Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Differentiated Instruction

Kevin Quinn
Immaculata University

Abstract
This literature review was created to demonstrate the need for research into the institutional and
individual barriers preventing more widespread implementation of differentiated instruction. The
goal was to show that heterogeneity was, is, and will be present in all systems of education and that
differentiation is one, if not the best, strategy for addressing heterogeneity. The goal was also to
show that differentiated instruction is not practiced as ubiquitously as it should be because of both
individual and institutional barriers. As these barriers are not yet fully identified or qualified,
research is needed to investigate them further.

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents..............................................................................................................................3
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................4
Purpose Statement.................................................................................................................5
Research Questions...............................................................................................................6
Assumptions/Limitations.........................................................................................................6
Literature Review...............................................................................................................................7
Introduction...........................................................................................................................7
Literature Search...................................................................................................................7
Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................................8
Body of Review.....................................................................................................................9
Organizational response to
heterogeneity.....................................................................9
Benefits of differentiated
instruction...........................................................................13
Barriers of differentiated
instruction...........................................................................14
Technology as a possible approach...........................................................................17
Summary.............................................................................................................................17
References.......................................................................................................................................19

Introduction
Statement of the problem
Although researchers have been calling for differentiated instruction (DI) for over half a
century (Washburne, 1953), current researchers indicate that we havent come far enough (Dixon,
Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, &
Azano, 2014; Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 1995; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Subban &
Round, 2015; Tomlinson, 2005). In fact, there is more of a need for DI now than ever, due to
increased diversity in schools (George, 2005; Logan, 2011; Petrilli, 2011; Tieso, 2003). Given the
long understood extensive benefits of DI (Dixon et al., 2014; Hwang, Sung, Hung, Huang, & Tsai,
2012; Joseph, Thomas, Simonette, & Ramsook, 2013; Stanford, Crowe, & Flice, 2010), there must
be barriers that inhibit its widespread implementation.
Educators largely understand, agree with, and support DI but many do not actually
implement DI in their teaching even after acknowledging the benefits (Santangelo & Tomlinson,
2012). DI is commonly addressed in teacher training programs (Stover, Yearta, & Sease, 2014;
Subban & Round, 2015) and has been maintained in the educational lexicon for decades
(Washburne, 1953). Despite these facts, researchers continue to publish articles calling for DI
(George, 2005; Logan, 2011; Petrilli, 2011; Tieso, 2003), an implication that the degree of
implementation to this point has not met the needs of the diverse student population. It stands to
reason that if 60+ years of support for DI has not been enough to change educational paradigms that
there must be barriers in place that prevent more widespread implementation.
There is plenty of research into what DI can look like at the individual teacher level
(Anderson & Simpson, 2004; Cavanagh, 2014; Grabinger, 2008; Huang, Liang, Su, & Chen, 2012;

International Society for Technology in Education, 2005; Light & Pierson, 2014; Song, Wong, &
Looi, 2012; Yang, Cho, Mathew, & Worth, 2011). Research tends to focus on one of the three main
categories of differentiation: content, process, and product (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003 ).
There is a need for research that focuses on the barriers that individual teachers face when
implementing DI strategies and what institutional level barriers prevent more independent adoption
of DI. Research has shown that professional development and education regarding DI introduces
both the positive possibilities for educators and the barriers that they would face (Tobin & Tippett,
2011), but research does not compare these barriers to show their relative importance in preventing
implementation of DI.
Individual teachers, especially pre-service teachers, benefit from knowing the barriers that
they should anticipate when working to implement DI (Stover, Yearta, & Sease, 2014; Subban &
Round, 2015). It would also benefit administrators seeking to increase DI at their schools to be
aware of barriers to implementation since research has shown that teachers are more likely to
implement DI when their principals provide better direct instructional support (Goddard,
Neumerski, Goddard, Salloum, & Berebitsky, 2010). Being aware of the barriers for
implementation of DI may also allow administrators at the school, district, state, and federal levels
to better understand the modifiability of their schools, and therefore the projected success of
proposed professional development programs or other initiatives associated with DI (Moon,
Callahan, Brighton, Hertberg, & Esperat, 2003; Sternberg, 2000).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this mixed methods research study is to (1) identify the most significant
barriers to implementing DI; (2) measure the relationship between the perceived presence of those

