the need
for adequate pre-service and in-service for teachers when learning, implementing, and
understanding differentiated instruction. In addition, teachers need to be given time to
prepare and be taught how to use differentiation instruction daily within his or her class.
Although the participating group was a small study, this study can serve as a pilot study
that could be repeated for teachers’ perception and the effects of differentiated instruction
on student learning. The study may be beneficial to all school systems, educational
leaders, educators, and anyone completing or expanding research on standards-based
instruction and/or differentiation and the effects it has on academic achievement of all
students.
Recommendations for Action/Further Study
Recommendations for action are:
1. Teachers must commit themselves to teach students using
differentiated instruction when necessary to have a positive

72
effect on student learning. According to Haar, Hall, Schoepp, &
Smith, (2002) teachers must take responsibility for the learning of
their students in their classrooms and purposefully seek out the
best ways to reach them. Implementing differentiated instruction
gives teachers a variety of researched-based methods by which all
learners can learn, regardless of their academic level (Bloom,
2009). Participant #17 stated: differentiated instruction means to
“Modify, adapt instruction to meet the needs of all students for
their improvement and success in school.” In addition, Participant
#30 stated that: differentiated instruction means, “Each kid is
taught the core curriculum on their level, in the way they learn
best.
2. Teachers must take in account the theory of multiple
intelligences and the other educational theories and different
learning styles to ensure that each student is able to take full
advantage of the material being taught. The multiple intelligences
are presented as multiple techniques for learning and problem
solving by creating opportunities for all students and bringing out
their strengths (Subban, 2006).
3. Each teacher needs to have additional training on differentiated
instruction. This training should be specific to his or her
subject area with hands-on examples and guided instruction

73
for the teachers (which include models). Participant #6 stated
that: trainings should “Show examples (modeling), In-service with
hands-on experiences”.
5. Teachers should reflect upon their perception of differentiated
instruction and how it impacts their students’ achievement.
Participant #40 stated that: “Yes, it is an excellent strategy for tracking
and guiding students learning.” Ten out of fifteen teachers (66.6%) in the
study agree differentiated instruction impacts some student.
6. The school system and site principal need to restructure pre- and/or in-
service for teachers; allow additional time for teachers to collaborate
with colleagues about differentiated instruction; and pair teachers to
discuss the best plan for implementation and daily use of differentiated
instruction in their classroom based on cross-curricular and subject area.
Participant #36 stated that: The school system and site principal could
help “By providing training.” In addition, Participant #37 stated: “More
meaningful in-services on DI for all classroom teachers.” Participant #40
stated: “By providing more in-service opportunities – as with most
initiatives, the program will evolve with practical implementation of the
routine and strategies.” Eight out of fifteen teachers (53.3%) in the study
disagree that the school gives adequate pre-service and in-service for
differentiated instruction.
Recommendations for further study are:
1. The researcher recommends further studies be conducted at other

74
elementary schools, middle and high school levels. This study is
only being conducted in one elementary school. Therefore, the
results of the study may not reflect the perception of other teachers
who teach within other grade levels or teachers at other schools
and/or grade levels.
2. A study on students’ perceptions regarding how differentiated
instruction can impact their learning. This study only explored the
perceptions of the self-selected participants (teachers).
3. There was a return rate of 36.6% for this study. In order to have a larger
return rate for the study, the researcher suggests the data collection
method be changed to have an informational meeting for the teachers at
the school and at that time invite teachers to participate in the study and
complete the survey while attending the meeting including a request to
participate in the interview process.
Limitations
This study is only being conducted in one elementary school. Therefore, the
results of the study may not reflect the perception of other teachers who teach within
other grade levels or teachers at other schools and/or grade levels. There was a return rate
of 36.6% for this study which the researcher contributes to the following reasons, but, not
limited to:
1. This was a self-selected study in which participants volunteered to participate in
the study and could be excused at any time.

