Embrace Action Research

Improve
5084 classroom practice with action research ... and tell the story

The action research process can help you understand what is happening in your
classroom and identify changes that improve teaching and learning. Action research
can help answer questions you have about the effectiveness of specific instructional
strategies, the performance of specific students, and classroom management
techniques.

Educational research often seems removed from the realities of the classroom. For
many classroom educators, formal experimental research, including the use of a
control group, seems to contradict the mandate to improve learning for all students.
Even quasi-experimental research with no control group seems difficult to
implement, given the variety of learners and diverse learning needs present in every
classroom.

Action research gives you the benefits of research in the classroom without these
obstacles. Believe it or not, you are probably doing some form of research already.
Every time you change a lesson plan or try a new approach with your students, you
are engaged in trying to figure out what works. Even though you may not
acknowledge it as formal research, you are still investigating, implementing,
reflecting, and refining your approach.

Qualitative research acknowledges the complexity of the classroom learning

environment. While quantitative research can help us see that improvements or
declines have occurred, it does not help us identify the causes of those
improvements or declines. Action research provides qualitative data you can use to
adjust your curriculum content, delivery, and instructional practices to improve
student learning. Action research helps you implement informed change!

Read one teacher's story about their experience with action research.

The term “action research” was coined by Kurt Lewin in 1944 to describe a process
of investigation and inquiry that occurs as action is taken to solve a problem. Today
we use the term to describe a practice of reflective inquiry undertaken with the goal
of improving understanding and practice. You might consider “action” to refer to the
change you are trying to implement and “research” to refer to your improved
understanding of the learning environment.
Action research also helps you take charge of your personal professional
development. As you reflect on your own actions and observe other master teachers,
you will identify the skills and strategies you would like to add to your own
professional toolbox. As you research potential solutions and are exposed to new
ideas, you will identify the skills, management, and instructional training needed to
make the changes you want to see.

The Action Research Cycle

Action research is a cycle of inquiry and reflection. During the process, you will
determine 1) where you are, 2) where you want to be, and 3) how you are going to
get there. In general terms, the cycle follows these steps:

1. Identify the problem and envision success

2. Develop a plan of action
3. Collect data
4. Analyze data and form conclusions
5. Modify your theory and repeat the cycle
6. Report the results

Identify the Problem

The process begins when you identify a question or problem you want to address.
Action research is most successful when you have a personal investment, so make
sure the questions you are asking are ones YOU want to solve. This could be an
improvement you want to see happen in your classroom (or your school if you are a
principal), or a problem you and your colleagues would like to address in your
district.

Learning to develop the right questions takes time. Your ability to identify these key
questions will improve with each iteration of the research cycle. You want to select a
question that isn’t so broad it is almost impossible to answer or so narrow that the
only answer is yes or no. Choose questions that can be answered within the context
of your daily teaching. In other words, choose a question that is both answerable and
worthy of the time investment required to learn the answer.

Questions you could ask might involve management issues, curriculum

implementation, instructional strategies, or specific student performance. For
example, you might consider:
  How successful is random grouping for project work?
 Why is the performance of one student lacking in a particular area?
 Will increasing the amount of feedback I provide improve students’ writing
skills?
 What is the best way to introduce the concept of fractions?
 Which procedure is most effective for managing classroom conflict?

Determining the question helps focus your inquiry.

Before you can start collecting data, you need to have a clear vision of what success
looks like. Start by brainstorming words that describe the change you want to see.
What strategies do you already know that might help you get there? Which of these
ideas do you think might work better than what you are currently doing?

To find out if a new instructional strategy is worth trying, conduct a review of

literature. This doesn’t have to mean writing up a formal lit review like you did in
graduate school. The important thing is to explore a range of articles and reports on
your topic and capitalize on the research and experience of others. Your classroom
responsibilities are already many and may be overwhelming. A review of literature
can help you identify useful strategies and locate information that helps you justify
your action plan.