barriers and an educators self efficacy in implementing DI; and (3) to identify strategies to
overcome or remove the barriers previously identified.
Research Questions
1) What are the most significant barriers to implementing DI at the secondary level?
2) What is the correlation between the perception of individual barriers existing at a school and
an educators self efficacy regarding their ability to implement DI?
3) What are strategies that can eliminate or avoid the barriers to implementing DI?
Assumptions/Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. The main data collection tool to be utilized will
be a survey. As with all studies that rely on survey data, there is both an assumption of honesty on
the part of the participants and a reality that there is an inherent selection bias for those that
volunteer to complete the survey. Also, participants will be asked to identify perceived barriers to
incorporating differentiation into their instruction, but since those barriers are as yet unidentified
there is no plan to measure their actual presence. In this regard all findings will be limited to
participants perspectives, as opposed to the reality of their actual teaching environment.
This study will also be limited in size and scope for a number of reasons. For convenience
purposes, surveys will only be distributed to teachers in a small region (southeast Pennsylvania) and
only within schools and districts where the superintendent and/or head of school permit. The study
will not include any assessment of actual levels of DI. While this information would aid in the
ultimate goal of correlating barriers to levels of DI implementation, the scope of this study is
preliminarily focused on identifying the barriers that are perceived to have the largest impact on

differentiation levels. Ideally, a follow up study could be narrowly focused on actually measuring
the presence of those barriers and the actual impact on differentiation levels.

Literature Review
Introduction
Heterogeneity has always been and will always be a characteristic of any student body.
From the days of one room school houses filled with students of all ages to streamed college
preparatory school, every classroom is filled with individual students that differ in ability, content
knowledge, and communication skills, among other things. This literature review acknowledges
that teaching heterogeneous student groups remains one of the greatest challenges in education and
shows that organizational approaches to heterogeneity have, at best, limited success. It will also
provide support from research that DI is recognized as one of the most successful approaches to
addressing heterogeneity as well as show that despite this support there are barriers, as yet mostly
unknown, preventing more widespread implementation. Finally, this literature review will provide
examples of a number of strategies that may prove useful in overcoming the barriers to
implementation of DI.
Literature Search
Research was collected for this literature review by searching EBSCOhost, ERIC, and
JSTOR using search terms related to DI, heterogeneity, tracking, and personalized learning among
others. Research was selected for inclusion based on full text accessibility and relevance. There was
a preference for more recent research so searches were typically limited to post-2000. There were
exceptions to this rule when an older resource was found to be particularly useful or when it was
needed to establish historical context. There was also a preference for empirical research over
non-empirical research, although when appropriate both were included. Typically, non-empirical
research was used to identify primary sources which were then sought out. Lastly, there was a

10

preference for research conducted in the United States (US) in regards to elementary, middle, and
high schools as this will be the primary focus of the study. However, this preference was not
exclusionary as that would have significantly limited the resources to be included. As heterogeneity
in education and DI are global topics of research there would have been a lot of very useful and
applicable research that would have been excluded had this constraint been strictly enforced.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on two similar but different theories regarding individual and
institutional development. The first is Lev Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory and specifically his
idea of the Zone of Proximal Development, which states that a person who cannot do something on
their own, such as differentiating instruction for a heterogeneous course, may learn how to if they
are given proper support and mentoring by someone who has mastered that skill (Santora, Mason,
& Sheahan, 2013). Using this theoretical framework, this study will investigate the barriers that
prevent individual teachers from implementing DI and determine strategies that might help
individual teachers to overcome those barriers through the use of mentoring.
The second theoretical framework for this study is Sternbergs (2000) Theory of Contextual
Modifiability which at its core says in order to implement any kind of change at a school, like
increasing the use of DI, the school must to be modifiable in the first place. Modifiability, Sternberg
argues, is a condition independent of any particular change and is instead related to institutional
change as a whole. Sternberg identifies three questions that must be asked of any school that wishes
to make any sort of institutional change:
1. To what extent is there a desire for actual change in the school culture as a whole?