75
2. The researcher believes that teachers were apprehensive to participate in the study
for fear of his or her identity being reveled, even though the researcher assured
each participant that his or her identity would be concealed.
3. The researcher believes that potential participants did not participate in the study
due to the time of year (system-wide testing window, end of a grading period, and
end of the semester with winter break) in which the study was been conducted
which teachers may have felt they had lack of time to complete the survey and/or
the interview.
4. All the teachers in this district have gone through many pre-service and in-service
training sessions as a system-wide initiative to implement differentiated
instruction into the classrooms of the district which includes a pre and post
survey. Based on teachers’ comments within this study, the researcher believes
that the non-participants may be too overwhelmed with all the attention to
differentiated instruction to participate in the study that included a survey and
interview. Even though the researcher reviewed the system-wide survey against
the study survey, the direction and questioning of the surveys had no connection
to one another.
Conclusion
This chapter gave a study overview, interpreted the findings of the study, reflected
upon the contributions, and recommended actions/further study based on the analysis of
teachers’ perception with relation to the impact of differentiated instruction on student
learning. The themes through triangulation showed that there is significance about how
teachers felt about the effects of differentiated instruction in student learning. It was
76
encouraging to find that most teachers (66.6%) agreed that differentiated instruction does
have a positive effect on some student learning. The findings aligned with prior research
such as, teachers believe that they lack time to implement, collaborate, and use
differentiated instruction.
It is clear, however that much more work and research should be done on
differentiated instruction and the impact that it has on student learning to ensure that all
students achieve success. Secondly, the researcher hopes to explore the possibilities of
sharing the research findings in the professional pre-service and/or in-service
development session and share the research findings with the professional community.
Thirdly, the researcher will use the research findings as the subject of a professional
article that the researcher hopes to submit for publication in a scholarly publication. In
addition, the researcher provided contact information in the summary to all participants
and stakeholders for future contact and further explanation of the study and/or its
findings.
77
References
Adler, M. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association. (6th ed.).Washington, D.C.: Author.
Anderson, K. (2007). Tips for Teaching: Differentiating Instruction to Include All
Students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.
Ankrum, J.W., & Bean, R. M. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: What and how.
Reading Horizons. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=readin
g_horizons&sei-redir=1&referer=http
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2009). My back pages: A
brief history of differentiated instruction (1953). Retrieved from

78
http://ascd.typepad.com/blog/2009/09/my-back-pages-a-brief-history-of-
differentiated-instruction.html
Bloom, R. (2009). Implementation practices of differentiated instruction in the upper
elementary and middle school math classroom: A discovery through grounded
theory. Ed.D. dissertation, Cambridge College, United States -- Massachusetts.
Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection. (Publication No. AAT 3396747).
Boaler, J. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect,
responsibility and high achievement. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 40-46.
Bosier, C. (2007). The effects of teacher perception of differentiated mathematical
instruction on student achievement. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United
States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and
Social Sciences Collection. (Publication No. AAT 3284053).
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Tomlinson, C., & Moon, T. (2005). The
feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (Research Monograph
05210). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E., & Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Using Data to Differentiate
Instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 70-73.
Brualdi, A, C. (1996). Multiple Intelligences: Gardner's Theory. ERIC Digest. Retrieved
from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/multiple.htm
79
Campbell, L., Campbell, C., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through the
multiple intelligences (Second ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Carolan J., & Guinn A. (2007). Improving Instruction for Students with Learning Needs -
Differentiation: Lessons from Master Teachers. Educational Leadership. 64(5),
44- 47.
Carter, N., Jackson, A., Marchant, M., & Prater, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of
collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Heldref
Publications. Highland, UT.
Classroom Compass (1994). Constructing knowledge in the classroom. Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v01n03/welcome.html
Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Teachers’ and
students’ perspectives. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Dee, A. (2009). Differentiated instruction in the work sample: A study of pre-service
teacher practice. Ed.D. dissertation, George Fox University, United States --
Oregon. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection. (Publication No. AAT 3388206).
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

80
Dooley, A. P. (2009). The effects of differentiated instruction on a fourth grade science
class. A Masters Research Project, Ohio University, United States—Ohio.
Retrieved from http://www.cehs.ohio.edu/resources/documents/dooley.pdf
Education Commission of the States (ECS) (2004). A policymaker’s primer on education
research: How to understand, evaluate, and use it. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/Research/primer/researchtrustworthy.as
Educator Quality Division at the New Mexico Public Education Department. (2011).
Professional Development Dossier Glossary. Retrieved from
http://teachnm.org/programs/professional-development-dossier/pdd-glossary.html
Edwards, C., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on
effective practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education,
126, 580-952.
Ellis, E., Gable, R. A., Gregg, M., & Rock, M. L. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47.
Fischman, L. A. (2011). Using Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory to differentiate
high school Physics instruction. Retrieved from
http://etd.lib.montana.edu/etd/2011/fischman/FischmanL0811.pdf
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New
York: Simon and Schuster.

