University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 1
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A FOCUS
ON INSTRUCTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION - AN EVALUATION STUDY

by
Wendy Treuhaft

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Wendy Treuhaft
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to all who work with children and strive to meet the
educational needs of every student.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 3
Acknowledgements
Someone once told me to check all the boxes in everything I do. This program was the
last educational box to check. In order to check all the boxes, I have needed the support of many
individuals. First, I want to thank my parents for always telling me that I can do anything I set
my mind to accomplishing and fostering a love of learning. My mother set the example of multi-
tasking – raising a family while pursuing an education and working – with grace. My father
instilled in me the drive to always do more, a love for USC, and a desire to earn my doctorate
from a school about which he is so passionate. Next, I want to thank my six daughters – Laina,
Ashley, Lindsay, Courtney, Taylor, and Hunter. Many of them never had a time in their lives
where their mother was not attending school. Their words of encouragement, their willingness to
eat fast food, their attendance at graduations, and their examples of their own educational
pursuits mean more to me than they will ever know. Thank you to my doctoral peers and
friends. We have become more than friends. We are confidants, a support system, therapists,
and cheerleaders. I will always remember these “good times.” A very special thank you to my
dissertation chair, Doctor Eugenia Mora-Flores. Thank you for building my confidence,
answering over 100 emails in a timely manner and with such patience, and always making me
feel like I could do this. Finally, I want to thank my fiancé, Richard Bencivengo. There is
nothing like building a relationship while one person is in a doctoral program, to demonstrate
one’s love, dedication, support, tolerance, and willingness to cook a lot of meals and listen to a
lot of whining. Richard, I love you with all my heart. Thank you.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 8

List of Figures 10

Abstract 11

Chapter One: Introduction 12

Introduction of the Problem of Practice and Related Literature 12

Organizational Context and Mission 16

Organizational Goal 18

Importance of the Evaluation 18

Related Literature 20

Description of Stakeholder Groups 23

Stakeholder Group for the Study 24

Purpose of the Project and Questions 25

Methodological Framework 26

Organization of the Project 26

Definition of Study Terms 27

Chapter Two: Literature Review 29

General Research about Factors Influencing Instructional Differentiation Overview and
Importance of Instructional Differentiation 29

Diversity in the Classroom 29

Types of Learners 29

Curriculum Accessibility for Students with Disabilities 31

Challenges Confronting Teachers When Differentiating Instruction 32

Importance of Differentiated Instruction and Ensuring Educational Outcomes Rationale for
Differentiating Instruction 33

Identifying Features of Instructional Differentiation 34

Fundamentals of Instructional Differentiation 36

Concerns, Myths, Models, and Barriers 37

Characteristics of Teachers Who Differentiate Instruction Teacher Decision-Making Related to
Differentiation 39

Evidence-Based Practice 40

Planning and Adapting 42

Teacher Efficacy 44

Turning Professional Development into Practice 44

Need for Further Research 46

Summary of Assumed Gaps 47

Knowledge 47

Elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students while
achieving the organizational goal 47

Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the individual needs
of students with disabilities 48

Motivation 49

Motivational elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students
while achieving the organizational goal. 49

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 5
Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the individual needs
of students with disabilities. 49

Organization 50

Elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students while
achieving the organizational goal 50

Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the individual needs
of students with disabilities 50

Summary and Conclusion 51

Investigation Into Causes of the Performance Gap 51

Learning and Motivation Theory 54

Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 56

Knowledge and Skills 56

Knowledge types 58

Stakeholder knowledge influences 59

Motivation 64

Goal orientation theory 65

Teachers and the goal-orientation theory. 66

Self-efficacy theory 67

Teachers and the self-efficacy theory 67

Stakeholder Organizational Influences 69

Organization Factors 70

Organizational Culture 70

Organizational Climate/Setting 72

Cultural Model Influence: Time and Resources 73

Cultural Model Influence: One Size Does Not Fit All 74

Cultural Setting Influence: Addressing the Needs of all Students in the Classroom 75

Cultural Setting Influence: Lack of Training 76

Summary 77

Summary 81

Chapter Three: Methodology 83

Purpose of the Project 83

Research Questions 83

Conceptual Framework 83

Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale 86

Criterion 1 86

Criterion 2 86

Criterion 3 86

Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 87

Interview Criterion and Rationale 88

Criterion 1 88

Criterion 2 88

Criterion 3 88

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 88

Data Collection and Instrumentation 89

Surveys 89

Interviews 90

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 6
Document Analysis 91

Data Analysis 92

Validity 92

Reliability 93

Credibility and Trustworthiness 94

Ethics 96

Limitations and Delimitations 97

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 99

Structure of the Chapter and Guiding Questions 99

Participating Stakeholders 100

Results 101

Knowledge Results 101

Declarative knowledge results 102

Procedural knowledge results 104

Conceptual knowledge results 105

Metacognitive knowledge results 107

Motivation Results 109

Goal orientation results 110

Self-Efficacy results 111

Organizational Results 112

Cultural Setting – Time and Resources 113

Cultural Setting – Administrative Support, Professional Development, and Training 114

Cultural model results 115

Findings 117

Knowledge Foundation for Differentiated Instruction 117

Challenges That Teachers Face in Differentiating Instruction 119

Lack of Resources 119

Lack of Time 120

Lack of Professional Development 120

Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influencers 121

Knowledge Influencers 121

Motivation Influencers 121

Organizational Influencers 122

Document Analysis 123

Synthesis 124

Knowledge 124

Motivation 124

Organization Models and Settings 125

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Conclusion 127

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influencers 127

Discussion 127

Interpretation of Results 128

Recommendations 130

Knowledge Recommendations 131

Introduction 131

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets 133

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 7
Conceptual knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. 134

Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets 135

Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets 136

Motivation Recommendations 137

Introduction. 137

Goal-Orientation. 139

Self-Efficacy. 141

Organization Recommendations 142

Introduction 142

Cultural models 145

Cultural settings 148

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 149

Implementation and Evaluation Framework 149

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 150

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 152

Level 3: Behavior 153

Critical behaviors 153

Required drivers 154

Monitoring 155

Organizational support 156

Level 2: Learning 156

Learning goals 156

Components of learning 159

Level 1: Reaction 160

Evaluation Tools 161

Immediately Following the Program Implementation 161

Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation 162

Data Analysis and Reporting 162

Summary 164

Implications for Future Research 166

References 167

Appendix A: Instructional Differentiation Survey 184

Appendix B: Interview Protocol 190

Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet 192

Appendix D: Recruitment Letter 194

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation of Levels 1 & 2 195

Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation (Levels 1, 2, 3, & 4) 199

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 24

Table 2: Instructional Differentiation Approaches 37

Table 3: Summary of Assumed Influences on Performance: A Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Framework 53

Table 4: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Worksheet 55

Table 5: Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessments 63

Table 6: Assumed Motivation Influences and Assessments 68

Table 7: Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues 78

Table 8: Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessments 80

Table 9: Survey Results for Declarative Knowledge Factors 102

Table 10: Most Important Ways in Which to Begin to Differentiate Instruction in the
Classroom 103

Table 11: Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge Factors 105

Table 12: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge Factors 106

Table 13: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge Factors 108

Table 14: Survey Results for Motivation/Goal-Orientation Factors 111

Table 15: Survey Results for Motivation/Self-Efficacy Factors 112

Table 16: Survey Results for Cultural Setting – Time, Resources, and Class Size 113

Table 17: Survey Results for Cultural Setting – Support and Training/Professional
Development 115

Table 18: Survey Results for Cultural Models – Communication and Support to Achieve
Organizational Goals 116

Table 19: Professional Development Topics Related to Addressing Student Needs and Number
of PD days Related to Those Topics 123

Table 20: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 131

Table 21: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 138

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 9
Table 22: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 143