11

2. To what extent is there a desire for the appearance of change in the school culture as a
whole?
3. What is the self-efficacy of the school culture with respect to its own quality?
This approach to measuring institutional modifiability has been preliminarily vetted through
empirical research (Moon, Callahan, Brighton, Hertberg, & Esperat, 2003).
These two frameworks will be used throughout the study while investigating
implementation of DI at an individual level (Zone of Proximal Development) and an institutional
level (Theory of Contextual Modifiability).
Body of Review
Organizational response to heterogeneity. There are a multitude of factors that create
diverse student bodies around the world. Socioeconomic status, prior schooling, level of parent
education, physical and mental disabilities, and many other conditions lead to heterogeneous
student bodies. National school systems, regional school districts, and individual schools are all
tasked with educating heterogeneous groups and each have utilized various organizational strategies
with varying levels of success and failure, as measured by student achievement among other factors
(Dupriez, Dumay, & Vause, 2008; Robertson, 2012; Roumell, & Alajan, 2014).
Dupriez, Dumay, and Vause (2008) compared four organizational approaches to addressing
heterogeneity taken by different national school systems: separation model, uniform integration
model, la carte integration model, and individualized integration model. The separation model
(also known as streaming), popular in many eastern and central European nations, utilizes early
tracking and stratification of the student body, typically into vocational and college bound tracks.
The uniform integration model, popular in southern and western Europe, focuses on a common core

12

curriculum without tracking and makes regular use of grade retention for students that do not
adequately progress. The la carte integration model, preferred in North America, Australia, and
parts of the United Kingdom, maintains a mostly uniform integration model but utilizes
course-by-course tracking, and flexible grouping, especially in secondary school. Lastly,
individualized integration model, favored in the Nordic nations, relies heavily on DI and
individualized teaching to allow all students to master the same curriculum at a similar pace.
Dupriez, Dumay, and Vause (2008) examined data from the 2003 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) to identify what, if any, effects the different national
models had on student achievement, reinforcement of sociocultural status, disciplinary climate, and
self-concept in mathematics for the lowest quartile of achievers in each country. Their correlative
analysis showed that the uniform integration model yielded the lowest academic achievement and
that streaming reinforced social inequality. The researchers recommended either la carte or
individualized integration models, but qualified their recommendations since their correlational
study did not account for the, possibly substantial, effects of the cultural environments in which
each of the models are present. They were also critical of la carte integration methods for
increased disciplinary issues and high variance of academic achievement and identified that the
lowest quartile of students coming from an individualized integration model had low self concept of
mathematics ability.
The US was identified by Dupriez, Dumay, and Vause (2008) as utilizing an la carte
integration model but it stood out among other countries using similar models by having the largest
discrepancy in student achievement and sociocultural status between the average and bottom
quartile of students. The researchers noted that this could be due to what they termed geographic

