The Corinthian

Volume 10 Article 13

2009

Differentiated Instruction: One School’s Survey Analysis

Dianne James
Georgia College & State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://kb.gcsu.edu/thecorinthian

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation
James, Dianne (2009) "Differentiated Instruction: One School’s Survey Analysis," The Corinthian: Vol. 10 ,
Article 13.
Available at: https://kb.gcsu.edu/thecorinthian/vol10/iss1/13

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Research at Knowledge Box. It has
been accepted for inclusion in The Corinthian by an authorized editor of Knowledge Box.
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

Differentiated Instruction:
One School’s Survey Analysis
Dianne James Dr. Rui Kang
Faculty Sponsor

ABSTRACT

The purposes of this study are to investigate teachers’ perceptions of

differentiated instruction and its implementation in day-to-day teaching
within the classroom. A small sample of thirty-seven middle school teachers
participated in this study. Thirty-three of them completed a fifty-item
survey and four participated in a semi-structured individual interview.
The findings support the premise that teachers know what differentiated
instruction is theoretically or conceptually, but may not be implementing the
corresponding strategies in their classrooms. One important implication of
this study is that future staff development should continue to reinforce the
necessity of differentiated instruction, correct the various misconceptions
about differentiated instruction, and provide adequate training for the actual
implementation of differentiated instruction.

INTRODUCTION

Differentiated instruction is widely known as a method of teaching that

meets the diverse needs of students. However, little information is available
concerning the actual execution of differentiated instruction in the classroom
by teachers. Many educators pay lip service to the idea of meeting the needs of
all students and teaching them in ways that best enable them to learn; however,
in reality, the majority of teachers still teach in the same way by aiming down
the middle (Irujo, 2004).
This study is designed to investigate teachers’ perceptions of differentiated
instruction and how the concept of differentiated instruction is translated into
day-to-day teaching within the classrooms. Questions that the study seeks to
address are:
• What are teachers’ views about differentiated instruction?
• Can teachers make distinctions between individualized instruction and
differentiated instruction?
• Are teachers differentiating instruction or are they “teaching to the
middle”?

169
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

An assumption of this research is that the teachers surveyed have a basic

understanding of differentiated instruction because in the past two years
differentiated instruction was a topic for staff development at the school in
which this study occurred.

LITERATURE REVIEW

As Tomlinson (2001) describes, “In a differentiated classroom, the teacher

proactively plans and carries out varied approaches to content, process, and
product in anticipation of and response to student differences in readiness,
interest, and learning needs” (p. 7). It is a technique and response to help
students learn instead of tedious and repetitive teaching. Differentiation
starts with the teacher’s mindset that a student of any age needs active
involvement with and support from adults who care to help them construct
a worthy life (Tomlinson, 2001). This method of teaching does not suggest
that a teacher has to be all things to all individuals all the time (Tomlinson,
2005). However, it does require a teacher to master a reasonable range of
approaches to teaching so most students find mastery of learning as often as
possible. A teacher’s response to varied readiness levels relates to a teacher’s
professionalism. An expert teacher is attentive to varied learning needs and
grows into a competent, creative, and professional educator (Tomlinson,
2000). Educators who are responsive to the increasing diversity among the
student population in today’s classrooms believe that “classes should include
students of diverse needs, achievement levels, interests, and learning styles,
and instruction should be differentiated to take advantage of the diversity, not
ignore it” (Jackson & Davis, 2000, p. 23).
There are many challenges for implementing differentiated instruction in
today’s classrooms. A teacher who differentiates his or her instruction faces
the challenge to provide learning environments and opportunities that exclude
no child (Anderson, 2007). When nontraditional students are also included
in a school’s most rigorous classes (VanSciver, 2005), the implementation
of differentiated instruction becomes even more challenging. Moreover, not
only do teachers answer to parents, but they also answer to lawmakers and
the business community who demand results with unsupportive admonitions
(VanSciver, 2005), thus putting added pressures on the teaching profession.
These various challenges limit teachers’ abilities to achieve teaching
effectiveness in a classroom where differentiation becomes the center of the
instruction. Therefore, while teachers indicate the belief that differentiation
would benefit student learning, “research suggests the infeasibility argument
is winning in teachers’ struggles of conscience” (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 8).
Tomlinson also states:
170
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