Table 23: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 152

Table 24: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 154

Table 25: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 155

Table 26: Components of Learning for the Program 159

Table 27: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 161

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework. 85

Figure 2: Subjects taught by survey participants. 101

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 11
Abstract
Many studies address the diverse needs of students in the classroom, as well as meeting the
needs of students with disabilities and closing the achievement gap. This study questions and
reports the ways in which teachers differentiate instruction, the challenges they face in their
efforts to do so, and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that they may need to
overcome. This study incorporates data and results from anonymous surveys, teacher interviews,
and document analysis. Teachers who work with students with disabilities in the general
education setting were asked a number of questions related to their knowledge of instructional
differentiation, the motivation to differentiate instruction in the classroom, and the support they
receive in their efforts to do so. Study results and recommendation for organizational change are
discussed, along with method and metrics by which school leaders can implement professional
development to support their teachers as they improve instructional practices in the classroom.
Study results determined that teachers have strong content knowledge and some knowledge
about differentiating instruction for students for the diverse population of students. The majority
of teachers lack confidence in their ability to differentiate instruction, specifically for students
with disabilities. Although many teachers feel that they have the resources they need to teach,
they also feel that they did not have the time, or resources, to effectively differentiate instruction.
Finally, although teachers believe they are supported in their efforts to teach, most agreed that
need more professional development/training in meeting the needs of students with disabilities,
through instructional differentiation. Study results and recommendation for organizational
change are discussed, along with method and metrics by which school leaders can implement
professional development to support their teachers as they improve instruction in the classroom.
Keywords: instructional differentiation, students with disabilities, achievement gap
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice and Related Literature
The U.S. Department of Education (2014) reports that approximately 2.4 million
American public school students are identified with learning disabilities under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] (as cited by Stetser & Stillwell, 2014). According to
Stetser and Stillwell (2014), 66% of students with learning disabilities spend 80% or more of the
school day in general education classrooms (up from 47 % a decade ago). Although there are
positive educational gains for students with disabilities, the achievement gap for public high
school students with disabilities remains a concern for educators. This problem is evident in the
passage rate of students with disabilities on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE),
compared with the number of students who pass or fail the exam in the general population.
According to the California Department of Education, over the period of eight years (2006-
2013), students with disabilities passed the CAHSEE at a rate of 53.6%, compared with the
overall passage rate of students at 95.5% (California Department of Education, 2013). The
graduation rate for students with disabilities, compared with their typical peers, is another
example of how we may measure the achievement gap. According to Chapman, Laird, and
KewalRamani (2010), approximately 75% of the nation’s students graduate high school in 4
years (as cited by Pyle & Wexler, 2012). The Department of Education (2014) reports that 68%
of students with learning disabilities (LD) earned a regular high school diploma in 2011, as
compared to 57% in 2001. Although the number of students with learning disabilities earning a
diploma has increased, there is a definite gap when compared with their non-disabled peers
(Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 13
Part of the ongoing goal in education is the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
general education classroom (Idol, 2006). Inclusion may be described as the participation of
students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting for the entire day. This
differs from mainstreaming of students with disabilities (another goal of educators) in that
students who are mainstreamed may only participate in general education classroom settings for
part of their day (Idol, 2006). There are benefits associated with inclusion of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom. These include: increased comfort and awareness
of associating with those who are different; growth in social skills; caring friendships;
improvement in self-concept; and the development of personal principles. Some negative
feelings or concerns may be made in association with inclusion. These may include: the lack of
teacher training, the lack of support personnel, and the lack of resources in order to implement
effective programs to meet the needs of all students participating in the program (Willrodt,
1995). Some districts implement full inclusion of students with disabilities with success in
academic gains for students (Willrodt, 1995). Willrodt (1995) also points out that analysis
demonstrates that there is no significant academic difference between the use of inclusion,
compared with those students who participate in pullout programs (where students are pulled out
of the general education setting for a portion of the day to receive instruction in a smaller group
setting) or entirely in special education classroom settings; however, the author also indicates
that other benefits occur, which may be a substantial argument for an inclusion program.
Boyle and Topping (2012) state that “Educators create an effective inclusive learning
environment by engaging in teaching behaviors, language and interactions that focus on
students’ strengths and similarities rather than their challenges and differences.” Creating this
environment may include adopting effective teaching practices that view each student
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 14
individually, with varying strengths, weaknesses, backgrounds, interests, and talents;
encouraging students to do what they can (rather than focusing on what they cannot do) when
facing challenges; use people-first language (as an example - “student with disabilities” rather
than “disabled student”); acknowledge important aspects in a student’s life (wheelchair, walker);
and support student’s individuality rather than how they are alike (Boyle & Topping, 2012).
When addressing all these aspects of inclusion, it is important that teachers utilize a
diverse array of learning strategies that address the needs of all students in the classroom (Boyle
& Topping, 2012). One way in which this may be accomplished for students with special needs
is through differentiated instruction. One definition of differentiated instruction indicates that
“differentiated instruction allows all students to access the same classroom curriculum by
providing entry points, learning tasks, and outcomes tailored to students’ learning” (Watts-Taffe,
Laster, Broach, Marinak, McDonald Connor, & Walker-Dalhouse, 2013). In actively creating a
learning environment to meet the varying learning levels, a teacher must differentiate the
content, the process, and the product. Differentiating content means that teachers adapt the level
of difficulty; differentiating process means that teachers adapt classroom lessons and activities
based on the students’ interests or learning styles; differentiating product means that students
have a choice in how they demonstrate what they have learned (Taylor, 2015). Teachers who
effectively differentiate instruction will create a learning environment that will address the needs
of all students, including those with disabilities (Watts et al., 2013).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA, 2004) is in place to ensure that
all students have equal opportunity to access curriculum and that there is no achievement gap
between our students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Our democratic society has
an ethical imperative to serve our students equitably (UN General Assembly, 1948). In order to
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 15
achieve equal opportunity for access and achievement, educators must find ways to more
expeditiously narrow the achievement gap for students with disabilities.
With the enactment of IDEA, and the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general
education setting, classrooms include students with a wide range of abilities (Lovin, Kyger, &
Allsopp, 2004). Inclusive classrooms are generally described as integrating students with
disabilities into the general education setting (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005). Special
needs students are also having a greater impact on the general education teacher as, during the
past 10 years, the percentage of students with disabilities served in schools and classes with their
nondisabled peers has gradually increased (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). The U.S. Department
of Education (2000) reports that as the number of students with disabilities participate in an
inclusive setting increases, the number of special education and regular education teachers
prepared to meet the diverse needs of students must also increase (as cited by Cavanaugh, 2002).
All teachers must be able to employ both content knowledge and skills to determine how
to best examine instructional preparation and practices to provide all students with the support
they need to be successful (Ferguson, 2008). Incorporating prior experiences and knowledge, as
well as building on strengths and learning styles, teachers can correctly engage students with
disabilities in the general education setting (Broderick et al., 2005). Teachers can best decide
how to plan and present their lessons in a way that provides access for all students (Broderick et
al., 2005; Ferguson, 2008).
Students bring diverse backgrounds, languages, religions, socioeconomic statuses,
interests, behaviors, and learning styles in today’s classroom, which increases the responsibility
of the teacher to meet the needs of students in mixed-ability classrooms (Brimijoin, 2005; Dixon,
Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Lovin et al., 2004). Teachers must evaluate the current
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 16
classroom setting, practices, peer interactions, and processes in order to begin planning for
differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all students (Broderick et al., 2005). Designing
lessons that meet the unique needs of all students can be difficult (Lovin, et al., 2004). In
addition, in order to effectively differentiate instruction, teachers must be thoughtful about
student learning styles, provide necessary support for access, and use a variety of effective
teaching strategies to ensure student learning (Lovin et al., 2004). All students should have the
opportunity to receive instruction based on their needs, areas of interest, and readiness levels.
Meeting student needs in the inclusive classroom setting, as well as ensuring positive educational
results, can be accomplished through effective differentiated instruction (George, 2005;
Lawrence-Brown, 2004).
Organizational Context and Mission
The intended site for this dissertation is Southern California Charter High School
(SCCHS). SCCHS is a large independent charter school, formerly with a large California school
district. A comprehensive high school, SCCHS serves a diverse population of students in grades
9-12. In addition to the regular 9th to 12th grade coursework, SCCHS also serves its students
through an alternative program, which provides credit recovery and an independent study
program to address a variety of student needs:
The mission of SCCHS is to prepare our diverse student body for the next phase of their
educational, professional, and personal journey through a rigorous, customized academic
program that inspires the development of students’ unique talents and skills, builds
character, and provides opportunities for civic engagement and real-world experiences”
(SCCHS, 2016).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 17
The vision for SCCHS is based on a statement of beliefs that all students can learn, that this
success comes from a team effort, that students are valued members of the school community,
that students must be prepared for post-secondary life, and that the school community must
provide a safe and clean environment where students will learn. The school vision statement
describes what the vision is for the students:
We envision a charter school community, highly regarded for its innovative teaching
methods that empower students to be independent, determined, and compassionate global
citizens who think critically, collaborate confidently, and work passionately toward a
sustainable future in the world they will inherit (Southern California Charter High
School, 2016).
SCCHS staff members work with students to educate them, to help them find their
passion, and to assist them in becoming productive members of society. The student population
at SCCHS is diverse. The current total enrollment for SCCHS is 3732, 52% of whom are male
(Aeries, 2015). According to the most recent Executive Summary School Accountability Report
Card (SARC, 2011-2012), the student population included 6.9% Black or African American,
0.9% American Indian, 15.4% Asian, 25.3% Hispanic, 0.4% Native Hawaiian, 50.8% White,
20.1% Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, 2.4% English Learners, and 8.8% Students with
Disabilities. SARC also reports that 147 teachers on staff have a full credential, with three
teachers teaching outside of their subject area of competence. Out of approximately 1,325 high
schools statewide, the statewide rank for Southern California Charter High School is 8, based on
the Base API Report (Executive Summary SARC, 2011-2012). Currently, there are 390 students
with disabilities (Aeries, 2015). According to Aeries (2015), the current demographics for this
student population include a range of disabilities, including: Specific Learning Disability, Other
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 18
Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment, Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Hard of
Hearing, Orthopedic Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, and Visual Impairment.
Organizational Goal
By June 2018, Southern California Charter High School will ensure that 100% of
teachers with inclusive general education classrooms will implement instructional differentiation
strategies in the classroom. During the 2016-2017 school year, teachers will focus on
professional development related to instructional differentiation in the classroom. An analysis of
data collected through surveys, data analysis, and interviews, will determine the extent to which
this organization is meeting the stated goal.
Importance of the Evaluation
The problem of closing the achievement for students with disabilities is important to
solve for a variety of reasons. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] established
a requirement that all students would achieve academic grade level standards, regardless of race,
ethnicity, language, or disability (No Child Left Behind, 2002). Research indicates that although
law guarantees the right to equitable access of education, students without disabilities
significantly outperform their peers with disabilities in academic content areas (Zhang,
Katsiyannis, & Kortering, 2007). Underperformance may be one important issue; however, the
more significant concerns are the consequences that may result from a lack of academic
performance by students with disabilities. Therefore, focusing on teachers’ implementation of
instructional differentiation strategies in critical to improving student access to an equitable
education.
Teachers must, by law (NCLB, 2002), include students with disabilities in the general
education curriculum and utilize assessments (as with their typical peers) to measure outcomes
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 19
for all students (King-Sears, 2008; Kurz, Elliott, Lemons, Zigmond, Kloo, & Kettler, 2014).
Inclusion provides an opportunity for all teachers to include students with disabilities as they
plan and prepare lessons for the classroom instruction. The accountability factor makes it
necessary for teachers to differentiate instruction to focus on the individual needs of all students,
including those with disabilities (King-Sears, 2008). NCLB requires access to the academic
standards that define the general curriculum, granting students an appropriate education, based
on their individual abilities and needs (Kurz et al., 2014).
Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins and Cutter (2001) state that within inclusive settings,
classroom teachers have the responsibility to ensure that all students have access to the
curriculum and instruction. The authors also found that general education teachers who used
differentiated instructional practices within science classes for students with diverse learning
needs promoted increased achievement for all students in the classroom, including those with
learning disabilities (Palincsar et al., 2001). Some students with disabilities are capable of
learning grade-level content from general education teachers who know and utilize research-
based instructional differentiation techniques that meet the individual needs of the student (King-
Sears, 2008).
The impact of the lack of academic performance is important for students with
disabilities. With the increased emphasis on educational rigor and higher expectations for
meeting higher standards comes the challenge of helping students with disabilities to meet those
expectations and to graduate with a standard diploma. During a 6-year period of study, students
with mild disabilities graduated at a rate of less than 30%, compared with their peers who
graduated at a rate of 78.9% (Goodman, Hazelkorn, Bucholz, Duffy, & Kitta, 2011). Although
students with learning disabilities graduate from high school at a higher rate than in prior years,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 20
graduation rates are still a concern because of the consequences for students who do not earn a
high school diploma.
Teachers effectively utilizing instructional differentiation strategies in the classroom can
bring positive results for students. In addition, with the added pressure to meet the standards and
goals of high-stakes testing, instructional differentiation provides the opportunity to increase test
scores for students with disabilities (King-Sears, 2008). This, in turn, may increase the
graduation rate and the Annual Yearly Progress scores (the measure by which schools are held
accountable for student performance), which may also increase the positive reputation of the
school. Educators at SCCHS have a legal and ethical responsibility to educate all students so
that they may be successful in society. It is critical that the students with disabilities be prepared
to be a part of the workforce in order to contribute economically to their community, and to also
have a sense of accomplishment that comes from contributing. Teachers who work to close the
achievement gap must be diligent in utilizing instructional strategies that will meet the needs of
all students, so that all students may be successful in their educational pursuits.
Related Literature
With the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004),
there has been an increase in the number of students who participate in the general education
classroom, which increases the range of learning styles and abilities in the classroom setting
(Lovin et al., 2004). In addition, Lovin et al. (2004) state that it can be a difficult task to plan
and present lessons that meet the unique needs of all individuals in the classroom; it demands
careful consideration of how students learn, how teachers support students in the learning
process, and how teachers utilize effective instructional strategies that will have positive effects
on students learning. Dixon et al. (2014) indicate that teachers must adjust their teaching styles
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 21
in these mixed ability classrooms in order to address the various learning styles. Differentiating
instruction is not just a classroom strategy; it must be an educational philosophy (Dixon et al.,
2014). Differentiating instruction in the classroom allows for maximum benefit to all students
because differentiation meets students at their instructional level and allows for the support they
need to assist them in the process of learning (Dixon et al., 2014).
In a study on instructional differentiation, Hootstein (1999) surveyed 58 social studies
teachers to explore their beliefs and practices when differentiating instruction for students in
their class. The focus of this survey was to determine how frequently and effectively teachers
utilize differentiated instruction, their feelings about their efforts to differentiate, and the
importance of the support they receive from their administrators and other stakeholders
associated with the school. Teachers indicated that differentiating instruction was an important
part of their teaching practices as they meet the needs of the diverse population of students in
their classroom. Professional development was listed as an important factor in providing quality
differentiation in the classroom. Fewer students in the classroom, more resources with more
planning and collaboration time were among those listed as being helpful in the instructional
process and meeting the needs of all students in the classroom.
The state of California collects data from schools and districts in order to maintain a
“results-based accountability system” that determines district and school performance. This data
is also used to determine whether or not schools meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals,
with academic performance index (API) targets set for each school (Trujillo, 2013). The No
Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) mandates that goals be met or sanctions may be imposed on
districts or schools that do not meet the requirements. Trujillo (2013) states that sanctions are
intended to be a motivational factor to drive leaders and administrators to find methods that will
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 22
improve instruction and learning. Back-mapping or backward planning from state mandated
tests often becomes a part of the instructional process in order to prepare students for mandated
state assessments (Valli & Buese, 2007). In a study over a period of four year, Valli and Buese
(2007) interviewed principals, teachers, and staff members. Their results indicated that teachers
often feel the pressure of meeting the needs of the diverse population of students, utilizing
differentiation to help struggling students to meet school, district, and state standards. The
authors point out that interim, formal, informal, and formative assessments were key in
determining differentiation strategies, driving instructional differentiation practices in the
classroom. Using a variety of assessments is key to successfully meeting the needs of all
students and to meet targeted scores required by the state (Valli & Buese, 2007).
In a 6-year study of the records of almost 68,000 students in Georgia, Goodman et al.
(2011), determined that more effort needs to be put into ensuring that students with mild
disabilities have appropriate supports and curriculum to help them meet high school
requirements for graduation as evidenced by the stable graduation rate of approximately
26% in each of the 6 years of the study.
Students who do not graduate from high school are at a higher risk for not attending
college and earning lower wages over their lifetimes (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, &
Levine, 2005; Gilmore, Bose & Hart, 2001). Postsecondary education attendance is significantly
lower for students with disabilities. According to Wagner and Blackorby (1996), 37% of high
school graduates with disabilities attended a postsecondary school, compared with 78% of non-
disabled high school graduates. McGee (2011) states that students with learning disabilities are
7.1 percentage points less likely to attend college and 6.7 percentage points likely to be
employed than their observationally equivalent non-disabled peers. The lack of a high school
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 23
diploma and college degree will also impact the earning capacity for these students. Goodman et
al. (2011) found that students who did not graduate from high school earned an average of
$270,000 less than students who earned high school diplomas.
For many adults, career choice becomes a central focus of life. Economic and intrinsic
value derived from employment can provide a sense of self-worth and positive effects for many
individuals (Winkelman, 2014). Newman, Wagner, Knokey, Marder, Nagle, Shaver, & Wei
(2011) concluded that, at the time of their study, 60 percent of young adults with disabilities who
had been out of high school for up to eight years were employed, compared with 66 percent of
their non-disabled peers. Although this is not a significant difference, it does indicate that
greater preparation may need to take place during high school (Levinson & Ohler, 1998). Our
democratic society is partially based on developing individuals who have the potential for
meaningful employment and who can monetarily contribute to that society.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
A stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from
the achievement of the organization’s goal. The three stakeholder groups who must participate
in achieving this goal are administrators, teachers, and students. Administrators support the
achievement of this goal by providing professional development in the area of instructional
differentiation techniques and ideas. Teachers implement differentiation techniques and lessons
within the classroom to meet the individual needs of all students. They also communicate with
students and parents to provide information about grades, academic support, and intervention
programs. Students must pass their assigned academic classes in the first semester of enrollment
in that class.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 24
Table 1 provides a visual representation of organizational mission and performance goals
for three stakeholder groups: teachers, administrators, and students.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of SCCHS is to prepare our diverse student body for the next phase of their
educational, professional, and personal journey through a rigorous, customized academic
program that inspires the development of students’ unique talents and skills, builds character,
and provides opportunities for civic engagement and real-world experiences.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2018, Southern California Charter High School will ensure that 100% of teachers with
students in inclusive general education classrooms will implement instructional differentiation
strategies in the classroom. During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will focus on
professional development related to instructional differentiation in the classroom.