13

differentiation, meaning that while the US system was not formally split into vocational and college
preparatory schools large disparities existed between schools in urban, suburban, and rural areas
which was characteristic of a streaming model. Van Houtte (2004) found that in a true streaming
model, specifically the Flemish school system, student achievement was directly impacted by staff
culture, which itself was affected by school type. He also found that staff culture was less
conducive to student learning in schools that were not part of the college preparatory system. The
tendency of staff culture to be dependent upon a schools perceived role coupled with the
geographic differentiation of schools in the US could indicate a reinforcement of social inequality
and decreased academic achievement.
It has been shown that both streaming and course-by-course curriculum tracking within a
school can benefit students, but typically those benefits are only for gifted students in terms of
academic achievement (Ansalone, 2010; Ayalon & Gamoran, 2000; Dupriez, Dumay, & Vause,
2008; Tieso, 2003). In comparing the two models directly by studying 2003 PISA data
Chmielewski (2014) found that both streaming and curriculum tracking maintain social inequity at
comparable rates. Chmielewski warned that because curriculum tracking is less explicit in
reinforcing social inequity it warrants scrutiny on par with, if not greater than, streaming. Worthy
(2010) echoed concern for the movement towards course-by-course tracking in particular because
of the inconsistencies between parent and teacher perceptions. By interviewing 25 sixth grade
teachers in a large urban district Worthy found that the negative connotations associated with low
track streaming were present in course-by-course tracking. The only change, the researcher found,
was that low track had been replaced with regular and high track had been replaced with
honors. Although seemingly innocuous, Worthy warned that parents were typically unaware that

14

being in a regular course was tantamount to being streamed into a vocational track in terms of the
staff culture and expectations for student achievement. Although the verbiage changed, Worthy
found a negative staff culture very similar to what Van Houtte (2004) identified in the Flemish
streaming system.
Even in the absence of formal course-by-course curriculum tracking, when presented with
curricular choice students often assemble themselves into homogeneous groups that have the same
effect of tracking (Heck, Price, & Thomas, 2004). In trying to quantitatively measure
differentiation-polarization in Flemish schools, Van Houtte (2006) found socioeconomic status and
school culture to be strongly coupled. This could mean that the homogeneous groups Heck, Price,
& Thomas identify might form along socioeconomic lines, which could be perceived as pro-school
and anti-school in the same manner that high tracks and low tracks have been traditionally
perceived. Carbonaro (2005) found that students in higher tracks tended to put forth more effort
than those in lower tracks. Furthermore, the researcher found that in lower track courses teachers
focused on enforcement of rule-oriented (e.g. showing up to class on time) and procedural (e.g.
turning in homework) effort whereas teachers in higher track classes focused more on intellectual
effort (e.q. sustained critical thinking to solve a problem) that actually resulted in increased student
achievement. Given that Heck, Price, & Thomas identified the likelihood of students to self-track
given enough flexibility in curricular choice, it stands to reason that teachers would identify those
courses as a track, even if not formally labeled as such, and develop positive or negative staff
cultures around those courses (Worthy, 2010) part of which might be emphasis on particular forms
of effort (Carbonaro, 2005) that may not enhance student achievement. In that regard, opting for

15

curricular choice over a formal tracking system leads to similar consequences as course-by-course
tracking, which itself is comparable to streaming.
Organizational responses to heterogeneity through formal national paradigms like
streaming, tracking, and uniform integration do not adequately address heterogeneous student need.
When national organizational systems are not implemented they still have a tendency to form via
more local organizational response or through a de facto system of student choice and staff culture.
Since heterogenous student need cannot be adequately met at an organizational level it is essential
to implement strategies at the classroom level.
Benefits of differentiated instruction. DI is a pedagogical approach to addressing
heterogeneous student groups, as opposed to streaming, tracking, and curricular choice, which are
are all organizational approaches (Tomlinson, 2003). DI refers to modifying content, process, and
product in classrooms and small groups so that individual students may learn and demonstrate their
learning through a variety of methods (Logan, 2011; Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano,
2014; Subban & Round, 2015; Tobin & Tippett, 2014; Tomlinson, 2003). Although DI is a
relatively new term, the concept of working with individual students in a heterogeneous classroom
is nothing new. Throughout the 1800s the US education system largely consisted of one room
school houses where the student body was extremely heterogeneous. Motorized busing in the 1920s
made many of these school houses obsolete, in favor of bigger regional schools. However, teaching
in a heterogeneous classroom environment was a major topic of conversation decades ago
(Washburn, 1953) just as it has been in recent years (George, 2005).
Support for DI comes in a number of forms. It has been shown to increase student
achievement and to enhance student engagement both for classrooms as a whole and for individuals