While most teachers persist with single-size approaches to instructing

diverse students populations, both research and everyday observation provide
ample evidence that many students are ill-served in such classrooms. We
are repeatedly disappointed by test scores indicating a shortfall in student
achievement. More disappointing is the number of students from varied
economic and cultural backgrounds and achievement levels who become
disenchanted with learning because school has failed to connect with them as
individual learners (p. 9). Consistent with Tomlinson’s argument, it is often
observed that the typical pupil sits through notes and lectures, completes
worksheets, and then takes a test over the memorized materials. The
classrooms were quiet except for the instructor’s lecturing. The teachers chose
content, duration of study, and accessibility for student learning. It was an
effort to ensure that all children receive an equivalent level of education (Levy,
2008). This is how most teachers are educated themselves; however, this is not
differentiation.
Teachers hold various misconceptions about differentiated instruction.
Tomlinson (2001) emphasized that differentiated instruction is not
individualized instruction, chaotic instruction, homogeneous grouping, or
tailored instruction. In addition, teachers can be skeptical of differentiated
instruction believing that if differentiated instruction is used, students will be
ill prepared for standardized tests, students will assign unfair workloads among
themselves, or even students may eventually fail to survive in the real world.
Moreover, some teachers believe that credits should not be given for learning
if a student has not demonstrated the same knowledge level as the other
students in the same class and that there is only one approach to differentiating
instruction (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable as cited in Wormeli, 2005).
Finally, other misconceptions about differentiated instruction include that
differentiation is an approach only for students with disabilities, to tack on
adaptations to pre-developed lessons, to change pieces of the lesson for one or
two students, or another disconnected model for teachers to implement and
fit into the school day (Kluth, 2000). These misconceptions impede teachers
from effectively implementing differentiated instruction and must be corrected
in order to facilitate teachers’ transitions from the more familiar one-size-fits-
all teaching to differentiated instruction. Teachers need to be warned of the
possible negative consequences of adhering to the ineffective one-size-fits-all
teaching that can result in boredom for some students and failure for others.
Teaching to the middle means that the needs of a growing number of students
will not be met (Rock, et al., 2008). With the implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act, failure is not an option and teachers can no longer aim down
the middle and teach content in only one way. Educators must to be proactive
and creative in their teaching styles.
171
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

As defined by Tomlinson (2001), a differentiated classroom is marked by

a repeated rhythm of whole-class preparation, review, and sharing, followed
by opportunity for individual or small-group exploration, sense-making,
extension, and production. It is essential to realize that successful learning
involves the use of strategies which themselves are learned, and individuals
learn best when the content is meaningful to them. From years of experience,
most teachers make modification in small but significant ways throughout the
school day. The challenge for teachers is to embrace the concept on a scale and
scope to positively enhance student achievement (Tomlinson, 2001). Baglieri
and Knopf (2004) stated, “Differentiated instruction drives the spirit of the
classroom and school community toward critical reflection and disrupts the
inequalities currently prevalent in our schools and our society” (p. 528). Studies
indicate the need for differentiated instruction to enhance student learning and
to close the achievement gaps, but it is not easy for teachers to change from
classroom procedures that are comfortable and familiar to them. The projected
outcomes of this study are that teachers teach to the middle and provide
individualized instruction instead of using differentiated instruction. The
theory of differentiated instruction is known at a more superficial level, but the
depth of the philosophy is not practiced.