Stakeholder Goal 1
Teachers will reflect on
differentiated instructional
practices they use to plan and
present lessons in the inclusive
classroom.

Stakeholder Goal 2
Administrators will provide
professional development
opportunities to strengthen
teachers’ knowledge base in
utilizing effective instructional
differentiation practices in the
classroom.
Stakeholder Goal 3
Students will pass their
academic classes during the
first semester of enrollment.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would include all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, one stakeholder group, teachers, will be selected for this study. The stakeholder group
of teachers was chosen because of the importance of differentiated instruction in the classroom
for all students but, most particularly, for students with disabilities. The professional interest in
selecting this particular group is to determine how the teacher’s understanding and
implementation of instructional differentiation may impact the success of students with
disabilities in their assigned math classes. The ability of the teacher to differentiate instruction in
lesson planning and execution may affect the student’s ability to understand the material
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 25
presented in the class. This directly impacts the school’s ability to achieve its stated mission
statement.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the extent to which SCCHS is meeting its
organizational goal to ensure that 100% of teachers with students in inclusive general education
classrooms will implement instructional differentiation strategies during their lessons. The
analysis will focus on utilization of instructional differentiation in the classroom by teachers, and
how this differentiation relates to achieving the organization’s goals. While complete
performance evaluation will focus on all stakeholders participating in this study, for practical
purposes the main stakeholder group to be focused on in this study will be teachers who work
with students with disabilities.
The questions that will guide the study of these teachers and the intervention programs
are as follows:
1. To what extent is Southern California Charter High School meeting its goal of 100% of
teachers with inclusion students will implement instructional differentiation strategies in the
classroom?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to instructional
differentiation that will assist teachers in achieving the organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that will assist the teachers at SCCHS to
differentiate instruction to best meet the individual needs of students with disabilities in the
classroom?
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 26
Methodological Framework
This project will follow the evaluation model, which will utilize mixed method data
gathering and analysis. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method
that helps to clarify SCCHS’s goals, current performance, and intervention programs, will be
used. Assumed supporting elements will be generated based on personal knowledge and related
literature. These elements will be assessed by utilizing surveys, interviews, document analysis,
literature reviews, and content analysis. Research-based solutions will be recommended and
evaluated in a comprehensive manner, utilizing the evaluation model of study.
Organization of the Project
The organization of this study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides the
reader with the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the
achievement gap and instructional differentiation used to address the issue. The organization’s
mission, goals, stakeholders, and the framework for the project are also introduced in this
chapter. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study.
Topics of instructional differentiation strategies, meeting the needs of students with disabilities,
and assessment will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge and organizational
elements to be examined, as well as methodology when it comes to choice of participants, data
collection, and analysis surrounding this topic. In Chapter Four, an analysis of the data and
results will be presented. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for
closing the perceived achievement gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 27
Definition of Study Terms
Instructional Differentiation – Instructional differentiation includes incorporating
student learning styles, interests, and readiness into how lessons will be presented in the
classroom in order to meet student needs (Thompson, 2009).
Student with Disability – The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004)
provides a definition of a child with a disability. IDEA states:
Child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with Sec. Sec. 300.304
through 300.311 as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafness),
a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious
emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as "emotional disturbance"), an orthopedic
impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific
learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof,
needs special education and related services (Section 300.8, 2004).
Individualized Education Program/Plan – The Individualized Education Program/Plan
(IEP) is a required written document outlining a plan for a student with disabilities who is
eligible to receive special education services.
Achievement Gap – The term achievement gap can be defined as a difference in
educational achievement between groups of students, generally indicated by gender,
socioeconomic status, or race and ethnicity.
Inclusion: The practice of educating all children in a classroom, including children with
disabilities.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 28
Average Yearly Progress: the process by which schools, districts, and states are held
accountable and the determination for student performance under Title I of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Federal legislation that ensures services
to children with disabilities throughout the United States. IDEA mandates how students will
receive intervention, special education services, and programs.
No Child Left Behind: the 2002 update of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, which strengthens the federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes.
Formative Assessments: formal and informal assessments conducted by teachers during
the learning process in order to drive instructional practices and learning activities to improve
student achievement.
Summative Assessments: the goal of summative assessments is to evaluate student
learning at the end of an instructional unit by comparing it against a benchmark. Summative
assessments may include a final project or a final exam.
Typical Student: the most appropriate way to describe children who are not receiving
special education services.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 29
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review will examine the foundational causes of the lack of instructional
differentiation in general education classes, possibly contributing to the achievement gap for
students with disabilities. The review begins with the importance of instructional differentiation
in the classroom. This part will be followed by an overview of instructional differentiation in
general, the importance of differentiation in planning lessons and during the lesson. This review
will present an in-depth discussion on research-based instructional practices in differentiation
and the characteristics of teachers who utilize instructional differentiation in the classroom. This
review will also address how instructional differentiation impacts curriculum accessibility for
students with disabilities. Finally, this literature review concludes with insights on assumed
causes and reasons for a lack of differentiation in the classroom, possible teacher training, the
need for further research, and a summary of the assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational gaps.
General Research about Factors Influencing Instructional Differentiation Overview and
Importance of Instructional Differentiation

With the implementation of NCLB, there has been increased importance to ensure that all
students have the opportunity to access the curriculum and to be successful in meeting state
standards and requirements for each school. Although teachers may teach the same lesson, they
must find ways to meet the needs of the diverse population of students in the classroom (Arroyo,
Rhoad, & Drew, 1999).
Diversity in the Classroom
Types of Learners
Today’s classrooms include a wide range of students with diverse backgrounds and a
variety of educational needs (Akos, Cockman, & Strickland, 2007; Borders, Jones Bock, &
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 30
Michalak, 2012). Borders et al. (2012) state that many students bring diversity in the areas of
language, socioeconomic backgrounds, religion, race, experiences, interests, behaviors, and
learning styles. Cultural diversity of public schools presents challenges and requires new and
resourceful ways to meet the needs of students (Akos et al., 2007). U. S. classrooms are
fundamentally diverse, which makes it difficult to meet the needs of all students (Borders et al.,
2012). Therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach does not address the changing needs of these
diverse settings (Borders, 2012).
Differentiation is a philosophy rather than a teaching strategy (Brimijoin, 2005; Dixon et al.,
2014). Students bring diverse backgrounds, languages, religions, socioeconomic statuses,
interests, behaviors, and learning styles to today’s classroom, which increases the responsibility
of the teacher to meet the needs of students in mixed-ability classrooms (Dixon et al., 2014;
Lovin et al., 2004). With the enactment of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004), and the increased inclusion of students with disabilities, classrooms include students with
a wide range of learning abilities (Lovin et al., 2004).
Differentiating instruction in a mixed-ability classroom allows teachers to adjust their
instruction to maximize student growth and individual success by meeting students at the level at
which they begin and assist them in the learning process (Dixon et al., 2014). Creating and
implementing lessons that meet the diverse needs of students is not easy; one must evaluate
student learning modalities, provide the necessary levels of teacher support, and apply effective
teaching strategies to address the diverse needs of students. There are those who may question
efforts to provide an inclusive setting for all students and how we may train teachers to meet the
needs of all students in the classroom. Marin (2014) studied 213 teachers in Romania to
determine readiness to teach students with disabilities in an inclusive setting. 91% of teachers
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 31
responded that there are certain skills or a knowledge set that one must have to “create an
adequate environment in the classroom, an environment that respects each others’ needs and
diversity” (Marin, 2014). Responding to their own readiness level, 41.3% of teachers felt
slightly ready to use a specific instructional strategies and methodologies that would meet the
requirements of an inclusive classroom; approximately 27% of teachers felt moderately ready;
7% of teachers felt considerably ready; and, 8% of them feel extremely confident in their ability
to use instructional strategies to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Curriculum Accessibility for Students with Disabilities
An increasing number of students with disabilities participate in the general education
setting, with access to the general education curriculum. Throughout the world, more students
are participating in an inclusive general education classroom. (Ferguson, 2008). It is important
that teachers evaluate their teaching methods, setting, practices, lessons, and assessments in order
to effectively begin the instructional differentiation process (Broderick et al., 2005). Ferguson
(2008) states that both general education and special education teachers can combine their
content knowledge with their teaching skills to decide how they will plan and adapt their
teaching to provide all students with the scaffolding and support they need in order to be
successful. Within a setting where teachers consider all these factors, students with disabilities
can participate and can learn with the typical students (those without disabilities) in the
classroom. Teachers will set a tone for learning for all students through their attitudes and
willingness to work with the diverse population of students in their classroom (Ferguson, 2008).
Tomlinson (1995) studied one middle school over a period of 18 months, studying their
experience in differentiating instruction for their students. Interviews, observations, and
document study enabled the author to determine teacher attitude toward differentiation and the
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 32
outcome when that concept is applied in the classroom. In the study, Tomlinson found that it
was not black and white in the differentiation process; most teachers were along the continuum
of implementation, finding success in trying different strategies, determining “personal next
steps” toward mastery of total differentiation in the classroom. Those who implemented even a
few strategies felt that they made progress and saw growth and development in their teaching
abilities.
Teachers play a vital role in working with students with disabilities in the general
education classroom setting. Although differentiating instruction may be difficult, teachers can
determine the planning and presentation of their instruction in a way that provides access for all
students, both typical and those with disabilities (Broderick et al., 2005; Ferguson, 2008).
Challenges Confronting Teachers When Differentiating Instruction
Teachers may face challenges when trying to differentiate instruction (Dixon et al., 2014;
Hertberg-Davis, 2009). Some teachers may not be proficient in the content area in which they
teach, which may make it difficult for them to move beyond a one-size-fits-all lesson plan
(Dixon et al., 2014). Teachers may lack the self-efficacy, which would give them the confidence
to adjust their lessons to meet the diverse needs of all students in the classroom (Dixon et al.,
2014). In addition, teaching students with varying abilities in the same classroom can be a
challenge, one that teachers must overcome in order to meet the needs of all students. Teachers
also indicate that differentiating instruction is time-consuming and may not understand exactly
what instructional differentiation looks like as they plan and present lessons (Hertberg-Davis,
2009). In a study of 103 English teachers in Taipei, Lin (2006) found that approximately 38% of
the regular classroom teachers who participated in the study felt that a lack of time made it
difficult or very difficult to differentiate instruction in the classroom.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 33
Importance of Differentiated Instruction and Ensuring Educational Outcomes Rationale
for Differentiating Instruction