81
Gardner, H (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). New
York: Basic Books.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative, 8(4), 597-607. Retrieved from
http://ace.upm.edu.my/~lateef/Handouts%20-%20dce%205920/golafshani%20-
%20reliability%20and%20validity%20in%20qual%20research.pdf
Green, F. R. (1999). Brain and learning research: Implications for meeting the needs of
diverse learners. Education, 119(4), 682-688.
Gregory, G.H. & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size
doesn’t fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gundlach, M. (2011). The Roots of differentiated instruction in teaching. Bright Hub
Education. Retrieved from http://www.brighthubeducation.com/teaching-
methods-tips/106939-history-of-differentiated-instruction/
Haar, J., Hall, G., Schoepp, P., & Smith, D. H. (2002). How teachers teach to students
with different learning styles. The Clearing House, 75(3), 142-142+.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/196864026?accountid=34526
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach
and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
82
Hess, M.A. (2009). Although some voice doubts, advocates say differentiated instruction
can raise the bar for all learners. Wisconsin Education Association Council.
Retrieved from http://www.weac.org/Home/Parents_Community/differ.aspx
Hertberg-Davis, H., & Brighton, C. (2006). Support and Sabotage: Principals' Influence
on Middle School Teachers' Responses to Differentiation. Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 17(2), 90-102. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Hootstein, E. (1998). Differentiation of instructional methodologies in subject-based
curricula at the secondary level. (Research Brief No. 38). Richmond, VA.
Metropolitan Education Research Consortium.
Improve. (2005). Webster's Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language.
(p. 133, New Rev. ed.). Baltimore, MD: Allied Publishing
Latz, A., Speirs Neumeister, K., Adams, C., & Pierce, R. (2009). Peer Coaching to
Improve Classroom Differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper
Review, 31(1), 27-39. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies For
Standards-Based Learning That Benefit The Whole Class. American Secondary
Education, 32(3), 34-62. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., & Kissam, B. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidenced
practices for middle and high school settings. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction:
Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. Clearing House, 81(4), 161-
164. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Lewin, G. (2001). Constructivist. Retrieved from

83
http://www.west.net/~ger/Orientation/constructivist.html
Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Thomas Fordham
Foundations publication. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=127&pub
subid=809#809
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in Schools: Translating Research into Action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Manson, T. (1999). Cross-ethnic, cross-racial dynamics of instruction:
implication for teacher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 429 141 No. UD032861).Clarksville, TN: Austin Peay State
University.
Namely, E., Guest, E., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2007). Data reduction techniques for
large qualitative data sets. Retrieved from
http://www.stanford.edu/~thairu/07_184.Guest.1sts.pdf
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Focus on effectiveness – current
education challenges: Differentiated Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.netc.org/focus/challenges/instruction.php
Ozmon, H., & Craver, S. (2002). Philosophical Foundations of Education (8th ed).
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman.

84
Rutledge, L. (2003). Differentiated instruction. Retrieved from
http://wvde.state.wv.us/institutional/PD/Differentiated%20Instruction.pdf
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Santamaria, L. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College
Record. 111(1), 214-247.
Santamaria, L., & Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated
instruction: A process-oriented approach to whole schooling. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 1(1), 13-27. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Schniedewind, N., & Davidson, E. (2000). Differentiating cooperative learning.
Educational Leadership. 58(1), 24-27.
Shubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: Perspectives, paradigm, and possibility. New York:
McMillan.
Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Inc. (SPAN) (2011). Equals in partnership basic
rights for families of children with disabilities (APPENDIX B: Multiple
intelligences worksheets). Retrieved from
http://www.spannj.org/BasicRights/appendix_b.htm#seven
Stetson, R., Stetson, E., & Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiated instruction, from teachers’
experiences. School Administrator. 64(8), 28
Strickland, C. (2004). Differentiated instruction: An overview. Educators Publishing
Service. Retrieved from