16

in those classes (Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Dupriez, Dumay, & Vause, 2008; Joseph, Thomas,
Simonette, & Ramsook, 2013; Logan, 2011; Tieso, 2003; Tomlinson, 2003). Teachers have also
responded very positively to DI both in concept and upon reflecting on experiences in
implementing it (Dixon et al., 2014; Dosch & Zidon, 2014; George, 2005; Light & Pierson, 2014;
Stover, Yearta, & Sease, 2014; Washburn, 1953). Largely, the case for DI as an approach to work
with heterogeneous courses has already been made. However, there are barriers for implementing
DI.
Barriers of differentiated instruction. Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012) found that many
teachers agree with the concept of DI, support it, want to implement it, but dont implement it. This
indicates that there are barriers to implementation of DI. Implementing DI is a difficult task and as
such has been the focus of professional development and pre-service instruction (Goddard et al.,
2010; Stover, Yearta, & Sease, 2014; Subban & Round, 2015). Dixon et al. (2014) indicated that
professional development focused on DI increases teacher self efficacy, which correlates to
increased differentiation. Tobin and Tippett (2014) demonstrated the same findings by conducting a
number of workshops with a small group of teachers for the purpose of increasing DI. The
researchers found that while the workshops demonstrated more possibilities for the teachers they
also exposed them to potential barriers that they had not yet considered. Neither Dixon et al. nor
Tobin and Tippett measured the relative effects of increasing efficacy and introducing barriers
through professional development. In particular neither conclusively indicated a particular method
or amount of professional development that would result in an increase of DI implementation,
although both implied that longer format workshops were more effective than shorter professional

17

development experience. However, there was no indication as to the relative importance of quantity
of time vs format.
Moon, Callahan, Brighton, Hertberg, and Esperat (2003) suggest that before any type of
intervention take place there should be an assessment of a schools modifiability. These researchers
supported the theory posed by Sternberg (2000) that any intervention is unlikely to succeed if the
participants are not eager for change. This means that implementing professional development at a
school in need of increased DI but with a low level of modifiability is not likely to help. Because
Tobin and Tippett (2014) worked with a very small group of volunteers there may have been a
significant selection bias. On the other hand, Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, and Hardin (2014) had a
very large and randomly selected group of participants. In both cases it is not known as to whether
the participants came from a school culture with high or low modifiability. Moreover, there is no
way to compare the effect of increased professional development against a schools modifiability
because that data is not available in those studies. Perhaps if they had provided the School
Characteristics Inventory assessed by Moon et al. (2003) they may have been able to identify the
extent to which high levels of modifiability correlated with improved differentiation after
professional development.
Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, and Azano (2014) found that veteran teachers who had
had access to DI professional development were likely to ignore best practices if they became
oriented towards defining learning goals for the class as a whole as opposed to defining different
goals for individual students. The researchers also found that if the teachers oriented the learning
goals towards the lower level individuals in their class they would also ignore best practices. This is
consistent with what Ansalone (2010) found in tracked courses with veteran teachers. Teachers

18

preferred setting common goals for the course as a whole because it made the job of the teacher
easier. The goal of tracking courses was to make the classroom as homogeneous as possible such
that common instruction could be used to meet a common goal. Missett et al. found that it was not
uncommon to find the same approach taken in heterogeneous classes despite teachers awareness of
best practices for a heterogeneous environment. This could be due to the appearance of
homogeneity by student self-selection (Heck, Price, & Thomas, 2004) or due to as yet unidentified
barriers for implementation of best practices in DI.
Logan (2011) identifies a number of factors identified as myths or clichs regarding DI that
prevent it from being more ubiquitously implemented. Among them are lack of time, lack of
professional development, fear of ignoring skill instruction, perception that DI is a fad and not
worth time and effort to implement, and that DI is a mechanism for removing teachers from the
classroom entirely. Tomlinson (2005) addresses, what she considers, a significant barrier in that
many teachers see DI and grading incompatible. Since teachers are compelled to use grades they
reject DI, despite believing it will benefit students and increase student achievement. Tomlinson
clarifies that grading is the evaluation of achievement whereas DI is a strategy to help students
achieve and that these two concepts are very compatible. Both Logan and Tomlinsons research
underscores that there are many fundamental misconceptions about DI. Moreover, these
misconceptions must be addressed systemically by school leadership. It would come as no surprise
that Goddard et al. (2010) found a positive and statistically significant relationship between teachers
that identified principals instructional support and their likelihood to implement DI. However,
instructional support was vaguely defined in this case. There was also no analysis as to whether or
not the perception that principals that provided instructional support correlated to the removal or