The Web makes literature reviews easier to accomplish than ever before. Even if the
full text of an article, research paper, or abstract is not available online, you will be
able to find citations to help you locate the source materials at your local library.
Collect as much information on your problem as you can find. As you explore the
existing literature, you will certainly find solutions and strategies that others have
implemented to solve this problem. You may want to create a visual map or a table
of your problems and target performances with a list of potential solutions and
supporting citations in the middle.

Develop an Action Plan

Now that you have identified the problem, described your vision of how to
successfully solve it, and reviewed the pertinent literature, you need to develop a
plan of action. What is it that you intend to DO? Brainstorming and reviewing the
literature should have provided you with ideas for new techniques and strategies you
think will produce better results. Refer back to your visual map or table and color-
code or reorder your potential solutions. You will want to rank them in order of
importance and indicate the amount of time you will need to spend on these
strategies.

How can you implement these techniques? How will you? Translate these solutions
into concrete steps you can and will take in your classroom. Write a description of
how you will implement each idea and the time you will take to do it.

Once you have a clear vision of a potential solution to the problem, explore factors
you think might be keeping you and your students from your vision of success.
Recognize and accept those factors you do not have the power to change–they are
the constants in your equation. Focus your attention on the variables–the parts of the
formula you believe your actions can impact.

Develop a plan that shows how you will implement your solution and how your
behavior, management style, and instruction will address each of the variables.
Sometimes an action research cycle simply helps you identify variables you weren’t
even aware of, so you can better address your problem during the next cycle!

Collect Data

Before you begin to implement your plan of action, you need to determine what data
will help you understand if your plan succeeds, and how you will collect that data.
Your target performances will help you determine what you want to achieve. What
results or other indicators will help you know if you achieved it? For example, if your
goal is improved attendance, data can easily be collected from your attendance
records. If the goal is increased time on task, the data may include classroom and
student observations.

There are many options for collecting data. Choosing the best methodologies for
collecting information will result in more accurate, meaningful, and reliable data.

Obvious sources of data include observation and interviews. As you observe, you
will want to type or write notes or dictate your observations into a cell phone, iPod, or
PDA. You may want to keep a journal during the process, or even create a blog or
wiki to practice your technology skills as you collect data.

Reflective journals are often used as a source of data for action research. You can
also collect meaningful data from other records you deal with daily, including
attendance logs, grade reports, and student portfolios. You could distribute
questionnaires, watch videotapes of your classroom, and administer surveys.
Examples of student work are also performances you can evaluate to see if your
goal is being met.

Create a plan for data collection and follow it as you perform your research. If you
are going to interview students or other teachers, how many times will you do it? At
what times during the day? How will you ensure your respondents are representative
of the student population you are studying, including gender, ability level,
experience, and expertise?

Your plan will help you ensure that you have collected data from many different
sources. Each source of data provides additional information that will help you
answer the questions in your research plan.

You may also want to have students collect data on their own learning. Not only
does this provide you with additional research assistants, it empowers students to
take control of their own learning. As students keep a journal during the process,
they are also reflecting on the learning environment and their own learning process.
Analyze Data and Form Conclusions

The next step in the process is to analyze your data and form conclusions. Start
early! Examining the data during the collection process can help you refine your
action plan. Is the data you are collecting sufficient? If not, you have an opportunity
to revise your data collection plan. Your analysis of the data will also help you
identify attitudes and performances to look for during subsequent observations.

Analyzing the data also helps you reflect on what actually happened. Did you
achieve the outcomes you were hoping for? Where you able to carry out your actions
as planned? Were any of your assumptions about the problem incorrect?

Adding data such as opinions, attitudes, and grades to tables can help you identify
trends (relationships and correlations). For example, if you are completing action
research to determine if project-based learning is impacting student motivation,
graphing attendance and disruptive behavior incidents may help you answer the
question. A graph that shows an increase in attendance and a decrease in the
number of disruptive incidents over the implementation period would lead you to
believe that motivation was improved.

Draw tentative conclusions from your analysis. Since the goal of action research is
positive change, you want to try to identify specific behaviors that move you closer to
your vision of success. That way you can adjust your actions to better achieve your
goal of improved student learning.

Action research is an iterative process. The data you collect and your analysis of it
will affect how you approach the problem and implement your action plan during the
next cycle.