85
http://www.epsbooks.com/flat/newsletter/vol05/vol05iss05/Differentiated_Instruc
tion.pdf
Subban, P. (2006). A research basis supporting differentiated instruction. . Retrieved
from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/sub06080.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: a call for differentiated classrooms.
Educational Leadership. 56(3), 52-55.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Digest. ERIC_NO: ED443572. Retrieved from http://ericir.syr.edu/plweb-
cgi/obtain.pl
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper
Review. 26(4), 188-189.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory
into Practice, 44(3), 262-269.
Tomlinson, C., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
86
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S., Renzulli, J., Purcell, J, Lappien, J., & Burns, D. E. (2001).
The parallel curriculum. Thousand Oak, CA. Corwin Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
The educator quality dossier glossary. Retrieved from
http://teachnm.org/programs/professional-development-dossier/pdd-glossary.html
Theroux, P. (2004). Strategies for differentiating. Enhance learning with technology.
Retrieved from
http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiatingstrategies.html
United States Department of Education. (2002). Overview: No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). The secretary’s third annual report on teacher
quality. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/2004Title2-Report.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Washburne, C.W. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational Leadership.
Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195312_washburne.pdf
Yatvin, J. (2004). A room with a differentiated view: How to serve all children as individual
learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinenmann.

87
APPENDICES
88
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Approval to Conduct Research ...........................................................89

Appendix B: IRB Approval .......................................................................................91
Appendix C: CITI Certification .................................................................................93
Appendix D: Turnitin Report .....................................................................................95
Appendix E: Jones International University Informed Consent – Teacher ...............97
Appendix F: Survey for Teachers ..............................................................................103
Appendix G: Interview Questions for Teachers ........................................................106
89
APPENDIX A
Approval to Conduct Research

90
Appendix A
91
APPENDIX B
IRB Approval
92
Appendix B
July 28, 2011

Donna Williams
PO Box 1304
Knoxville, TN. 37901
Dear Ms. Williams:

Congratulations! The JIU Institutional Review Board has approved through an
Expedited review, your research, entitled “A Teacher’s Perception: Perceptions
of the impact of Differentiated Instruction.” You may now defend your research
proposal and begin to collect data.
Excellent! Great work.
You must notify the IRB of any changes you make to your current research project,
including the addition/revision of survey or interview questions.
Please contact the IRB with any questions regarding this approval. Again,
congratulations! Keep up the hard work! You are almost there!
Thank you,
Sondra M. D'Aquisto, MS
Manager of Institutional Research and
Institutional Review Board
irb@international.edu
Phone: 1.303.784.8378
Fax:1.303.784.8426
9697 E. Mineral Avenue Centennial, Colorado USA 80112 www.jiu.edu

93
APPENDIX C
CITI Certification
94
Appendix C
CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative

Human Research Curriculum Completion Report
Printed on 5/9/2011
Learner: Donna Williams (username: dlwilliams67)

Institution: Jones International University
Contact Information P.O. Box 1304
Knoxville, TN 37901 USA
Department: EDD
Phone: 423-440-1121
Email: dwgilbert67@yahoo.com
EDD Students:
Stage 1. Basic Course Passed on 05/09/11 (Ref # 5959047)

Date
Required Modules Completed Score
Students in Research - SBR 05/04/11 10/10 (100%)
History and Ethical Principles - SBR 05/04/11 4/4 (100%)
The Regulations and The Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 05/04/11 5/5 (100%)
Research with Children - SBR 05/08/11 4/4 (100%)
Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - SBR 05/09/11 4/4 (100%)
Jones International University 05/09/11 no quiz
For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must be affiliated with a CITI participating
institution. Falsified information and unauthorized use of the CITI course site is unethical, and may be
considered scientific misconduct by your institution.
Paul Braunschweiger Ph.D.