METHOLODGY

Participants
The targeted participants for this study were fifty-seven certified teachers
for the 2007-2008 school year at Bonaire Middle School. Of the fifty-seven
teachers, thirty-seven filled out the survey sent to them via e-mail. Four of the
returned surveys were not usable because of significant missing responses to
multiple items. In addition, two returned surveys contained missing responses
on one of the items. Simple mean imputation procedures were applied to the
missing items on these two surveys. A total of thirty-three teachers’ surveys
were entered for further analysis. Teachers with varying certification levels and
years of experience participated in the survey. This included certified academic,
non-academic, and special education teachers. The same teachers of varying
experience levels were selected for the interviews. As Figure 1 in Appendix C
shows, eight of the participants have a bachelor’s teaching degree, twenty-one
of the participants have a master’s degree, and eight of the participants have a
specialist’s degree. I obtained a 66% response rate overall, however, I can only
use 59% of my colleagues’ responses for statistical analysis.
Bonaire Middle School is located in Bonaire, which is on the urban fringe
of Warner Robins, Georgia, a medium-sized city. The total student population
for Bonaire Middle School is 848 students based on the statistical information
172
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

from the Georgia’s Department of Education (2007). Of the 848 students,

66.3% are white, 27.1% are black, 2.5% are multi-racial, 2.0% are Hispanic, 2.0%
are American Indian, and 1.9% are Asian/Pacific Islanders (Figure 2). Public
School Reports (2007) reveals that 238 students are eligible for free lunches
and seventy students are eligible for reduced-priced lunches, hence 36.3% of
the student population are eligible for free and reduced-priced lunches.

Research Design
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in this study in order
to obtain a more complete picture of teachers’ views about differentiated
instruction and the implementation of this method in their classrooms. I
emailed a closed-ended survey written on a Likert scale to a small sample
of fifty-seven middle school teachers via the website surveymonkey.com
(Appendix A). The respondents completed the survey anonymously without
providing written explanations, and tracking of responses were automatic with
the Survey Monkey program.
In addition, four pre-selected semistructured, retrospective personal
interviews with open-ended questions were conducted, and I recorded the
answers to the questions. The questions were primarily opinion-, sensory-,
and knowledge-based. I scheduled appointments with four teachers for the
interviews and asked all of them the same set of questions (Appendix B). Both
quantitative and qualitative data were collected in order to triangulate findings
from different research methods (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).
The survey instrument was multi-faceted. As stated above, teachers
were asked to complete an anonymous survey written on a Likert scale. The
survey was used to seek opinions concerning differentiated instruction and the
implementation of this teaching method within the classrooms. Questions were
divided into six categories: demographics, lesson design and implementation,
content, procedures, communication, and learning.

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Since factor analysis was prohibited by the small sample size, item analysis
was chosen as the most appropriate approach to validating the instrument.
The original instrument contained fifty-six items with five of these items
requesting demographic information about the teachers. The last item of
the survey was an open-ended question soliciting additional comments from
respondents. A copy of the survey in Appendix A shows that the remaining
fifty items were written on Likert scales with choice options ranging from
rarely occurs, sometimes occurs, often occurs, and very frequently occurs. The
fifty items were subjected to item analysis to examine score reliability. Item
retention and deletion decisions were guided by two criteria. First, items with
173
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

negative discrimination coefficients (negative item-total correlation) were

deleted from further analysis. Second, items with excessively low discrimination
coefficients (item-total correlation < 0.15) were also deleted.
The Lesson Design and Implementation Scale retained nine of ten original
items (omitting statement thirteen due to a lack of clarity), and the scores
maintained adequate internal consistency as measured by Crobach’s α = 0.71.
The Content Scale retained all ten original items and yielded an acceptable
Crobach’s α = 0.76. The Procedure Scale and the Learning Scale were more
problematic and generated questionable, but not totally unacceptable reliability
scores at 0.67 and 0.63 respectively. The Procedure Scale retained all of its
original twelve items, and the Learning Scale retained all of its original nine
items based on the above-mentioned decision rules. Finally, the Communication
Scale retained all of its original eight items, but yielded a low reliability as
measured by Crobach’s α = 0.48. This scale was deleted (omitting statements
thirty-five through forty-five) from further analysis because of its low internal
consistency.

Data Analysis
SPSS, a statistics software package, was used to analyze the numerical data
obtained from the survey. Qualitative data from the interviews were compiled
to look for common patterns and themes. The interview questions and surveys
were analyzed individually, and if applicable, were compared against each other
to find commonalities or discrepancies.