19

absence of other barriers that might have otherwise inhibited the implementation of DI so it cannot
be concluded that instructional support in and of itself would result in increased use of DI.
As a whole there is significant recognition in research of both individual and institutional
barriers to implementation of DI (Dixon, 2014; Logan, 2011; Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2012;
Tobin & Tippet, 2014; Tomlinson, 2005) but the barriers have largely only been addressed on the
periphery and have not been the direct source of study. An adaption of Sternbergs (2000) Theory of
Contextual Modifiability that focuses on identifying barriers to implementing DI in particular could
prove as a useful tool.
Technology as a potential approach. Without having the barriers to implementing DI
itemized and ranked it is impossible to identify or prioritize approaches that would prove successful
for overcoming or removing those barriers. Still, there are general approaches that are worth
acknowledging. In particular it is worth noting that technology, specifically globally accessible web
2.0 tools, have already shown a lot a promise in promoting and enabling DI and personalized
learning (Cavanagh, 2014; Huang, Liang, Su, & Chen, 2012; Hwang, Sung, Hung, Huang, & Tsai,
2012; Light & Pierson, 2014; Nellie Mae Education Foundation, 2011; Parsons & DeLucia, 2005;
Software & Information Industry Association, 2010; Song, Wong, & Looi, 2012; Yang, Cho,
Mathew, & Worth, 2011). There is little doubt that technology will play a role in addressing both
individual and institutional barriers to implementation of DI. However, given the variety and
versatility of technology it warrants pause to highlight specific applications until the barriers of DI
implementation are more well known.
Summary

20

Educating heterogeneous student groups has always been and will likely always be one of
the greatest challenges of education. Attempts to make student groups more homogeneous come
largely with negative side effects, so a strategy to educate that embraces the heterogeneity of
courses is preferential. DI is such a strategy and it is largely shown to be effective and practical, but
it has not been universally adopted. There are both implicit and explicit implications that there are
individual and institutional barriers in the way of more widespread DI implementation, but there is
a lack a research as to what these specific barriers are and their relative effect on DI
implementation. Modern technology, specifically globally accessible web 2.0 tools, offers potential
to address these barriers, but they must be clearly identified first.

21

References
Anderson, B., Simpson, M. (2004). Group and class contexts for learning and support online:
Learning and affective support in small group and class contexts. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3), 1-15.
Ansalone, G. (2010). Tracking: Educational differentiation or defective strategy. Educational
Research Quarterly, 34(2), 3-17.
Ayalon, H. & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational
inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44(1), 54-80.
Carbonaro, W. (2005). Students effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1),
27-49.
Cavanagh, S. (2014). Personalize learning eludes easy definitions. Education Week, 34(9), 2-4.
Chmielewski, A. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and
between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293-324.
Dixon, F., Yssel, N., McConnell, J., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional
development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127.
Dosch, M., & Zidon, M. (2014). The Course Fit Us: Differentiated instruction in the college
classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3),
343-357.
Dupriez, V., Dumay, X., & Vause, A. (2008). How do school systems manage pupils
heterogeneity? Comparative Education Review, 52(2), 245-273.
George, P. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory Into
Practice, 44(3), 185-193.