Professor, University of Miami
Director Office of Research Education - CITI Course Coordinator
95
APPENDIX D
Turnitin Report
96
Appendix D
Gilbert, Donna 5-02-12 6% 6% N/A 6% N/A -- -- download paper 246471256 01-May-2012

97
APPENDIX E
Jones International University Informed Consent – Teacher

98
Appendix E
Jones International University
INFORMED CONSENT
Teacher
DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH: You are invited to participate in a research study

entitled: A Teachers’ Perception: Perceptions of the impact of Differentiated Instruction.
The purpose of this study is to offer a research-based solution to improve student learning
through differentiated instruction. You will also be asked to complete a survey and
interview. The research will be conducted by Donna L. Gilbert, Ed.S. in Upper East
Tennessee.
RISKS AND BENEFITS: The risk of this study is that you may feel uncomfortable with
the survey or interview questions. The possible benefits of this study included but not
limited to: a positive impact upon student learning and that you are able enhance your
development as a teacher.
PAYMENTS: There will be no payment for your participation.
DATA STORAGE TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY: Participants’ confidentiality

will be preserved throughout the study with a numbering system for the surveys and the
interviews associated with that survey. Any electronic data collected from surveys will
only be accessible by the researcher through a password-protected computer. Hard
copies of surveys and interviews will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at the researcher
home office and will be discarded five years, once study is completed.
TIME INVOLVEMENT: Your participation will include the amount of time it takes to
complete the survey and interview. The project will conclude on January 31, 2012.
99
HOW WILL RESULTS BE USED: The results of the study will be used to complete an
action research project as part of the researcher’s doctoral program at Jones International
University.
100
Jones International University
PARTICIPANT'S RIGHTS
Principal Investigator: Donna L. Gilbert, Ed.S.
Research Title: A Teachers’ Perception: Perceptions of the impact of Differentiated

Instruction
I have read and discussed the Research Description with the researcher. I have had the
opportunity to ask questions about the purposes and procedures regarding this study.
 My participation in research is voluntary. I may refuse to participate or withdraw
from participation at any time without jeopardy to future medical care,
employment, student status or other entitlements.
 The researcher may withdraw me from the research at his/her professional
discretion.
 If, during the course of the study, significant new information that has been
developed becomes available which may relate to my willingness to continue to
participate, the investigator will provide this information to me.
 Any information derived from the research project that personally identifies me
will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate consent, except
as specifically required by law.
 If at any time I have any questions regarding the research or my participation, I
can contact the investigator, who will answer my questions. The investigator's
phone number is (423) 440-1121.
 If at any time I have comments, or concerns regarding the conduct of the research
or questions about my rights as a research subject, I should contact the Jones

101
International University, ATTN: IRB Office, 9697 East Mineral Avenue,
Centennial, CO USA 80112. The phone number for the IRB is (800) 811-5663 or
303-784-8045.
 I should receive a copy of the Research Description and this Participant's Rights
document.
 If video and/or audio taping is part of this research, I (_) consent to be audio/video
taped. I ( ) do NOT consent to being video/audio taped. The written, video and/or
audio taped materials will be viewed only by the principal investigator and
members of the research team.
 Written, video and/or audio taped materials ( ) may be viewed in an educational
setting outside the research ( ) may NOT be viewed in an educational setting
outside the research.
 My signature means that I agree to participate in this study.
Participant's signature: ________________________________
Date: ____/____/____
Name: ________________________________
102
Investigator's Verification of Explanation
I certify that I have carefully explained the purpose and nature of this research to
__________________________________ (participant’s name) in age-appropriate
language. He/She has had the opportunity to discuss it with me in detail. I have answered
all his/her questions and he/she provided the affirmative agreement (i.e. assent) to
participate in this research.
Investigator’s Signature: ____Donna L. Gilbert, Ed.S.______
Date: ______________________
103
APPENDIX F
Survey for Teachers