RESULTS

Survey Results
The years of teaching experience were correlated with the following
aspects of differentiated instruction: Lesson Design and Implementation,
Content, Procedure, and Learning. No statistically significant correlation was
found between years of teaching experience and any of the other variables,
although more experienced teachers tend to use the strategies listed in the
Content (r = 0.11, ns) and Procedure (r = 0.13, ns) scales slightly more
frequently. On the other hand, less experienced teachers tend to use the
strategies listed in the Lesson Design and Implementation (r = 0.14, ns) and
Learning (r = 0.07, ns) scales slightly more frequently. Descriptive statistics
of the study variables for academic content-area teachers, special education/
collaboration teachers, and connection (elective) teachers are presented
separately as illustrated below in Table 1.
The descriptive statistics show teachers reported frequent use of all the
strategies listed in the Lesson Design and Implementation, Content, and
174
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

Learning Scales. The average scores for all three types of teachers were higher
than the midpoint of the respective scales. The least frequently used strategies,
as reported by all three types of teachers, were those associated with the
Procedure Scale.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was performed to
investigate whether there were statistically significant differences among these
three types of teachers in their use of differentiated strategies. MANOVA
result indicates these three groups of teachers were not significantly different
from each other in their levels of usage of the differentiated strategies included
in the survey (λ = 0.77, F = 0.73, df = (4, 28), p = 0.691). Four univariate
analyses of variance were also performed, and their results were consistent
with that of the multivariate analysis of variance. These findings (as illustrated
in Table 1), however, were interpreted with extreme caution because they
are based on a very small sample as illustrated in Figure 3 in Appendix C. In
addition, six of the thirty-three teachers were connection teachers, and three
of the survey participants were special education/collaboration teachers. The
homogeneity of variance assumption was not violated in this case according to
the Box’s test (F = 0.74, df = (15, 320), p = 0.747), even though the number of
teachers in each group was significantly different from each other.
With further investigation, three specific statements were analyzed
individually from the survey. These statements target common misconceptions
teachers may have about differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Table 2
(see Appendix and Figures) represents a cumulative frequency distribution of
the responses to the statement “I individualize instruction as much as possible,”
found in the Content area of the survey (Appendix A). The frequency of
individualizing instruction for teachers who participated in the survey was at a
97% occurrence. One teacher rarely individualizes instruction.
The second statement, “Instruction is individualized” (Table 3), is also
located in the Content area of the survey (Appendix A), and is similar to the
previous statement, but asked in a different manner. Although the distributions
of answers were different, the results were similar. One teacher rarely
individualizes instruction, while thirty-two teachers report this as occurring
sometimes, often, or very frequently.
The third statement, “I ‘teach to the middle’ to reach the majority of
students” was also evaluated (Table 4). This statement is located in the
Procedures area of the survey (Appendix A). Five teachers, or 15%, reported
teaching to the middle rarely occurs while twenty-eight teachers or 85%
showed teaching to the middle sometimes occurs, often occurs, or very
frequently occurs.
In addition, I compared two statements from the survey that depict
differentiated instruction, and two statements that do not use descriptive
175
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

statistics. The statements that represent differentiated instruction were

“Teaching practices match the needs of the student” and “I use cooperative
learning.” The two statements that do not represent differentiated instruction
were “I ‘teach to the middle’ to reach the majority of the students” and
“Instruction is individualized.” The mean scores reveal a lower average for
teaching to the middle, 2.21, and individualized instruction, 2.55. The score
variability for these items as measured by the standard deviations was at σ =
0.74 and σ = 0.75 respectively. The two statements that reflect differentiated
instruction received higher average scores of 3.00 and 2.94 respectively with
similar standard deviations (Table 5).