Even as you begin drawing conclusions, continue collecting data. This will help you
confirm your conclusions or revise them in light of new information. While you can
plan how long and often you will collect data, you may also want to continue
collecting until the trends have been identified and new data becomes redundant.

As you are analyzing your data and drawing conclusions, share your findings.
Discussing your results with another teacher can often yield valuable feedback. You
might also share your findings with your students who can also add additional
insight. If they agree with your conclusions, you have added credibility to your data
collection plan and analysis. If they disagree, you will know to reevaluate your
conclusions or refine your data collection plan.

Modify Your Theory and Repeat

Now that you have formed a final conclusion, the cycle begins again. In light of your
findings, you should have adjusted your theory or made it more specific. Modify your
plan of action, begin collecting data again, or begin asking new questions!
Report the Results

While the ultimate goal of your research is to promote effective change in your
classroom or schools, do not underestimate the value of sharing your findings with
others. Sharing your results helps you further reflect on the process and problem,
and it allows others to use your results to help them in their own endeavors to
improve the education of their students.

You can report your findings in many different ways. You most certainly will want to
share the experience with your students, parents, teachers, and principal. Provide
them with an overview of the process and share highlights from your research
journal. Because each of these audiences is different, you will need to adjust the
content and delivery of the information each time you share. You may also want to
present your process at a conference so educators from other districts can benefit
from your work.

As your skill with the action research cycle gets stronger, you may want to develop
an abstract and submit an article to an educational journal. To write an abstract,
state the problem you were trying to solve, describe your context, detail your action
plan and methods, summarize your findings, state your conclusions, and explain
your revised action plan.

If your question focused on the implementation of an action plan to improve the

performance of a particular student, what better way to show the process and results
than through digital storytelling? Using a tool like Wixie, you can share images,
audio, artifacts and more to show the student’s journey. Action research is outside-
the-box thinking… so find similarly unique ways to report your findings!

In Summary

All teachers want to reach their students more effectively and help them become
better learners and citizens. Action research provides a reflective process you can
use to implement changes in your classroom and determine if those changes result
in the desired outcome.

Read an interview with action research leader, Dick Sagor.

Your ideas and experience combined with action research are a powerful formula for
effective change!

Resources

Grady, M.P. (1998). Qualitative and Action Research. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.

Sagor, R. (2005). The Action Research Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
AN ACTION RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH FOR GRADE FOUR CLASSES

I. INTRODUCTION

Like Science and Math, English is a difficult but an important subject because
the curriculum considers it as a tool subject needed to understand the different
content subjects. Basically, it is concerned with developing competencies in
listening, speaking, reading, writing, and viewing. Speaking includes skills in
using the language expressions and grammatical structures correctly in oral
communication while writing skill includes readiness skills, mechanics in
guided writing, functional and creative writing (K to 12 Curriculum Guide for
Grade 4).

The K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum aims to help learners understand that

English language is involved in the dynamic social process which responds to
and reflects changing social conditions. It is also inextricably involved with
values, beliefs and ways of thinking about the person and the world people
dwell. The curriculum aims that pupils are given an opportunity to build upon
their prior knowledge while utilizing their own skills, interests, styles, and
talents.

However, teachers find difficulties in teaching different kinds of pupils with

different intellectual capacities, talent or skills, interest, and learning styles
especially in heterogeneous groupings of pupils. This situation calls for
teachers to create lessons for all pupils based upon their readiness, interests,
and background knowledge. Anderson (2007) noted that it is imperative not to
exclude any child in a classroom, so a differentiated learning environment must
be provided by a teacher.

Differentiated instruction is based on the concept that the teacher is a

facilitator of information, while students take the primary role of expanding
their knowledge by making sense of their ability to learn differently (Robinson,
Maldonado, & Whaley, 2014).