104
Appendix F
Survey for Teachers
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1 Your school gives 1 2 3 4 5
adequate pre-
service and/or in-
service for DI.
2 I understand fully 1 2 3 4 5
how to use DI in
my classroom.
3 I need more 1 2 3 4 5
support to use DI
successfully
within my
classroom.
4 DI doesn’t work 1 2 3 4 5
as other
instructional
strategies I have
used in the past.
5 I collaborate with 1 2 3 4 5
colleagues about
DI
6 I have adequate 1 2 3 4 5
time to
collaborate with
105
colleagues about
DI.
7 I use DI daily in 1 2 3 4 5
my classroom.
8 DI impacts the 1 2 3 4 5
learning of some
students.
9 DI impacts the 1 2 3 4 5
learning of all
students.
10 Using DI requires 1 2 3 4 5
a lot of planning
for me.
Instructions: On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the least effective and 5 being the most
effective, rate your perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact
elementary students’ learning. Please answer the all the questions on this survey.
Responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential
Key: DI = Differentiated Instruction
106
APPENDIX G
Interview Questions for Teachers

A Teacher's Perception Percep PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Teacher's Perception Percep PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Teacher’s Perception: Perception of the impact of Differentiated Instruction

Donna Latrice Gilbert, Ed.S.

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty

Judith Orth, Ph.D. (Chair)

Angela R. Lewis, Ph.D.

Ali Mageehon, Ph.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Tennessee. When implemented correctly, differentiated instruction enables teachers to

survey and all participated in either, a face-to-interview, phone interview, or submitted

that they have upon student learning.

This research study is dedicated to the memory of my great- great grandmother,

Leanna H. Logan, my grandmothers, Lizzie W. Campbell and Corrine Jordan, my

also instilled in me that “Education is key” to being successful in life.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians, 4:13).

and support you have given me throughout this dissertation process.

allow me to accomplish anything I want to do.

love and support in all my life and educational endeavors.

To my husband, Derrick, thank you for your faith in God,

being the man of “my dreams”.

Chapter I: Introduction to the Study ......................................................................................1

Chapter II: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................15

Chapter III: Methodology ......................................................................................................36

Chapter V: Conclusion ...........................................................................................................68

Table 2.1: Howard Gardner's Eight Multiple Intelligences ...................................................18

Table 2.2: Common research-based Differentiated Instructional Strategies .........................31

Table 3.1: Student Population by Ethnic Diversity ...............................................................39

Table 3.2: Demographics of Self-Selected Participants ........................................................40

Table 3.3: Timeline of the Study ...........................................................................................45

Table 4.1: Self-Selected Participant Responses to Questions 1-3 .........................................55

Each year as classrooms become increasingly diverse, educators have the

education literature. According to Santamaria & Thousand (2004), “a central concern of

Therefore, professional collaboration is a critical aspect of planning accommodations and

to address the issues of academic diversity and academic progress.

According to Tomlinson (2004), the concept of differentiated instruction is

students, learner responsibility in differentiation, and the function of an effective

(Tomlinson, 2004). The concept of differentiated instruction can be defined in many

preference of learning mode. Readiness refers to maximizing challenge and growth,

increases the effectiveness of learning in all students. Also, ongoing assessment of

students needs comes out of effective differentiation (Tomlinson, 2004).

One may think that differentiated instruction is a new concept in

instruction to meet the needs of all of their students.

It may seem that differentiated instruction is a new educational

must find a way to reach them all (Strickland, 2004, p. 2).

“different” assignments to students who are struggling or advanced is not differentiated

instruction” (Tomlinson, 2001, p.14).

investigation will be conducted in one elementary school in east Tennessee. Although

2007). Many teachers do not implement differentiated instruction because of their

incorrectly. According to Tomlinson (2001) differentiated instruction is not:

1. The “individualized Instruction” of the 1970’s,

3. Just another way to provide homogeneous grouping, and

4. Just “tailoring the same suit of clothes” (p. 2 -3).

Nature of the Study

as cultural research, Gardner formed a list of seven intelligences (Statewide Parent

Mathematical Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, Spatial Intelligence, Musical

Intelligence, Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, and

Interpersonal Intelligence. Although the intelligences are anatomically separated from

concurrently and usually complement each other (Gardner, 2011).

Practicing differentiated instruction, matching teaching to the needs of each learner, is an

ideal way to help diversity thrive (Carolan & Guinn, 2007).

teachers’ perceptions regarding how differentiated instruction can impact elementary