Interview Results
A qualitative approach was taken to analyze the interview data in order
to gain insights into teacher perceptions about differentiated instruction. The
individualized participant responses demonstrated that each participant held a
uniform perspective about the importance of differentiated instruction.
Although there were several apparent trends among the participants, two
distinct differences pertaining to participant responses became evident at the
completion of the interviews.
The first difference is how the participants defined differentiated
instruction. Two of the four participants defined differentiated instruction
as each child having an individual learning style or learning differently.
The other two participants interviewed defined differentiated instruction
as different teaching strategies or using instruction to meet the needs of a
variety of students. On the survey, open-ended comments revealed six of the
seven respondents believed every teacher should use differentiated instruction
because of children’s differences. The surveys did not mention differentiated
instruction meaning students learn differently. The six respondents stated that
differentiated instruction meant a teacher was addressing student differences.
The second difference was how the participants determined how well
students learned in their classroom and how they reached a conclusion about
the children’s learning. Two of the four interviewees stated that children learn
well in their classrooms and they knew this because of the scores from the
Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Tests (CRCT), grades from daily
class assignments, and low retention rates. These two teachers used concrete
measurements to determine learning in their classrooms. On the other hand,
one participant answered that she knew children learned well in her classroom
because she had good relationships with them and they tell her or show her
when she asks. She offered no examples of how she did this in her classroom.
The fourth participant stated that learning in her classroom was “up and down”
based on the emotional states and academic weaknesses of the students.
176
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

These latter two participants made no mention of concrete measurements to

determine learning.

DISCUSSION

The results of the data were anticipated. Teachers appear to have the
same knowledge about differentiated instruction and share frequent uses of
all the strategies listed in Lesson Design and Implementation, Content, and
Learning Scales (Table 1). Excluding connection (elective) teachers, academic
content-area and special education teachers use the Procedure Scale strategies
frequently (Table 1). This conclusion is supported with the MANOVA analysis
that also indicated the three groups of teachers were not significantly different
from each other in their levels of usage of the differentiated strategies (λ =
0.77, F = 0.73, df = (4, 28), p = 0.691). Since there was a disparity of the
number of teachers among the three groups, a Box test was performed. The
homogeneity of variance assumption was not violated (F = 0.74, df = (15,
320), p = 0.747). With the survey statement posed to the thirty-seven middle
school teachers, I did not find any significant differences or correlation between
any groups or across any variables. In the interviews, I asked the teachers if
differentiated instruction was a fad and all four participants stated emphatically,
“No.” As stated by Rock et al. (2008), “Differentiating instruction is not a
passing fad: it is a revolution – a fundamentally different way to teach students
with diverse learning and behavioral needs” (p. 39). The participants who
answered the questionnaires also emphasized the need for different methods
that were needed for optimum learning, giving students the best opportunity
for success.
Two statements (twenty and twenty-five) from the survey (Appendix A)
were highlighted during data analysis, both concerning teachers’ perceptions
about individualized versus differentiated instruction, in order to address
the second research question. Of the thirty-three surveys analyzed, 97%
of the teachers marked that they sometimes, often, or very frequently use
individualized instruction. Tomlinson (2001) argues that differentiated
instruction is not individualized instruction. If a classroom of twenty-five
students has twenty-five different assignments, the teacher would be exhausted
(Tomlinson, 2001). The purpose is to maximize the capabilities of the students,
not exhaust the teachers. As Anderson states,
It integrates what we know about constructivist learning theory, learning
styles, and brain development with empirical research on influencing factors
of learner readiness, interest, and intelligence preferences toward student
motivation, engagement, and academic growth within schools (as cited in
Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
177
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

Different lessons do not mean individualized lessons in a classroom.