22

Goddard, Y., Neumerski, C., Goddard, R., Salloum, S., & Berebitsky, D. (2010). A multilevel study
of the relationship between teachers perceptions of principals instructional support and
group norms for instruction in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2),
336-357.
Grabinger, R., Aplin, C., & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2008). Supporting learners with cognitive
impairments in online environments. TechTrends, 52(1), 63-69.
Heck, R., Price, C., & Thomas, S. (2004). Tracks as emergent structures: A network of student
differentiation in a high school. American Journal of Education, 110(4), 321-353.
Huang, Y., Liang, T., Su, Y., & Chen, N. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an
interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Education Tech Research
Dev, 60, 703-722.
Hwang, G., Sung, H., Hung, C., Huang, I., & Tsai, C. (2012). Development of a personalized
educational computer game based on students learning styles. Education Tech Research
Dev, 60(4), 623-638.
Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The impact of differentiated
instruction in a teacher education setting: Successes and challenges. International Journal of
Higher Education, 2(3), 28-40.
Light, D., & Pierson, E. (2014). Increasing student engagement in math: The use of Kahn Academy
in Chilean classrooms. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology, 10(2), 103-119.
Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher
Education Journal, 13(1), 1-14.

23

Missett, T., Brunner, M., Callahan, C., Moon, T., & Azano, A. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs
and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245-268.
Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school:
Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. (Research
Monograph 95124). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Moon, T., Callahan, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., & Esperat, A. (2003). School characteristics
inventory: Investigation of a quantitative instrument for measuring the modifiability of
school contexts for implementation of educational innovations. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 27(2), 146-176.
Nellie Mae Education Foundation. (2011, July). Integrating technology with student-centered
learning. Quincy, MA: Moeller & Reitzes.
Parsons, C., & DeLucia, J. (2005). Decision making in the process of differentiation. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 33(1), 8-10.
Petrilli, M. (2011). All together now? Educating high and low achievers in the same classroom.
Education Next, 11(1), 48-55.
Robertson, S. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education
Review, 56(4), 584-607.
Roumell, E. & Alajan, F. (2014). A comparative analysis of e-learning policy formulation in the
European Union and the United States: Discursive convergence and divergence.
Comparative Education Review, 58(1), 135-165.

24

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. (2000). Teacher educators perceptions and use of differentiated
instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4),
309-327.
Santora, K., Mason, E., & Sheahan, T. t. (2013). A Model for Progressive Mentoring in Science and
Engineering Education and Research. Innovative Higher Education, 38(5), 427-440.
Software & Information Industry Association. (2010, November). Innovate to Educate: System
[Re]Design for Personalized Learning; A Report from the 2010 Symposium. In
collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC.:
Wolf.
Song, Y., Wong, L., & Looi, C. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry
supported by mobile technologies. Education Tech Research Dev, 60(4), 679-701.
Stanford, P., Crowe, M., & Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with technology. TEACHING
Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4), 1-9.
Sternberg, R. (2000). Making school reform work: A mineralogi-cal theory of school
modifiability. Bloomington, IN: Phi DeltaKappa.
Subban, P., & Round, P. (2015). Differentiated instruction at work. Reinforcing the art of classroom
observation through the creation of a checklist for beginning and pre-service teachers.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 117-131. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol40/iss5/7
Tieso, C. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26(1), 29-36.
Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., . . . Reynolds, T.
(2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning

25

profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 27(2), 119-145.
Tomlinson, C. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice?. Theory Into
Practice, 44(3), 262-269.
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in
terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110(4).
354-388.
Van Houtte, M. (2006). School type and academic culture: Evidence for the
differentiation-polarization theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 273-292.
Washburne, C. (1953). Adjusting the program to the child. Educational Leadership, 11(3), 138-147.
Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: Ability grouping revisited. Journal of
Urban Review, 42(4), 271-295.
Yang, Y., Cho, Y., Mathew, S., & Worth, S. (2011). College student effort expenditure in online
versus face-to-face courses: The role of gender, team learning orientation, and sense of
classroom community. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(4), 619-638.