Wilson (2009) argued that differentiated instruction is the development of the

simple to the complex tasks, and a difference between individuals that are
otherwise similar in certain respects such as age or grade are given
consideration. Additionally, Butt and Kusar (2010) stated that it is an approach
to planning, so that one lesson may be taught to the entire class while meeting
the individual needs of each child.
According to Tomlinson (2009), DI as a philosophy of teaching is based on the
premise that students learn best when their teachers accommodate the
differences in their readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles. It sees the
learning experience as social and collaborative. The responsibility of what
happens in the classroom is first to teacher, but also to the learner (Subban,
2006). Additionally, DI presents an effective means to address learner’s
variance which avoids the pitfalls of the one-size-fits-all curriculum. Stronge
(2004) and Tomlinson (2004b) claimed that addressing student differences and
interest enhance their motivation to learn and make them to remain committed
and to stay positive as well.

Stravroula (2011) conducted a study in investigating the impact of DI in mixed

ability classrooms and found out that the implementation of differentiation had
made a big step in facing the negative effects of socio -economic factors on
students’ achievement by managing diversity effectively, providing learning
opportunities for all students. The positive change in students’ achievement
had shown that differentiation can be considered as an effective teaching
approach in mixed ability classrooms.

Furthermore, Servilio (cited by Robinson, 2014) studied the effectiveness of

using DI to motivate students to read and found out that an average of 83.4%
of the students’ grades improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and
41% of the grades decreased.

As educator, the teacher-researcher was motivated to conduct this action

research on the effectiveness of DI in teaching English on Grade Four pupils
for a week-long lesson. She also she wanted to know the effect of this method
on the academic performance of the pupils from results of the diagnostic and
achievement test.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study determined the effectiveness of conducting DI to Grade Four

English class. Specifically, it answered the following.
1. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the pretest?
1.1. Control group
1.2. Experimental group
2. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the posttest?
1.1. Control group
1.2. Experimental group
3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest scores of the control
and experimental group?
4. Is there a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control
and experimental group?
5. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of
the control and experimental group?
III. HYPOTHESES

The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

1. There is no significant difference between the pretest result of the
experimental and control group.
2. There is no significant difference between the posttest result of the
experimental and control group.
3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest result
of the experimental and control group.
IV. METHODOLOGY
This action research utilized the experimental design since its main p urpose
was to determine the effectiveness of DI and its possible effect to the mean
gain scores on achievement of pupils on a one-week lesson in Grade 4
English.
Two groups were taught the same lessons for one week. The control group
was taught using the single teaching with similar activities approach while the
experimental group was taught using DI with three sets of activities and three
sets of evaluation and facilitation for the three groupings of pupils for the one -
week duration. Two regular sections were included in the study out of the five
Grade 4 sections that the school have.
Both groups were given the diagnostic test on Friday, September 25, 2015 to
identify the classification of pupils whether they belong to the above average
group, average group, and below average group. The achievement test was
administered on Monday, October 5, 2015 the following week using parallel
teacher-made tests. The number of pupils was again identified to know
whether there was change in their classification. The results of the pretest and
the posttest were compared to determine whether using DI is effective or not.
Data Gathering
After seeking the approval from the principal, the teacher-researcher started
the experiment for a week.
The scores of both the pretest and the posttest were taken and these data
were coded, tallied, and were statistically treated using the mean, standard
deviation, and t-test of significant difference.
The mean and the standard deviation were used to determine the level of
performance of control and experimental groups and the classification of
pupils, while the t-test was employed to determine the significant difference of
the mean scores on pretest and posttest of both groups.
V. RESULTS AND DISCU SSIONS
The following are the results and the analysis done from the data.
A. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Diagnostic Test
(Pretest)
The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in Table 1.
Diagnostic scores reveal that the control group has a mean of 11.76 (Sd=4 .06)
while the experimental group reported a mean score of 12.07 (sd=3.56) which
is a little higher.
 Table 1
Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental
Groups Prior to the Experiment
Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 11.76 4.06

Experimental Group 51 12.07 3.56

The variance results of 4.06 and 3.56 are not that big which signify that both
classes are heterogeneous; meaning the pupils were of differing level of
intelligence. This is indeed a good baseline since the results suggest that the
two sections included in the study are almost the same in the manner that the
scores are scattered. This means that the pupil’s grouping are mixed as to
their abilities.
Tomlinson (2009) claimed that pupil’s differences should be addressed and the
two groups became an ideal grouping for which the experiment was conducted
concerning DI.

B. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Achievement

Test (Posttest)
Table 2
Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental
Groups Prior to the Experiment
Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 13.82 3.53

Experimental Group 51 16.45 2.34

The level of performance of the two groups in the posttest is presented in
Table 2.
The experimental group of pupils who were exposed to DI obtains a mean
score of 16.45 (Sd=2.34) while the control group who were taught using the
traditional method obtain a mean score of 13.82 (Sd=3.53).
The result showed that the posttest scores of the experimental groups taught
with DI is remarkably better as compared to those which were taught the
traditional approach. Looking at the standard deviation scores, it signifies that
the variance of the experimental group was smaller than that of the control
group which suggest that the pupils’ intellectual ability were not scattered
unlike in the pretest result.
The finding is supported by Stravroula’s (2011) study on DI where was able to
prove that DI is effective as it positively effects the diverse pupils
characteristics. Stronge’s (2004) contention that DI can enhance motivation
and performance also supports the result.
C. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based
on the Pretest and Posttest Scores Results
 Table 3
Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Table 3 presents the grouping of the pupils both in the control and in the
experimental group As per classification of students based on the mean and
standard deviation results, a majority of the pupils were on the average group
for the control and experimental group prior to the treatment. However, after
the experiment, there was a big increase in number of pupils for the average
group for the control group and a larger number now belongs to the above
average group. There were no pupils reported to be in the below average
group for both the control and the experimental group.
Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but
remarkable increase was noted in the group taught with DI.
D. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based
on the Pretest and Posttest Scores Results
Table 3.1
Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Table 3.1 shows that as per classification of students based on the mean and
standard deviation results, a majority of the pupils were on the average group
for the control and experimental group prior to the treatment of using DI to the
experimental group.
It could be noticed that the percentages of classification are not far from each
other. The idea presented by Tomlinson (2009) that differences of pupils
should be addressed by the teacher in the classroom is good and according to
Robinson, et.al, the teachers are the best facilitators of learning for pupils of
diverse background and abilities.
Table 3.2
Classification of Pupils After the Differentiated Instruction
Table 3.2 presents that after the experiment, there was a big increase in
number of pupils for the average group for the control group and a larger
number now belongs to the above average group. There were no pupils
reported to be in the below average group for both the control and the
experimental group.
Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but
remarkable increase was noted in the group taught with DI. This improvement
in the classification or grouping of pupils in both groups assumes the principle
that both groups who are taught by the same teacher with the same lesson
could normally have a change in aptitude especially if the teacher has
addressed the differences as averred by Anderson (2007). However, the
notable changes in the experimental group is surely brought about by the DI
exposed to them as supported by Stravroula (2011), Subban (2006), and
Stronge (2004). With the DI, the teacher’s approach to the teaching and the
activities may have affected very well the acquisition of the learning
competencies as was mentioned by Wilson (2009). Specifically however, in
English, the contentions of Sevillano (cited by Robinson et al, 2014) directly
supports the result.
READ: Research Paper Writing Service
E. Results of Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the
Control and Experimental Group
Table 4
Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control Group
and Experimental Group

Table 4 presents the significant difference in the pretest scores of the two
groups.
The computed t-ratio of 0.8109 is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98
degrees of freedom. Hence the hypothesis of no significant difference is
accepted. There is no significant difference in the pretest scores of the class
groups.
This result is good since the baseline data prior to the use of DI suggest that
the pupils have similar intellectual abilities which will be very crucial for trying
out the experiment in the teaching approach. The data suggest that the groups
are very ideal for the experiment since they possess similarities prior to the
experiment.
F. Significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Control and
Experimental Group
Table 5 presents the significant difference of the posttest scores between the
control and the experimental group.
 Table 5
Results of Post-test the Control and Experimental Group

From the data, it is very clear that the difference in scores in the achievement
favor the experimental group which was taught using DI. Hence, it is safe to
say that DI is effective based on the data generated.
G. Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the
Control and Experimental Group
Table 6
Significant Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the
Control and Experimental Group