Statement thirty-seven was particularly examined to address the third
research question, i.e., whether teachers are teaching to the middle or
differentiating instruction. When evaluating the responses to this statement,
I found that 85% of the teachers sometimes, often, or very frequently teach
to the middle. This one-size-fits-all approach to teaching increases students’
frustration about learning, thus contributing to low test scores (Rock, et
al., 2008; Tomlinson, 2001). This method of teaching is not differentiated
instruction. Differentiation is responsive teaching rather than one-size-fits-all
teaching (Tomlinson, 1999).
In comparison, I also carefully examined the statement addressing the
opposite from teaching to the middle, i.e., teaching practices that match
the needs of the students. The teaching to the middle statement described
earlier had a mean score of 2.21, which is lower than the mean score of 3.00
for the item indicating just the opposite. Similarly, the statement opposite
of individualized instruction, which is using cooperative learning, was also
selected for further analysis. The mean scores were 2.55 for individualized
instruction and 2.94 for cooperative learning (Table 5). This shows that the
teachers surveyed match their teaching with the needs of the students more
than teaching to the middle and use cooperative learning more than
individualized instruction, showing their preferences for differentiated
instruction in their responses (Levy, 2008).
In the open-ended comment section of the survey, one respondent
discussed that she is a hands-on teacher, with projects and activities occurring
daily in her classroom. Many of her classes are chaotic, but she feels the
students achieve a lot of work. It is interesting to note that she commented
that it only works “if I don’t get too controlling…trying to keep everyone
on the same page.” Differentiated instruction is not keeping “everyone on the
same page.” Instead, it is meeting students where they are when they come into
the classroom (Levy, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001). Another participant responded,
“Each child is different, and they need to know that they are special and you
are concerned about their individual needs.” The educational philosophy in
a differentiated classroom emphasizes that cultivation of teacher-student
relationships is essential as well as letting each student’s voice heard and valued
(Baglieri & Knopf, 2004).
Unfortunately, there were limitations to this study. The data may not
transfer to schools in different socio-economic areas. The middle school used
for this study is predominately white as illustrated in Figure 2. The survey
does not represent the entire teacher population at the middle school (Figure
3), with only thirty-three of the fifty-seven teachers participating. The survey
would have been more effective if it had been pre-tested on a small sample
178
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

of teachers to clarify certain statements or change the wording. Possibly this

pre-test would have prevented the deletion of the Communication statements
on the survey. The survey took less than ten minutes to complete, which
the participants appreciated, but the lack of two-way communication may
have prevented accurate ratings by the participants. Since the survey was
transmitted electronically, fewer teachers may have completed it that would
otherwise have filled it out if the paper were lying on their desks as a reminder.
Only one out of five teachers asked would not participate in the interview
session due to time constraints. Another drawback to this mixed-methods
study was the time and energy necessary for completion; thus, classroom
observation data that can be crucial for examining the actual implementation
of differentiated instruction are not available.

Implications of the Study

The implications of the study are multi-faceted. It is apparent that
teachers know the philosophy of differentiated instruction, but may not be
consistently implementing the strategies in their classrooms. Too narrow an
approach will fail students and teachers because it “confuses technical adequacy
with artistry” and “confuses compliance with thoughtful engagement” (Rock
et al., as cited in Tomlinson 2000, p. 11). There is no doubt that research
supports the use of differentiated instruction (Rock, et al., 2008), but I am
not confident teachers actually implement the strategies of differentiated
instruction. The middle school administrators, who had a part in deciding the
specific areas to investigate in this study, share this view. As stated by Anderson
(2007), teachers need to investigate applications of differentiation “toward
instructional planning and implementation of lessons through action research
projects, professional conference presentations, and other projects” (p. 52).
An aspect of differentiated instruction needing further research is that
of teachers allowing students to have a voice that is heard and valued in their
educational process (Baglieri & Knopf, 2004). There were statements to be
rated about student voice, but as the Communication section on the survey
had very low reliability, it was eliminated from any form of analysis. Teachers
need to realize differentiated instruction is a shared responsibility for both the
teachers and the students. As Tomlinson (2004) states,
I believe the richest and most responsive classrooms are those in which
responsibility for developing both the individual and the group is a shared
endeavor. Thus differentiation is neither a thing the teacher does nor a way the
child functions in order to improve his or her state of affairs. It is a learned way
of thinking about “being” that honors and contributes to the uniqueness and
the possibilities of each person in the group, as it honors and contributes to the
success of the whole. (p. 189) The findings support the premise that teachers
179
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

share adequate knowledge about differentiated instruction, but the area of

implementation needs further investigation.
The results of this study will be shared with the administration at the
middle school so future staff development topics of study will continue to
reinforce the necessity of differentiated instruction and the implementation
of the philosophy in the classroom. An area of specific interest is the
misconceptions about differentiated instruction. Although the results will be
used with caution because of the small sample size in this study, it is my hope
that more guidance and training will be available to correct ill-conceived ideas
and enhance classroom performance for our students and teachers.