All students deserve to receive rigorous instruction appropriate to their needs (George,
2005; Lawrence-Brown, 2004). In addition, every student is different and requires special
attention and adaptation of the learning experience that fits their unique needs (George, 2005).
Differentiated instruction is an important part of inclusive classroom settings, so that students
with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve high standards through access to the general
curriculum (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Students who participate in heterogeneous classrooms,
supported by differentiated instruction, have the opportunity to learn in an effective environment
where they can achieve educational success that prepares them for real-life situations (George,
2005).
Two predominant goals for differentiated curriculum are to create an effective means of
accessing grade-level curriculum and to provide adapted lessons to students who need it
(Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Lawrence-Brown (2004) states that all students can achieve general
curriculum standards through differentiation of instruction and support to students who need it.
Differentiated instruction provides the opportunity for a variety of learning options such as
working within small and flexible groupings, choosing their own assignments, and individual
goal setting (Tomlinson, 1995). In addition, teachers who differentiate instruction utilize
assessments that provide many indicators, which may include grading to determine progress in
the classroom, variety in student output, as well as variation in the grading itself to reflect student
ability or effort (George, 2005; Tomlinson, 1995). Further, George (2005) points out that it is
critical to maintain high expectations for all students, in view of the importance that is placed on
meeting state standards,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 34
In a study of 52 middle and high school general education teachers, in a rural Georgia
school district who served students with disabilities, Knight (2016) found that approximately
35% of teachers received training in differentiated instruction and utilized it often or all of the
time in their instruction. However, Knight (2016) also found that there was no significant
relationship between a general education teacher’s perceptions of a student’s learner
characteristics (students with disabilities) and the teacher’s use of differentiated instruction in the
classroom. All students should have the opportunity to receive instruction based on their needs,
areas of interest, and readiness levels. In a study of approximately 2,100 middle school students,
which examined differentiated instruction and individual choice in reading, Little, McCoach and
Reis (2014) determined that reading fluency scores were similar or higher than those students
who participated in classrooms with traditional reading instruction. Differentiated instruction
provides a standard by which teachers can ensure significant educational outcomes for all
students in the inclusive classroom setting, meeting individual student needs (George, 2005;
Lawrence-Brown, 2004).
Identifying Features of Instructional Differentiation
Instructional differentiation includes various features that can be identified as part of the
differentiation process (Akos et al., 2007; Hall, 2002; Subban, 2006; Waters, 1995; Watts‐Taffe,
Broach, Marina., McDonald Connor., & Walker‐Dalhouse, 2012;). Teachers recognize that
students learn differently. Students may have different knowledge, readiness, language,
interests, and learning preferences. Instructional differentiation is intended to meet the needs of
various students in the same class, creating the greatest opportunity for each student to learn
(Hall, 2002).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 35
Every student has varying interests, learning styles, and readiness levels (Hall, 2002).
Instructional differentiation respects individuals, utilizes active intervention, and meets
individuals’ specific needs. Instructional differentiation includes meeting student needs through
determining student readiness level, building instruction around student interest, and paying
attention to student learning styles (Hall, 2002). There are many classroom practices that are a
part of instructional differentiation. Differentiation includes planning, teaching, identifying pupil
needs and resources to effectively implement necessary strategies (Waters, 1995). A variety of
methods, resources, and tasks should be utilized as part of the differentiation process. Teachers
should also set the rate of learning, the direction of instruction, questioning, assessment, and
feedback that makes up instructional differentiation in the classroom (Waters, 1995). In a study
of 78 math teachers and 132 math classes, Opdenakker and Van Damme (2006) determined that,
based on teacher characteristic and their teaching styles (instructional differentiation, student
participation in lessons, addressing learning styles), students had a higher opportunity to learn,
which impacted the effort students made in math class and their overall math achievement.
In order to make informed decisions when differentiating instruction, teachers should
observe the following: make connections between instructions and student background
knowledge; utilize effective student grouping; develop methods to monitor student progress so
that instructional methods and groupings are flexible to meet student needs; and develope
routines and classroom management that supports differentiation (Watts‐Taffe et al., 2012). The
process of differentiating instruction utilizes consistent flexible grouping for more effective
classroom instruction (Hall, 2002). Formative and summative assessments to determine student
readiness and growth are a crucial aspect in instructional differentiation (Hall, 2002). Examples
of formative assessment may include calling on a student to provide an example of a concept just
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 36
covered, question-and-answer sessions conducted during a lesson, exit tickets at the end of the
lesson or class, quizzes or homework that assess understanding of a current unit or lesson.
Formative assessment data drives instruction and allows the teacher to determine instructional
next-steps. Summative assessments are “generally high-stakes assessments and used to get a
final assessment of how much learning has taken place—that is, how much does a student know
(Gardner, 2010, as cited by Dixson, 2016). Summative assessments “are almost always graded,
are typically less frequent, and occur at the end of segments of instruction. Examples of
summative assessments are final exams, state tests, college entrance exams (e.g., GRE, SAT, &
LSAT), final performances, and term papers” (Dixson, 2016). Further, Hall (2002) states that
each student should feel “challenged and engage in meaningful and interesting tasks.” It has
become important for teachers to address the needs of all students in the classroom today
utilizing effective classroom management strategies and routines, effective student grouping, and
research-based materials, tasks, and lessons that will engage and challenge students (Akos et al.,
2007; Hall, 2002; Subban, 2006; Waters, 1995; Watts‐Taffe et al., 2012).
Fundamentals of Instructional Differentiation
There are certain essential components of instructional differentiation upon which most
researchers will agree. Within the practice of instructional differentiation, emphasis is generally
on the content, process, and product of instruction. Differentiated instruction goes deeper than
just allowing students to choose various activities as part of the learning/instructional process; it
is a “philosophy of teaching that is both thoughtful and purposeful” (Logan, 2011; Tomlinson,
2001, 2006).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 37
Concerns, Myths, Models, and Barriers
There is a variety of concerns, clichés, myths, and barriers of differentiated instruction,
but true instructional differentiation is structured around research-based models (Tomlinson,
2001; Logan, 2011). Differentiation is more than providing a different activity or assignment for
each student. Tomlinson (2001) provides a picture of what differentiation looks like in the
classroom. She states that effective differentiation includes proactive planning for a variety of
activities; using flexible groupings throughout the instructional time; the ability to determine
when and how to change instructional strategies or grouping that may not be working; effective
differentiated instruction is based on on-going informal and formal assessments; provides
multiple approaches to the content, the process, and the product; and, is student centered, using
whole group instruction and individual instruction.
Table 2 represents three approaches (examples) to differentiating instruction through
content, process, and product. Kanevsky (2011) and Tomlinson (2006) describe each of the three
approaches as content (what the student needs to learn or do), the process (how students learn or
master the content or material;), and product (how the student demonstrates understanding and
application to what they have learned; evidence of learning).
Table 2
Instructional Differentiation Approaches
Content Process Product
All students participate in
activities that are interesting,
challenging, meaningful, and
engaging.

Teachers use various
instructional strategies to target
instruction to student needs.
Students often have choices
about topics, activities, and
assessment. Utilizes a variety
of learning modalities (Verbal,
Kinesthetic, Interpersonal,
Intrapersonal, Musical)
Self-selection of product
format. Students are
assessed in multiple ways,
and each student’s progress
is measured at least in part
form where that student
began.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 38
Table 2, continued
Content relates to real life and
is relevant.

Instruction includes individual
pursuits. Self-selected
processes and products.

Assessments are authentic.

Should maintain a balance
between breadth and depth.
Content is complex.

Flexible pacing, discovery,
choice, group interaction, and
pacing
Assessment is an ongoing
diagnostic activity, and
learning tasks are planned
and adjusted based on
assessment data. Teachers
provide relevant and timely
feedback

Content includes
extracurricular activities

Students and teachers
collaborate in setting class and
individual goals.
Ongoing assessment based
on individual goals.
Adapted from Kanevsky, 2011; Possibilities for Learning, n.d.; and Tomlinson, 2006;

There are a variety of clichés associated with instructional differentiation. Clichés may
include that differentiation is “reinventing the wheel, that things will not get any better than they
are, that this type of teaching is just another phase, and that a teacher can bring a horse to water,
but he cannot make it drink” (Logan, 2011). Myths regarding differentiation are as profuse as
the clichés. Logan (2011) also states that myths may include the idea that differentiation does
not include whole-group instruction; that students work individually in workbooks; that it is for
students who struggle or for students who are not proficient in standardized testing; and, that
instruction means placing students into groups.
There are also actual barriers and concerns that must be addressed and overcome when
differentiating instruction. These include: effectively managing a classroom where students
participate in a variety of activities, assessing students to determine their readiness level,
sufficient resources for teaching, meeting the expectations for standardized testing, and finding
effective examples to model the process (Logan, 2011). Flexibility must be a part of the teaching
process when addressing the content students are learning, the processes strategies utilized, and
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 39
the products by which students demonstrate their learning (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh,
2005).
Logan (2011) and Tomlinson (2001) also assert that teachers lack time, professional
development resources, and administrative support. Although there are many barriers and
concerns associated with instructional differentiation, true differentiation is based on researched
methods and provides the teacher with a variety of resources upon which to build instruction.
“Standards-based and data driven decision making in the classroom is about what we know about
students and what we want them to learn in relation to the standards with the best possible
strategy for success” (Gamoran, 1989).
In an eight year study of working with elementary teachers and reviewing instructional
and historical documents, Beecher and Sweeny (2008) found that instructional practices based on
standards, implementing differentiated instruction which included planning “concurrent
differentiated learning experiences for students based on a single instructional objective” helped
close the achievement gap for students in the lower socioeconomic status, with a reduction of
those who scored in the remedial band of 28%. Assessment data demonstrated that, overall, the
achievement gap in writing reduced 9%, 7% in math, and 30% in reading, utilizing standards-
based instruction with differentiation.
Characteristics of Teachers Who Differentiate Instruction Teacher Decision-Making
Related to Differentiation