Table 6 presents the comparison of the pretest and post test scores of the
control and the control groups.
Clearly, for the control, there is no significant difference as signified by the
computed t coefficient of 0.09 which is lesser than the tabular value of 1.9850
using 96 degrees of freedom. However, for the control group, it is very obvious
that the calculated t-ratio of 1.02 is greater than the tabular value of 1.9840.
Hence, the hypothesis of no significant difference between the pretest and
posttest scores for the control group is accepted but is rejected for the
experimental group.
The results are very significant since the group exposed without DI did not
report difference in score unlike in the group taught using DI which showed
significant difference. This then makes it safe to conclude that DI is effective in
teaching English.
VI. FINDINGS
The following are the findings of this action research.
1. The mean scores of both control (11.76, Sd=4.06) and the experimental
(12.07, Sd=3.56) groups do not significantly differ based on the t-
coefficient result of 0.8109 which is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98
degrees of freedom.
2. The mean scores of the control (16.45, Sd=2.34) and the experimental
(13.82, Sd=3.53) significantly differ which favor the use of DI fro m the t-
ratio of 3.423 is greater than the tabular value of 1.9845 at 0.05 level of
significance using 98 degrees of freedom.
3. During the pretest, majority of the pupils are average (control group, 35 or
71.43% and 37 or 72.55%). After the treatment, however, majority of the
pupils in the control group became average (34 or 69.39%) and above
average (35 or 68.63%).
 4. There is no significant difference between the control group’s pretest and
posttest scores based on the computed t coefficient of 0.09 which is
lesser than the tabular value of 1.9850 using 96 degrees of freedom but
significant difference exists for the experimental group as signified by the
calculated t-ratio of 1.02 is greater than the tabular value of 1.9840 using
98 degrees of freedom.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions.
1. The pretest scores of the control and the experimental group do not differ
significantly.
2. The posttest scores of the groups significantly differ resulting to higher
scores for the experimental group.
3. No significant difference exists in the pretest and posttest scores of the
control group, but significant difference is noted for the experimental
group.
4. There is an improvement in the groupings of pupils both in the control and
experimental group but significant improvement was shown for the pupils
taught using DI.
5. Use of DI is effective considering the higher scores of the experimental
group compared to the control group.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above findings and conclusions, the following recommendations
are suggested.
1. DI should be used in teaching pupils in English especially in
heterogeneous classes because it improved their classroom performance.
2. Teachers should be given in-service trainings on DI for them to gain more
knowledge and clear understanding of the approach.
3. Although tedious on the part of the teachers, they should be encouraged
to prepare and use DI to motivate pupils to participate in class
discussions.
4. This action research should be continued.
IX. REFERENCES:
Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School
Failure, 51(3), pp. 49-54. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. (Accession No. 24944365)
Butt, M. & Kausar, S. (2010). A comparativ e study using differentiated instructions of public and private school
teachers. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), pp. 105 -124. Retrieved from Education Research
Complete database. (Accession No. 78221508)
K to 12 Curriculum Guide, www.deped. gov.ph
Robinson, L., Maldonado, N., & Whaley, J. (2014). Perceptions about implementation of differentiated instruction:
Retrieved October 2015 http://mrseberhartsepicclass.weebly.com/
Stravroula, V. A, Leonidas., & Mary, K. (2011). investigating the impac t of differentiated instruction in mixed ability
classrooms: It’s impact on the quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Retrieved October 2015
http://www.icsei.net/icsei2011/Full%20Papers/0155.pdf
Stronge, J. (2004). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement : What do good teachers do? Paper presented
at the American Association of School Administrators Annual Conference and Exposition, San Francisco,
California.
Subban, P.(2006). Differentiated Instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), pp. 935 -947.
Tomlinson, C. A., (2009) Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction: Shared principles worth
sharing. The NERA Journal, 45(1), 28-33.Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. (Accession No.
44765141)
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004a). Differentiation in diverse settings. School Administrator, 61(7), 28 -33
Wilson, S. (2009). Differentiated instruction: How are design, essential questions in learning, assessment , and
instruction part of it? New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), pp. 68 -75. Retrieved from Education
Source database. (Accession No. 508028374)