180
 Differentiated Instrution: An Analysis

APPENDIX AND FIGURES

181
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Survey Statement 20 (n = 33)

_________________________________________________

f % Cumulative %
-------------------------------------------

Rarely Occurs 1 3 3

Sometimes Occurs 11 33 36

Often Occurs 15 46 82

Very Frequently Occurs 6 18 100

________________________________________________

Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Survey Statement 25 (n = 33)

__________________________________________________

f % Cumulative %
-------------------------------------------

Rarely Occurs 1 3 3

Sometimes Occurs 17 52 55

Often Occurs 11 33 88

Very Frequently Occurs 4 12 100

__________________________________________________

182
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

Table 4: Frequency Distribution of Survey Statement 37 (n = 33)

__________________________________________________

f % Cumulative %
-------------------------------------------

Rarely Occurs 5 15 15

Sometimes Occurs 17 52 37

Often Occurs 10 30 97

Very Frequently Occurs 1 3 100

________________________________________________

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ View of Differentiated Instruction

(n = 33)
_________________________________________________________

M SD

--------------------------------
Teaching practices match the 3.00 0.71
needs of the student.

I “teach to the middle” to reach 2.21 0.74

the majority of students.

I use cooperative learning. 2.94 .079

Instruction is individualized. 2.55 0.75

_________________________________________________________

183
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

Appendix A: Differentiated Instruction Questionnaire

Differentiated Instruction Survey

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The responses are
anonymous. The results will be compiled in a research paper to fulfill
requirements to complete my six-year degree in education. Your
assistance in this endeavor is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Demographics
1. Select the choice that best describes you:
Male or Female
2. Select your current certification level:
Education degree (T4), Masters degree (T5), Specialists (T6),
Doctorate in Education, Leadership, or TAP
3. Teaching experience in years:
less than 1 year, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26+ years
4. Grade(s) currently teaching: (mark all that apply)
6, 7, 8
5. Content(s) you are currently teaching: (mark all that apply)
Math/MAE/AC, Language Arts/Spanish/Honors, PE, Chorus,
Band, Computers/Technology, Science/Honors, Social Studies,
FACS/AG, Special Education, or Collaboration Class

Lesson Design and Implementation

Directions: The following are statements about differentiated instruction.
Please indicate to which each state statement characterizes your teaching
philosophy by marking the appropriate response.

6. The instructional strategies and activities respect students’ prior

knowledge and the preconceptions inherent therein.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
7. The lesson was designed to engage students as member of a
learning community.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
8. Your lessons encourage student to seek and value alternative
modes of investigation or problem solving.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
9. The focus and direction of the lesson are often determined by
ideas originating with students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

184
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

10. Assessment and instruction are inseparable.

Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
11. The best way to assess knowledge is by paper and pencil tests.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
12. Learning activities are varied.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
13. Student achievement data and student work samples are analyzed
to make instructional decisions.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
14. I use multisensory teaching approaches.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
15. Curriculum is developmentally appropriate and sequential.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

Content
16. The lesson involves fundamental concepts of the subject.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
17. I anticipate problems that might arise when teaching the
curriculum.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
18. The lessons promote coherent conceptual understanding.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
19. I have a solid grasp of the subject matter content inherent in the
lessons.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
20. I individualize instruction as much as possible.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
21. I am comfortable with the content that I teach.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
22. I connect learning to the various academic disciplines through
integrated curriculum.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
23. Instructional strategies focus on meaning.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
24. I expect students to take ownership of their learning.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
25. Instruction is individualized.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

185
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

Procedures
26. I know my students learning profiles.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
27. I display student work.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
28. I know students are engaged when the classroom is quiet.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
29. I use power point presentations for student notes.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
30. I use activity sheets.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
31. I use cooperative learning.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
32. Special education teachers’ expertise are incorporated into
interdisciplinary units.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
33. Peer tutoring is used.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
34. My teaching practices match the needs of the students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
35. I lecture as students take notes.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
36. I assign student worksheets.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
37. I “teach to the middle” to reach the majority of the students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