Specific teacher characteristics provide a foundation for differentiation of instruction in
the classroom. Teachers must be able to make instructional decisions if they are going to meet
the needs of all students in the classroom. They must use evidence-based practices, they must
plan and adapt their planning, and they must present lessons that actively engage all students in
learning.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 40
Evidence-Based Practice
There are certain characteristics of teachers who differentiate instruction (Brimijoin,
2005; Dixon et al., 2014). Dixon et al. (2014) state that teachers who differentiate are flexible in
their approach to teaching, adjust their curriculum and presentation of information to learners,
and make adjustments in the content, in the activities to learn the content, or in the product to
indicate mastery of the content. Building skill level, confidence, and competence in the area of
differentiation requires knowledge of content (Brimijoin, 2005). Teachers must have knowledge
and understanding of their content in order to have the confidence, skill level, and competence in
the area of differentiation (Brimijoin, 2005). Brimijoin (2005) states that teachers who are
knowledgeable about differentiation focus on “core ideas” and “guiding principles that represent
best practices and support student success in the classroom.” Teachers who effectively
differentiate instruction in the classroom demonstrate these characteristics, which allow students
access to the curriculum (Brimijoin, 2005; Dixon et al., 2014). In addition to the characteristics
that promote differentiation in the classroom, teachers who differentiate instruction see
assessment as a valuable tool in an ongoing part of the process (Benjamin, 2006; Brimijoin,
2005; Chapman & King, 2005).
Although teachers may value assessment as part of the instructional practices, school
leadership must support assessment as a significant part of instruction, and support teachers who
utilize a variety of assessments, as part of their planning for differentiation (Benjamin, 2006).
Benjamin (2006) states that teachers must be able to use their own discretion as to how
assessments will be utilized in the instructional process.
Both formative and summative assessments were utilized as part of the study conducted
by Beecher and Sweeny (2008). The authors worked for 8 years in an elementary setting, where
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 41
45% of the students received free or reduced lunch, and approximately 30% of the students
spoke English as a second language. As part of their study of the efforts of staff to improve
instruction and assessment outcomes, Beecher and Sweeny (2008) determined that it is important
to utilize data from assessments to plan instruction and to determine next steps in teaching.
“District tests and state mastery tests, informal assessments, and an analysis of student work
helped guide instruction, improve curricular units, and assist teachers' differentiation efforts”
(Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). Students are more likely to be successful if there are a variety of
assessments that are utilized to determine the next stages for instruction (Benjamin, 2006). In
addition, Benjamin (2006) states that there may be little importance in instruction, unless it is
based on ongoing assessment. Chapman and King (2005) assert that teachers need to assess
before, during, and after learning takes place, including informal and formal assessment.
Formative assessments are ongoing and are generally utilized to guide, direct, or “form” student
learning (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). The process of formative assessments should include
“eliciting students’ ideas, noticing the substance of students’ thinking, interpreting to make sense
of students’ ideas, and acting to guide and support student learning” (Levin et al., 2012, as cited
by Clinchot, et al., 2017).
An assessment can be considered formative if a teacher gathers evidence about student
performance, interprets the evidence, and uses the evidence to make decisions about next
steps in instruction that are likely to be better focused or informed than the decisions
would have been without the evidence. (as cited by Tomlinson & Moon, 2013)
Tomlinson and Moon (2013) describe formative assessments as a “formative loop” of
observation and instructional actions. Type of formative assessments may include: informal
notes taken as students work on an assignment, student logs or records, short quizzes, thumbs
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 42
up/thumbs-down signals from students, entry cards, and exit tickets (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013).
In order to successfully differentiate instruction, effective assessments will be utilized throughout
the year and are diverse to determine what information will need to be reviewed and what
instruction will look like for future lessons (Chapman & King, 2005).
Planning and Adapting
Planning and adapting lessons during the instructional process are the foundation for
effective differentiation (Parsons, Dodman, & Burrowbridge, 2013; Chapman & King, 2005;
Lawrence-Brown, 2004). In order to effectively differentiate instruction for all students, teachers
should expand their view of differentiation. Teachers should: utilize standards as they plan,
consistently assess before they plan lessons to determine the needs of specific groups of students,
continually assess students throughout the lesson to determine where to make modifications in
the lesson, utilize resources that support student learning styles, ability levels and knowledge,
and group students during the planning process, utilizing flexibility to change groupings as the
instructional period progresses (Chapman & King, 2005). Beecher and Sweeny (2008) noted
that teachers included in the study differentiated reading instruction by the use of “flexible
groups, texts on different reading levels, student-selected texts during independent reading, and
guided reading groups according to the identified need for individual students.” In guiding
instruction for students, teachers also planned lessons to meet the needs of all students, and
created a strategic plan to include standards-based instruction and differentiation in a multi-year
plan for improvement. Analysis of state achievement tests indicated improvement in all subjects
and in all proficiency levels. Results from the study by Beecher and Sweeney (2008)
demonstrated that
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 43
students from the lowest socioeconomic who scored in the remedial band were reduced
by 28%, resulting in only 4% of students remaining in the remedial band. Students from
higher socioeconomic homes moved out of the remedial band, resulting in only 3% of
those students remaining at the remedial level.
In addition to planning, teachers should continue to adjust their lessons or presentation
during the instruction (Parsons et al., 2013). Utilizing instructional strategies, based on standards
and research-based methods, teachers can effectively meet the needs of all students in the
classroom. Effective differentiated instruction begins with rigorous general education lessons
and should include opportunities for active learning (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Meyers and Jones
(1993, p. xi) state that the focus of “active learning is on developing not only students'
knowledge but also their skills and abilities by providing opportunities ‘to talk and listen, read,
write, and reflect as they approach course content” (as cited by Auster & Wylie, 2006). Felder
and Brent (2009) describe active learning as anything that is related to the instructional content,
where students may be asked to do something other than listening to a lecture or taking notes.
Some examples may include students working with other students to solve a problem and then
debriefing or sharing with their peers (think-pair-share), individual or group activities that allow
for thinking and then doing, or concept tasks where students may answer questions about a
lesson-related topic (Felder & Brent, 2009).
Differentiation provides the opportunity for teachers to move away from the established
lessons and toward a variety of instructional strategies within a topic that will interest students.
In their study of 58 secondary social studies teachers, in seven school divisions in a southeastern
metropolitan region, Hootstein (1999) reported that 86% of teachers reported that addressing
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 44
student interests was important or very important in planning lessons for the diverse student
population within their classroom setting.
In a study of 646 students in grades 3 through 8, Kanevsky (2011) determined that best
practices in active learning and differentiating instruction include flexibly grouping students
based on level of student learning within the subject area, embedding high-thinking skills within
the subject, the use of inquiry, and the use of student-centered opportunities that are relevant and
problem-based. In addition, Lawrence-Brown (2004) states that teachers should plan lessons that
connect content with student learning styles and incorporate student’s interests. Teachers who
effectively differentiate instruction begin this process during the planning stages with high-
quality lessons that manage all materials and resources to meet students’ needs. For example, in
her study of 10 teachers in the area of instructional differentiation, Thompson (2009) determined
that lessons based on standards and student interest can “effectively increase a student’s desire to
learn” by connecting the subject and the way the material is presented to the student’s area of
interest and modality of learning. In addition, student profiles can assist the teacher in
determining a student’s preferred method of learning, which is usually based on student
strengths. Adjustment of lessons may happen before, during, and after a research-based lesson
presentation (Chapman & King, 2005; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Parsons et al., 2013).
Teacher Efficacy
Turning Professional Development into Practice
Although teachers may learn about instructional differentiation in their credentialing
programs, and may understand the strategies introduced during professional development, it may
be difficult to integrate this learning into classroom lessons (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008);
Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Guskey, 2003; Guskey, 1994). Certain
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 45
instructional practices have proven effective with differentiated instruction. Teachers should
evaluate their knowledge base, reflect on teaching preferences and skill level, while recognizing
their areas of weakness (Rock et al., 2008). In addition, teachers should set reasonable goals to
introduce differentiated instruction into the classroom (Rock et al., 2008). In doing so, teachers
should understand five quality indicators of effective differentiated instruction, which include:
the teacher, content, learner, instruction, and assessment. When considering ways in which
leaders can help facilitate this type of instruction in the classroom, they should consider the
effective methods of introducing differentiated instruction in professional development trainings
(Penuel et al., 2007).
Those individuals providing professional development must consider resources for
supporting implementation and likely barriers to this implementation of new strategies (Penuel et
al., 2007). Teachers must be comfortable with teaching content because then they will be more
likely to allow for different types of strategies as a next step (Penuel, 2007). The task of
differentiation can be overwhelming. Effective professional development includes the
enhancement of teachers’ academic knowledge and helping them to better understand the ways
in which students learn the content (Guskey, 2003). Guskey (1994) also states that those
providing professional development should expect change in a ongoing and incremental method,
rather than expecting change overnight. Progress toward state expectations, and school program
improvement, cannot take place without improving the skills and abilities of teachers and
instruction in the classroom (Guskey, 1994). Although professional development is an important
aspect of teacher training and professional growth, teachers must understand how to apply what
they learn in their training to classroom instruction (Rock et al., 2008; Penuel, et al., 2007).
Guskey, 2003; Guskey, 1994).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 46
Teachers consider professional development as a learning experience, which may provide
opportunities to grow within their profession and, in turn, may impact student learning (Lowden
2005 as cited by Gemeda, Fiorucci, & Catarci, 2014). In a case-study approach involving three
Ethiopian schools, Gemeda, Fiorucci, and Catarci (2014) interviewed teachers to determine their
perceptions on professional development and the impact it has on teacher improvement and
practice in the classroom. The authors found the following:
It is indisputable that the intensification of teachers’ work has a negative impact on the
quality of teachers’ work, and on their students’ learning experiences. The data obtained
from the Professional Development in Education 81 participants revealed that teachers’ work
overload prevents the fruition of teachers’ professional development. Evident is that teachers
are overloaded with multiple tasks that impact significantly in a negative way on what and
how teachers teach, and on their students’ learning.
Need for Further Research
Although research indicates that instructional differentiation is the most effective method
for meeting individual students needs, further research is needed to assist teachers so that they
can better understand the importance of differentiation, how to plan and adapt their lessons, and
how to ensure that students have relevant experiences in the classroom (Logan, 2011; Santangelo
& Tomlinson, 2009; Subban, 2006). Further research is needed to determine ways in which all
students may have meaningful, rigorous learning experiences (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009)
In order to accomplish this, Subban (2006) states that there must be further research in the
following related areas: teacher response to adopting new methods of teaching, differences
between tracking students and instructional differentiation, the effect of teaching experience on
the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction, and the challenges and strengths that teachers
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 47
experience during the implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. There are
strengths and weaknesses in a teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction that must be addressed
utilizing research-based professional development methods, while pursuing further research to
strengthen teacher understanding and ability to meet the diverse needs of students in the
classroom (Logan, 2011; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009; Subban, 2006).
Summary of Assumed Gaps
A gap analysis seeks to determine where an organization is, where it needs to be, and the
best way in which to get there. A gap analysis compares the current performance of an
organization to its expected performance. Knowledge, motivation, and organization are the three
areas of study for this research project.
Knowledge
Elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students while
achieving the organizational goal. There are certain fundamental tools that will assist teachers
to progress toward meeting the needs of students while simultaneously achieving the
organizational goal (Kennedy, 1998; Parsons et al., 2013). When addressing educational
improvement and the subject matter knowledge of teachers, certain features must be present.
Teachers must have a solid foundational knowledge in their content area in order to move
beyond providing facts about the content to students. Teachers should encourage students to
explore the content at a deeper level. Teachers must utilize metacognitive strategies to evaluate
their own teaching methods, the success (or lack thereof) of lessons, and how they may address
and close the achievement gap for students with disabilities when compared with their non-
disabled peers (Kennedy, 1998). Teachers must combine what they know about their subject
matter and how students learn in order to effectively differentiate instruction (Parsons et al.,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 48
2013). Further, Parson et al., (2013) state that teachers who effectively differentiation instruction
have a strong knowledge of their subject matter and how students learn. The basis for
differentiating instruction is a strong declarative knowledge, combined with the procedural
knowledge of how to apply that differentiation to the lessons being presented in the class
(Parsons et al., 2013).
In a case study, utilizing structured interviews of six secondary English teachers (three of
whom had substantial content knowledge, but no formal teacher training, and three of whom had
prior formal teacher training in addition to content knowledge, Grossman (1990) found that those
teachers without training focused on the content, but did not relate the teaching to student
interest. Those teachers with formal training related the readings to student experience, and tied
the learning to student communication and self-expression. Those teachers with formal training
also “adjusted more effectively to the diverse needs of the students in their classrooms” (as cited
by Cochran, 1991).
Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the
individual needs of students with disabilities. There are recommendations that can be made to
an organization to assist teachers to meet the individual needs of all students in the classroom,
including those with disabilities (Parsons et al., 2013; Marzano, 2007). Stakeholders must
understand what differentiation means and how to apply it specifically to the lessons provided in
a particular class, or to a specific group, or student (Parsons et al., 2013). Developing declarative
knowledge, reviewing, and adjustment are key to understanding and implementing differentiated
instruction (Marzano, 2007) Over time, with multiple opportunities for practice and refinement,
the learner (teacher) adds to his or her knowledge base, which can strengthen those skills needed
to differentiate instruction (Marzano, 2007).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 49
Motivation
Motivational elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of
students while achieving the organizational goal. There are certain motivational components
that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students while achieving the
organizational goal (Mayer, 2011; Tollefson, 2000; Erdem, & Demirel, 2007; Mojavezi, &
Tamiz, 2012). Meaningful learning and execution does not take place if the learner does not put
forth that effort and engage in the process that it takes to learn routines and material. In addition,
motivation to learn is reflected in the amount of effort that a learner wants to put forth to
understand the material that they have to learn (Mayer, 2011). Motivation is an important aspect
related to student learning, as teachers can use theories of motivation to determine how to
address student needs (Tollefson, 2000).
Teachers with a high level of self-efficacy believe that they can impact student
achievement and motivation to learn. Teachers themselves may also be motivated to go beyond
the standard of instructional practices to find ways to differentiate instruction (Tollefson, 2000).
The sense of self-efficacy not only affects expectations of success or failure, but also influences
motivation through goal setting (Erdem & Demirel, 2007). Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012) indicate
that there is a reasonably positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and student
motivation. When instruction is differentiated to meet student needs, then students are more
likely to measure their own success based on their own standards, rather than compared to the
standards or progress of their peers (Pajares, 2006).
Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the
individual needs of students with disabilities. There are several recommendations that can be
made in organizational practices to assist teachers to meet the individual needs of all students,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 50
including those with disabilities (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) indicates that building self-
efficacy is an important factor related to motivation, when an individual confronts a difficult
task. Individuals with higher self-efficacy will be more motivated, and may be more willing to
persevere in a particular activity, even if the activity is difficult (Rueda, 2011).
Organization
Elements that will assist teachers in effectively meeting the needs of students while
achieving the organizational goal. Certain elements will assist teachers in effectively meeting
the needs of students, including those with disabilities, while achieving organizational goals
(Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). In order to effectively assist teachers in accomplishing this goal,
organizational leaders must understand that teachers and staff members might be hesitant to try
new instructional strategies because they believe that their teaching methods are already effective
(Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). Understanding the reasons why high school teachers resist change
may include “layers of bureaucracy, school cultures, departmentalization, and teacher isolation”
(Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). Finally, Dasmawati and Boon (2014) indicate that effective
leadership is crucial to the successful implementation of new instructional programs, or other
improvements that may be introduced in school.
Recommendations for organizational practice to assist teachers to meet the
individual needs of students with disabilities. Certain recommendations can be made to assist
teachers to meet the individual needs of students, including those with disabilities (Dasmawati &
Boon, 2014). Dasmawati and Boon (2014) further specify that as instructional leaders, principals
are expected to facilitate improvement, as well as support and encourage teachers in the process
of instructional change. It is important that principals establish a foundation of trust, create
opportunities that advocate and support teacher learning, help connect teachers with experts in
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 51
the educational field, while building capacity for change in their schools (Dasmawati & Boon,
2014). Building teacher leadership capacity comes when school leaders embrace current
instructional philosophies of leadership (Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). Finally, Diasmawati and
Boon, 2014) state that administrators who collaborate with teachers in decision-making that
affects instruction in the classroom have a tendency to strengthen teacher instructional practices.
Summary and Conclusion
According to the literature, it is evident that today’s classrooms are filled with a diverse
population of students. In addition, the literature indicates that it is imperative to differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of all students. Chapter two attempts to outline the fundamental
features of differentiated instruction, while addressing concerns and barriers to planning and
adapting. Research and theories support the need for differentiated instruction; professional
development can help ensure effective implementation. Teachers who effectively differentiate
instruction utilize evidence-based practices, use formal and informal assessment to drive
instruction, and carefully plan lessons, while adapting during instruction. The literature shows
that there are challenges when differentiating instruction, which includes meeting the diverse
needs of students, including presence of students with disabilities within the general education
setting. Teachers must have a clear knowledge of how to differentiate instruction; administrators
must assist teachers in reaching the goal of effectively implementing differentiation in the
classroom. Lack of experience, lack of knowledge, and lack of teacher efficacy may be possible
causes of knowledge, motivation, and organizational performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Addressing organizational goals through the elements of knowledge, motivation, and
organization can help to ensure success for teachers when differentiating instruction.
Investigation Into Causes of the Performance Gap
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 52
Often, there are assumptions made about the sources of organizational problems,
assumptions upon which solutions may be based. Determining the organizational problem is an
essential part of discovering the most appropriate solution. However, validation of these
assumed causes does not always occur. When analyzing solutions, it is important not to presume
a correlation between a problem and the possible cause of that problem. It may appear to be easy
to find a direct association between causes and solutions to problems, based on personal
assumptions about that particular problem. When one presumes a relationship between causes
and solutions to organizational problems, accurate causes of performance gaps may be
overlooked. A thorough investigation into the possible causes for assumed performance gaps
should include the following three components: (a) informal interviews with stakeholders, (b) a
review of learning, motivation, and organizational theory, and (c) a review of literature on the
specific performance area being studied.
This study investigated the knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes
preventing teachers from consistently differentiating instruction in the classroom. A review of
the literature is outlined in this chapter, as well as assumed causes that are introduced in Chapter
Three, based on my own personal knowledge of the stakeholders and the organization. A review
of learning and motivational theory is introduced in this chapter and discussed further in the next
chapter.
Table 3 provides a summary of assumed influences on performance, including
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that contribute to teacher’s ability to
differentiate instruction in the classroom.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 53
Table 3

Summary of Assumed Influences on Performance: A Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Framework

Assumed Influences Research Literature
Knowledge
Factual/Declarative:
Teachers know what instructional
differentiation is, how to identify individual
needs of students in the classroom, and the
process of planning and adapting lessons to
meet those individual needs.

(Willingham, Nissen, & Bullemer, 1989;
Kennedy, 1998)
Conceptual:
Teachers understand how to differentiate,
instruction, how to remediate, and how to
determine intervention steps.

(Kennedy, 1998; Kloeppel, & Kulinna, 2012;
Carpenter, 1986; Eisenhart, Borko, Underhill,
Brown, Jones, & Agard, 1993)

Procedural:
Teachers know how to plan lessons and to
differentiate instruction, as needed.

(Georgeff, & Lansky, 1986; Willingham,
Nissen, & Bullemer, 1989; Corbett, &
Anderson, 1994; Pintrich, 2002; Biggs, 1996;
Carpenter, 1986; Eisenhart, Borko, Underhill,
Brown, Jones, & Agard, 1993)
Metacognitive
Teachers know how to reflect on their own
teaching methods, strengths and weaknesses,
and ability to set goals to improve instruction
to meet individual needs of students.

(Willingham, Nissen, & Bullemer, 1989;
Pintrich, 2002)

Motivation
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers believe that they are capable of
effectively differentiating instruction to meet
individual needs of students in their
classroom.

(Rueda, 2011; Pajares, 2006; Schunk, 1991;
Pajares, 1996; Brouwers, A., & Tomic, 2000;
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007)

Goal Orientation:
Teachers should have a mastery approach
orientation to the task – a desire to become
proficient in teaching, remediating,
reviewing,

(Yough & Anderman, 2006; Kaplan & Maehr,
2007; Schwarzer, 2014; Ames, 1992;
Blumenfeld, 1992; Alschuler, 1970)
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 54
Table 3, continued
Organizational Culture
Cultural Model
Teachers need leaders who act as effective
role models, effectively communicate
organizational goals, provide direction to
achieve those goals, and create a culture of
attitudes, beliefs, and ways of thinking that
support change .

Cultural Setting
Teachers need leaders who shape
organizational culture by creating an
environment where teachers feel open to
taking risks and supported in their efforts to
improve their own teaching methods. Lile,
2013; Jahanian & Salehi, 2013)

(Cilliers & Greybenstein, 2012; Hendry, 1996;
Kezar, 2001a; Schwandt & Marquardt, 1999;
Senge, 1990)

(Kezar, 2001; Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan,
Norman, & Provost, 2009; Perrow, 1973;
Hendry, 1996; Schein, 1990; Ott, 1989; Sergiu,
2015

In order to identify possible causes and solutions to the organization’s academic
achievement goals, this study will utilize Clark & Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. This method
assists the researcher to identify organizational goals, as well as determining the gap between the
actual performance level and the expected performance level within the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This study, based on related literature and personal experience and knowledge of
relevant stakeholders, will investigate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that
prevent teachers from differentiating instruction in the classroom to meet the individual needs of
students in order to close the achievement gap for students with disabilities. A literature review
is outlined in this chapter, with assumed causes. The assumed causes will be validated through
the use of interviews, surveys, literature reviews, and research on learning and motivational
theory is introduced below and is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Learning and Motivation Theory
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that in order to determine performance gaps within an
organization, one must establish the cause of the gap so that a performance improvement
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 55
program can be determined. This is crucial in determining which areas to focus on in order to
achieve the overall organizational goals. The authors further state that there are three important
factors when reviewing performance data and possible gaps within an organization: knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers (such as lack of resources or support) that may prevent
members from achieving the organizational goal. The gap analysis can provide information to
determine if the member/employee has adequate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
support to achieve those goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 4 provides an overall description
summary of assumed influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
Table 4
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Worksheet
Organizational Mission
The mission of SCCHS is to prepare our diverse student body for the next phase of their
educational, professional, and personal journey through a rigorous, customized academic
program that inspires the development of students’ unique talents and skills, builds character,
and provides opportunities for civic engagement and real-world experiences.

Organizational Global Goal
In relation to the organizational mission, it is the goal of the special education department, that
by June 2018, 100% of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) will pass their
assigned academic courses in the first semester that the class is assigned.
Stakeholder Goal
100% of teachers consistently differentiate instruction with all students. Teachers will reflect
on their own ability to differentiate instruction for their students, determining the importance
of differentiation and possible next steps to improve these skills.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Assumed Motivation
Influences
Assumed Organizational
Influences

Declarative/Factual:
Teachers need to know their
content area and have an
understanding of what
instructional differentiation is,
as it applies to meeting the
diverse needs of the students in
their classroom.
Goal Orientation:
Teachers must have a
mastery-approach orientation
to the task – a desire to
become proficient in
teaching, remediating,
reviewing, intervening, and
going above-and-beyond the
necessary requirements of the
task.
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Teachers lack time and
resources to differentiate
instruction in the classroom
for all students.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 56
Table 4, continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Assumed Organizational
Influences

Conceptual:
Teachers need to understand
how to differentiate
instruction, how to remediate,
and how to determine
intervention steps.

Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to see the their
role in differentiating
instruction, and have
confidence in their ability to
plan for differentiation and
meeting student needs.
Cultural Model Influence
2:
Teachers believe there is a
culture of one-size-fits all in
the academic instruction for
students in the classroom,
regardless of varying needs.
Procedural:
Teachers need to know that
when planning differentiating
instruction is needed; teachers
also need to know how to
adapt lessons as they are
presented, making changes as
needed to address student
needs.
Utility Value:
Teachers need to see the
value in differentiating
instruction for their students.
Cultural Setting Influence
1:
Teachers have an
overwhelming responsibility
to address the needs of all
students in their classroom;
however, this is a difficult
task as there are so many
students with so many
varying needs.
Metacognitive:
Teachers need to reflect on
their own teaching methods,
strengths and weaknesses, and
setting goals to improve their
instructional practices in
differentiation.
Attributions:
Teachers should feel that lack
of student achievement may
be due to their own efforts
with instructional
differentiation, rather than
student’s lack of ability.
Cultural Setting Influence
2:
Teachers lack knowledge
and training in how to
specifically differentiate
instruction for students,
especially those with
learning disabilities.

Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Stakeholder knowledge and motivation are key components when addressing the
achievement gap for students with disabilities. This section will discuss key knowledge and
motivation influences with regard to teacher ability to differentiate instruction for students. A
review of literature about knowledge and motivation will also be addressed.
Knowledge and Skills
The foundational knowledge of a person is generally thought to incorporate several types
of knowledge, which may include (at the very least) general or specific knowledge, surface level
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 57
or deep knowledge, formal or informal knowledge, or declarative or procedural knowledge
(Ferguson-Hessler & Jong, 1996). According to Kennedy (1998), teacher knowledge should be
“rich and deep” so that teachers move beyond recitation of content knowledge to students and
begin to expect that students will explore content subjects for deeper meaning and understanding.
To effectively address the achievement gap for students with disabilities, when compared with
their nondisabled peers, teachers must evaluate their own teaching methods and how to present
instructional materials and lessons (Kennedy, 1998). The method by which a teacher presents
the material to a class may “convey the message that the subject is exciting or boring, clear or
unclear, important or irrelevant, mediocre or substantial” (Kennedy, 1998). In order present
lessons so that all students benefit, teachers must have a clear knowledge of subject matter and
the relationship between the subject matter and what the teacher wants the students to understand
when the lesson presented (Kennedy, 1998).
In addition to a clear knowledge of content or subject matter, teachers must understand
the correlation between curriculum and instruction. Curriculum can be described as the content
of the course that has to be taught by the teachers. The curriculum of a class is generally decided
upon by school or district authorities in which teachers work. It is the framework of what is to
be taught to the students (“Difference Between”). Instruction, on the other hand, is the way in
which this curriculum is presented. This is generally left to the decision of the teacher. Effective
instruction, then, is based on the knowledge and skills of the teacher (“Difference Between”).
This section will review literature that focuses on knowledge and motivational influences of
teachers, with regard to instructional differentiation in the classroom that will ultimately lead to
narrowing the achievement gap for students with disabilities when compared with their
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 58
nondisabled peers. This section will analyze the reviewed literature in terms of application to
instructional differentiation.
Knowledge types. Rueda (2011) introduces various types of knowledge and explains
why it is important to differentiate these different knowledge types. According to Rueda (2011),
there are four basic knowledge types: declarative (factual), conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive.
Declarative knowledge is described as basic facts that one needs to know within a certain
content area, including terms, details, or elements that are needed to have a general
understanding within that given area. According to Krathwohl (2002), factual (declarative)
knowledge includes the “basic elements that students must know in order to solve problems
within a particular discipline and to be familiar with that discipline.”
Conceptual knowledge includes “complex, organized forms of knowledge” (Rueda,
2011). Krathwohl (2002) defines conceptual knowledge as the “interrelationships between the
basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together” (p. 216).
Conceptual knowledge includes knowledge of classifications and categories, principles and
generalizations, theories, models, and structures (Rueda, 2011).
Procedural knowledge is the ability to know how to do something (Rueda, 2011). A
Dictionary of Psychology (2015) defines procedural knowledge as information about how to
carry out series of operations – it is about the knowing how, rather than the knowing that – in
accomplishing a particular task. Surif, Ibrahim, and Mokhtar (2012) state that to solve a
[chemistry] problem, students must have both conceptual (complex forms of knowledge) and
procedural (how to solve the problem) knowledge. Procedural knowledge generally utilizes and
incorporates the use of declarative knowledge (Harmon, 2012). Rueda (2011) states that this
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 59
type of knowledge can also refer to “very specific skills and particular methodologies” that are
required to accomplish these specific tasks.
Metacognitive knowledge is described as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own
cognition, or thoughts and understanding (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) also states that
metacognition indicates that an individual has knowledge of oneself as a learner, within a certain
task, and the strategies needed to carry out that task; metacognition allows one to know “when
and why to do something.” Metacognition involves thinking about one’s own thinking (Baker,
2006). Regardless of the area of knowledge, learning is enhanced when students have
knowledge and the control over their own thought processes (Baker, 2006). Krathwohl (2002)
asserts that metacognitive knowledge is increasingly meaningful, as students become more aware
of how they think and how their thought processes may be used to improve the ways in which
they perform during a learning experience.
Stakeholder knowledge influences. This section includes an examination of literature
relevant to the stakeholders and stakeholder goals in this study. This section is broken down into
four subsections, which include: declarative (factual) knowledge influences, conceptual
knowledge influences, procedural knowledge influences, and metacognitive knowledge
influences.
Declarative knowledge influences. Parsons and Dodman (2013) state that one required
trait of teachers who effectively differentiate instruction is that they have extensive knowledge of
what they are teaching and how students learn. Academic instruction is not one-size-fits-all. As
the needs of our students become more diverse, our instructional practices must expand to meet
these needs (Parsons & Dodman, 2013). The basis for differentiating instruction is a strong
declarative knowledge, combined with the procedural knowledge of how to apply that
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 60
differentiation to the lessons presented in the class. When applied to this study, the stakeholders
must understand what differentiation means and how to apply it specifically to the lessons
provided in a particular class, group, or student. Marzano (2007) indicates that when developing
declarative knowledge, reviewing and revision are key. Marzano (2007) also states that over time
and, with repeated exposure, the learner (or teacher) adds to his knowledge base. Increased
declarative knowledge also applies to the teacher, increasing his understanding of how to plan, to
implement instruction, and to differentiate instruction for students (Stürmer, Köhings, & Seidel,
2013). Adoniou (2015) states that teachers need strong content knowledge if they are to be
strong teachers. For the stakeholder group in this study, a solid understanding of content is
important when teachers differentiate instruction. Differentiating content allows the teacher to
vary the levels of difficulty within the classroom so that students may access the curriculum
according to their needs (Taylor, 2015). These stakeholders must understand that there are many
alternatives available to students and that one student’s ability to access the curriculum is not
identical to another student’s ability (Tomlinson, 2014). In addition, stakeholders must be clear
about where their students are, and to be clear about where they want their students to be, based
upon their knowledge of those students (Hawkins, 2009). In addition to knowing which students
need differentiated instruction, stakeholders in this study must understand how to differentiate
instruction, how to remediate, and next steps to determine intervention. Part of the differentiation
process for stakeholders in this study is to recognize the background knowledge, readiness,
language, and learning preferences, and then to plan and present the material based on that
information (Dixon, 2014).
Conceptual knowledge influences. DeJong and Ferguson-Hessler (1996) assert that
conceptual knowledge is more or less “domain specific”, but that conceptual knowledge can be
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 61
generalized. Differentiating instruction starts with planning, which may appear to be more
procedural (Parsons et al., 2013). However, teachers must be able to adapt their lesson as it
progresses to determine how instructional changes help meet the goals or objectives of the
lesson. This requires an understanding of what it means to differentiate (declarative knowledge),
as well as the adaptation of the lesson during instruction, which requires a more in-depth
understanding of how differentiation can be applied and what the bigger picture may look like
when that happens (Parsons et al., 2013). Rittle-Johnson and Schneider (2014) characterize
conceptual knowledge as “rich in relationships, a connected web of knowledge, and an ability to
put together discrete pieces of information.” When this concept is applied to instructional
differentiation, a teacher must not only know what differentiation is and how to relate it to
planning, but must be able to do this as the lesson progresses. Teachers must also be able to
interpret student understanding and the connection between the various lessons and assignments,
as well as the what this means for student achievement. Differentiating instruction requires that
teachers be flexible in their planning and instruction, as well as in their overall approach to
providing instruction in the classroom (Dixon et al., 2014). Teachers must understand how the
student is currently performing relative to his goals, and assist each student in his or her learning
process. Learning how to differentiate instruction is an ongoing process requiring teachers to
learn the process and to practice in the classroom to ensure success (Dixon et al., 2014).
Procedural knowledge influences. Rittle-Johnson and Schneider (2014) define
procedures as a set of steps, or actions, that one follows in order to complete a task or achieve a
particular goal. Given that, procedural knowledge involves knowledge of procedures (Rittle-
Johnson & Schneider, 2014). When applying procedural knowledge influences to this
stakeholder group, teachers must have a clear understanding of how to differentiate instruction
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 62
for their students. Teachers must determine what they want their students to do and which
strategies, skills, and processes involved, so that the student will successfully achieve the
intended outcome for the lesson. Assessment in the area of procedural knowledge influences
may include teacher reflection when working with students to provide remediation and to
differentiate instruction for students, and their understanding of the process in accomplishing that
task. Teachers must be able to review formal and informal data in order to meet the needs of the
student at his or her level of understanding. Teachers in this study must decide on differentiation
strategies with which they are comfortable, modifying the process as needed (Watts-Taffe,
Laster, Broach, Marinak, Connor & Walker-Dalhouse, 2013).
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Metacognitive knowledge includes the knowledge
that one has about oneself as a learner (Baker, 2006). For teachers, this would include how to
approach differentiating instruction, evaluating the progress as the differentiation is taking place
in the classroom, and changing strategies, as needed, during the instructional period when he
realizes that students may not understand the concepts that are being taught (Baker, 2006).
When applying this to the stakeholder group in this study, teachers need to reflect on their own
teaching methods, strengths and weaknesses, and set goals to improve instruction. Bengtsson
(1995) indicates that there are at least three natural opportunities where thinking (metacognition)
can be related to the actions of the teacher: before the lesson is presented, while planning a
lesson; after the lesson, while evaluating the presentation and meeting of objectives; and, during
a lesson, when problems arise. This certainly can be applied to lessons where differentiation is
utilized as part of the teaching process.
Table 5 shows the assumed knowledge influences as they apply to the stakeholders
within this study. The assumed influences within the table acknowledge each of the four types
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 63
of knowledge, along with knowledge influence assessments, learning solution principles, and
proposed solutions.
Table 5
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessments
Organizational Mission

Southern California High School’s goal is educate our diverse student body by developing
students’ talents and skills so they will succeed in a changing world, value and respect
themselves and others, and make a positive contribution to our global society.

Organizational Global Goal

In relation to the organizational mission, it is the goal of the special education department, that
by June 2018, 100% of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) will pass their
assigned academic classes in the first semester in which the class is assigned.

Stakeholder Goal

100% of teachers consistently differentiate instruction with all students. Teachers will reflect
on their own ability to differentiate instruction for their students, determining the importance
of differentiation and possible next steps to improve these skills.

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Learning Solution
Principle
Proposed Solution
Declarative
(Factual):

Teachers need
knowledge of content
area and the attributes
of instructional
differentiation and
which students need
instructional
differentiation in
order to access
curriculum.
Teachers will report
on their ability to
differentiate
instructions for
students in their
classroom.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 64
Table 5, continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Learning Solution
Principle
Proposed Solution
Conceptual:
Teachers need to
understand how to
differentiate
instruction, how to
remediate, and how to
determine
intervention steps.

Teachers will be
asked to list three
ways in which they
can differentiate
instruction, how they
can remediate
instruction when
necessary (preview
and review), and how
to determine next
steps for intervention.

Procedural:
Teachers need to
know how to plan
lessons,
differentiating
instruction as needed;
teachers also need to
know how to adapt
lessons as they are
presented, making
changes as needed to
address student needs.
Teachers will be
asked to reflect on
their own
effectiveness in
providing classroom
intervention,
collaboration with
other teachers, and
next steps for
intervention for those
students in their
classroom.

Metacognitive:
Teachers need to
reflect on their own
teaching methods,
strengths and
weaknesses, and
setting goals to
improve their
instructional practices
in differentiation.
Teachers will reflect
on three strategies for
working with students
in the general
education classroom
to provide
remediation and to
differentiate
instruction for
students.