Communication
38. I question students to trigger divergent modes of thinking.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
39. The majority of discussion in my classroom is among the
students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
40. Student questions and comments often determine the focus and
direction of classroom discourse.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
41. I have high expectations for ALL students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
42. I expect students to respect each other and their opinions.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

186
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

43. I believe in excellence and equity for my students.

Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
44. I use small groups for instruction.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
45. I believe students should have a voice in my classroom.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

Learning
46. I am aware of developmental needs of middle school students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
47. All students have the opportunity to succeed in my classroom.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
48. Tutoring is used to reach struggling students.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
49. I pre-assess regularly to know what students already know.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
50. Students with disabilities should be included in regular education
classrooms.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
51. I like an organized, but chaotic classroom environment.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
52. I teach to the CRCT.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
53. I value what my student’s believe about learning.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
54. The metaphor “teacher as listener” describes me.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs
55. I act as a resource person, working to support and enhance
student investigations.
Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs

187
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1. What specific aspects of your teaching please you the most?

2. How well do students learn in your classroom? How do you know

3. How is learning the same or different for each student?

4. What does differentiated instruction mean to you?

5. Do you feel that differentiated instruction is another fad?

6. Other Notes:

Figure 1: The certification levels for teachers at Bonaire Middle School from
The State of Georgia (2007).

L evel Of T eacher's C ertification

25

20

Number of 15 All BMS Teachers

T eac her s BMS Teacher Participants
10

0
4 Year 5 Year Master's 6 Year
Bachelor's Specialist's
Level of Degr ee

188
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

Figure 2: Demographics of Bonaire Middle School Student Body 2007-2008.

B onaire Middle S chool Demographics for 2007-2008

66.3%
700
600
500
400 27.1%

300 562

200 2.2%
230
2.0% 2.5% 0.2%

100 16 17 21 2

0
Asian/Pacific American
Black Hispanic White Multi-Racial
Islander Indian
Total 16 230 17 562 21 2
Percent 1.9% 27.1% 2.0% 66.3% 2.5% 0.2%

E thnicity

Figure 3: Relationship between total number of teachers at BMS and teachers

who participated by their content area of teaching.

C o mpar is o n o f T o tal T eac h er s

vs . P ar tic ipatin g T eac h er s
40 38

30
24
20

12
10
6 7
3
0
Academics Connection Special Education
Total 38 12 7
Participants 24 6 3

189
The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all

students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54.

Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525-529.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research
in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Georgia Department of Education. (2006). Enrollment by race, ethnicity,

gender, and grade level (PK-12). Retrieved July 24, 2008, from
http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/owsbin/owa/fte_pack_ethnicsex.display_
proc

Irujo, S. (2004). Differentiated instruction: We can no longer just aim down the
middle. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from
http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELLOutlook/2004/sept_oct/
ELLOutlookITIArticle2.htm

Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000, educating

adolescents in the 21st century: A report of the Carnegie Corporation
of New York. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kluth, P. (2000). Tools for schools: Differentiated instruction – a tool for all
students – resource materials. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/sate/resourcesdiffinstr.pdf

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated

instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards.
The Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164.

Public School Report (2007). Public school information for Bonaire Middle
School, Bonaire, GA. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from
http://schools.publicschoolsreport.com/Georgia/Bonaire/
BonaireMiddleSchool.html

Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure,
52(2), 31-47.
190
 Differentiated Instruction: An Analysis

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed

students: General education teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and
Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.

The State of Georgia – Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (2007).

Report card for teacher certification. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from
http://reportcard2006.gaosa.org/k12/persfiscal.
aspx?TestType=pers&ID=676:296

Tomlinson, C. (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff

development [Electronic Version]. Journal of Staff Development,
26(4), 8-12.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability

classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary

grades: ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED443572).

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs

of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

VanSciver, J. H. (2005). NCLB fitfully fits differentiated instruction. The

Education Digest, 37-39.

191