Motivation
The purpose of this section is to review literature that focuses on motivation-related
influences that are pertinent to the ability to differentiate instruction as teachers work to close the
achievement gap for students with disabilities. Mayer (2011) states that “motivation is an
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 65
internal state of mind that initiates and maintains goal directed behavior.” Motivation to learn is
reflected in the amount of effort that a learner wants to put forth to make sense of the material
that they have to learn. Meaningful learning and performance does not take place if the learner
does not put forth that effort and engage in the processes that it takes to learn that material
(Mayer, 2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) state that researchers agree that there are three main motivational
factors, which may provide opportunities or potential problems: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort. Active choice takes place when an individual chooses to pursue a goal actively.
Persistence keeps a person focused on a particular goal, investing time and energy to complete a
goal. Mental effort can be determined by the way in which people work and develop novel
solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is an important aspect related to student learning as
teachers can use theories of motivation to analyze their interactions with students and to develop
patterns of instruction with their students that may enhance their students' willingness to tend to a
given task (Tollefson, 2015). Two theories discussed in this section that relate to teacher
motivation in differentiating instruction are Goal Orientation Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory.
These two theories will be discussed in relation to teacher motivation to differentiate instruction
for their students.
Goal orientation theory. Goal Orientation Theory generally studies why students
engage in academic work (Yough & Anderman, 2006) though the concepts can be applied to
human behavior in other contexts as well. As mentioned above, there are two approaches that
emerge from Goal Orientation Theory: mastery and performance goal orientation. These two
approaches can be further broken down into approach and avoid goals (Yough & Anderman,
2006). To further define these goal approaches, Yough and Anderman (2006) explain that
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 66
mastery-approach goals encompass the goal of truly mastering an academic task in contrast with
mastery-avoid where the goal is to avoid misunderstanding a task. Performance-approach goals
demonstrate an individual’s competence related to others; performance-avoid goals demonstrate
an individual’s interest in avoiding the appearance of incompetence. Mastery-goal orientation
refers to the individual’s reason for developing competence – focusing on understanding,
developing skills, and mastering information (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Kaplan and Maehr
(2007) further explain that performance goals orientation refers to the purpose of demonstrating
competence, or the impression others have of one’s ability to complete a task. The approach
orientation focuses on the possibility of achieving success; the avoidance approach focuses on
the possibility of avoiding failure (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007).
Teachers and the goal-orientation theory. The Goal Orientation Theory divides its
basic theories into two categories: mastery goals and performance goals (Yough & Anderman,
2006). Yough and Anderman (2006) state that mastery goals relate to understanding or
mastering the task; performance goals relate to demonstration of an ability compared to others.
When applying the Goal-Orientation Theory to the motivation of teachers and differentiation of
instruction in the classroom, one might begin with a self-report survey, where much of research
in this theory has focused (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Yough and Anderman (2006) state that
when either mastery or performance goals are adopted, predictable outcomes often result.
Kaplan and Maehr (2007) indicate that mastery goals, when applied in an achievement context,
lead to a higher engagement in tasks. For the purpose of this study, teachers should have a
mastery-approach orientation to the task – a desire to become proficient in teaching, remediating,
reviewing, intervening, and going above-and-beyond the necessary requirements of the task.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 67
Self-efficacy theory. Self-Efficacy Theory holds that self-efficacy beliefs provide the
foundation for motivation (Pajares, 2006). Pajares (2006) states that self-efficacy is the beliefs
that people hold about their own capabilities to learn and perform certain tasks. Rueda (2011)
provides a definition of self-efficacy, based on Bandura (1994), who coined the term. Rueda
(2011) states that people’s judgments about their own capabilities to complete an action are
required to achieve a particular level of performance. Self-efficacy is important factor related to
motivation when an individual encounters a difficult problem or task (Rueda, 2011). Because of
this, individuals with higher self-efficacy and greater expectations for achieving an expected
outcome will be more motivated, and may be more willing to persist in a particular activity, even
if the activity is difficult (Rueda, 2011). Pajares (2006) states that self-efficacious individuals
work harder, persist longer, persevere in the face of adversity, have greater optimism and lower
anxiety, and achieve more. Intelligence, when linked with self-efficacy, is a powerful predictor
of academic performance and outcome. Self-efficacy also relates to behavior changes and is an
excellent predictor of behavior (Pajares, 2006).
Teachers and the self-efficacy theory. When instruction is individualized and
differentiated to meet student needs, then student are more likely to gauge their own success
compared with their own standards, rather than compared to the standards or progress of their
peers (Pajares, 2006). The sense of self-efficacy not only affects expectations of success or
failure, but also influences motivation through goal setting (Erdem & Demirel, 2007). Teachers
with a high level of efficacy believe that they can strongly influence student achievement and
motivation (Erdem & Demirel, 2007).
Research indicates that there is “a reasonably positive correlation between teacher self-
efficacy and students’ motivation” (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012). For teachers in this study, it is
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 68
important that they understand the strategies introduced during professional development and
trainings, but to also incorporate that learning into practice in the classroom (Dixon, et al., 2014).
Dixon (2014) also states that important qualities that teachers must have are the ability to
overcome their insecurities and to cope with issues within the classroom. A lack of self-efficacy
may be the reason that many teachers attend professional development and training on
differentiation and then return to business-as-usual in the classroom. If teachers find success in
their attempts at differentiation, their feelings of self-efficacy may increase and they may find
continued success as they work to include differentiation strategies in their lessons (Dixon,
2014).
Table 6 describes the motivational influences for the chosen stakeholder group in this
study.
Table 6
Assumed Motivation Influences and Assessments
Organizational Mission

Southern California Charter High School’s goal is educate our diverse student body by
developing students’ talents and skills so they will succeed in a changing world, value and
respect themselves and others, and make a positive contribution to our global society.

Organizational Global Goal

In relation to the organizational mission, it is the goal of the special education department, that
by June 2018, 100% of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) will pass their
assigned academic class in the first semester in which the class is assigned.

Stakeholder Goal

100% of teachers consistently differentiate instruction with all students. Teachers will reflect
on their own ability to differentiate instruction for their students, determining the importance
of differentiation and possible next steps to improve these skills.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 69
Table 6, continued
Assumed Motivation Influences How Will It Be Assessed?
Goal Orientation – Teachers should have a
master-approach orientation to the task – a
desire to become proficient in teaching,
remediating, reviewing, intervening, and going
above-and-beyond the necessary requirements
of the task.
Survey Questionnaire:
“I have a desire to continue to learn the most
effective ways of differentiating instruction
to meet the needs of all students with IEPs in
my class.”

Answers formatted:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to understand their role in
differentiating instruction and to have
confidence in their ability to plan for
differentiation and meeting student needs.
Survey Questionnaire:
“I feel confident in my ability to differentiate
instruction for my students with an IEP.”

Answers formatted:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Agree

Stakeholder Organizational Influences
Organizational factors are key components when addressing the ability of teachers within
the school to differentiate instruction in order to meet student needs. McMurray (2001) indicates
that managing change is probably one of the biggest challenges that face managers in
organizations. This section will discuss key organization influences with regard to teacher
ability to differentiate instruction for students. A review of literature about organization will also
be addressed.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 70
Organization Factors
A change in organization refers to any alteration in activities or task (Dawson, 1994). The
climate and culture of an organization may be reflected in the “feel” of that organization
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Many characterize culture as the “accumulation of invisible,
often unspoken ideas, values, and approaches that permeate organizational life” (Clarke, 2006).
Leaders in educational organizations require skills to build a shared vision, to foster systematic
patterns of thinking, and build organizations where people expand their capabilities to build their
capacity (Senge, 1990). Senge (1990) further states that leaders should be teachers, not
authoritarians. In order to make improvements within an organization, there must be an
understanding that improvement requires change (Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan, Norman, &
Provost, 2009). When addressing the concept of organizational culture, Schneider et al., (1996)
state that culture is a much deeper system of beliefs and values than the climate, which relates to
policies, practices, and rewards. Practices and policies (climate) can make people within the
organization believe that leadership does value quality (culture) (Schneider et al., 1996).
Organizational Culture
Lakomski (2001) indicates that in current writings, organizational culture is described as
an instrument that should be utilized to reach specified goals by shaping and controlling the
beliefs, understandings, and behaviors of individuals. Stoll and Bolam (2004) describe school
culture as the basic beliefs by the organization’s members and how those members view
themselves and how they “go about their business.” Organizational culture is associated with
attitudes toward organizational change. Further, evidence suggests that certain types of
organizational culture have an effect on attitudes toward potential changes in an organization
(Abdul, Sambasivan, & Abdul, 2004). Culture is key to understanding behaviors, social events,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 71
institutions, and processes (Alvesson, 1956, & ebrary, 2002). Schultz and ebrary (1995) state
that organizational culture focuses on the beliefs, values and meanings used by members of an
organization to grasp how the organization's uniqueness originates, evolves, and operates.
Culture within an organization provides a framework for daily work (Lynch, 2006).
Additionally, Lynch (2006) indicates that “recognizing, acknowledging, and understanding
culture is essential to leading the organization, and ultimately enabling it to change and
progress.” Schneider et al., (1996) state that culture can be changed through the focus on climate.
Smircich (1983, p. 344) states that organizational culture is the “social or normative glue that
holds on organization together” (as cited in Connolly, James, & Beales, 2011).
According to McMurray (2001), organizational culture is a “set of shared assumptions,”
including beliefs and values that determine what needs to be done and how it will be
accomplished. Culture is the way things are done in an organization (Hargreaves and Hopkins
1991, as cited in Marshall, 1993). Schneider et al., (1996) claim that organization culture and
organizational climate are interconnected. Organizational change occurs slowly, although those
who desire to make changes focus on the climate of the organization in order to facilitate desired
changes (McMurray, 2001). McGrath and Tobia (2008) explain that highly effective and high
performing organizations have widely held beliefs and assumptions that guide actions and
decisions. The way organizational change occurs can be directly related to culture through
organizational beliefs about change. Shaw and London (2001) indicate that culture is more than
ideology; it is about the practices by which organizational beliefs are shared (as cited by
McGrath & Tobia, 2008). An organizational culture is in place even before one seeks to change
it (Connolly et al., 2011). Morgan (1988) and Bate (1994) state that organizations are cultures
and can be analyzed in that manner (as cited in Connolly et al., 2011). Connolly et al., (2011)
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 72
cite Hatch (2004) who considers organizational culture to be concerned with “values,
assumptions, symbols, and artifacts.” McMurray (2001) states that the roles of organizational
culture and organizational climate are complimentary, particularly in organizational change.
Within the practice of teaching, organizational culture impacts the stakeholders in our
organization as they try to meet the needs of all students. The culture of a one-size-fits-all,
regardless of individual needs is a difficult culture to work in. In addition, there is a general lack
of consistent differentiation in the classroom. This type of organizational culture makes it
difficult to meet individual needs, especially those who may struggle in the classroom or have
any type of learning disability.
Organizational Climate/Setting
Organizational climate, or setting, is described as the day-to-day functions of a particular
organization, which may include practices, policies, routines, and procedures that guide
employee actions and that produce a culture (Schneider et al., 1996). Schneider et al., (1996)
further state that organizational change is achieved through change in the things that occur on a
daily basis. Organizational climate occurs on a daily basis and can be seen in the daily activities
of the organization (McMurray, 2001). McMurray (2001) also states that shared perceptions of
the workplace (climate) are developed “mostly due to the common frame of reference (culture)
that is created within the organization.” Schneider et al., (1996) affirm that the members of an
organization may determine the climate of an organization; these inferences are usually based on
how the organization is managed on a daily basis and the goals toward which the organization
works to achieve. Clarke (2006) explains that organizational climate refers to atmosphere – the
perceptions related to working in an organization, more apt to be grounded in psychological
experiences of its members.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 73
Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013) state that most organizations do not have a single
climate; rather, they have multiple climates within the organization. The authors also specify
that there will be more relevant to the organizations when outcomes are “strategically focused”,
when compared with those outcomes which have a general focus. An organizational climate
develops as employees begin to value policies, practices, and procedures they experience.
(Schneider et al., 2013). Thomas (2008) states that an organizational climate is neither good nor
bad. It is of value within that particular organization when climate is tied to critical
organizational outcomes. In the school setting, the principal’s leadership becomes crucial in
setting the expectations for teachers (Tajasom & Ahmad, 2011). Ghavifekr and Pillai (2016)
explain that one challenge that teachers face is how to improve the quality of teaching. This
quality of teaching is created through a positive school climate. In addition, a school’s climate is
based upon the perceptions of teachers and administrators (Ghavifekr & Pillai, 2016). Within
our organization, it can be difficult to carry out the responsibility for meeting student needs.
Lack of time and resources impacts the ability of teachers to effectively differentiate instruction
in the classroom. In addition, teachers may struggle with transferring training into effective
practice in the classroom. This transfer may be especially difficult when addressing the needs of
students with disabilities.
Cultural Model Influence: Time and Resources
Providing teachers with sufficient resources is a critical component of teaching
(Mastropieri, 2001). Borg and Riding (1991) explain that teaching is a difficult profession and
very stressful (as cited by Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006), where as many as 20% of all
U.S. teachers feel burnout at any given time (Farber, 1991). Scurggs and Mastropieri (1996)
state that an important part of teacher perception of school climate is that teachers feel that they
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 74
have the time and the resources to provide effective instruction in the classroom (as cited by
Mastropieri, 2001). Selamat et al. (2013) claim that teachers are dissatisfied with the workload
they have and the lack of time for creative activities (as cited by Ghavifekr and Pillai, 2016).
Mastropieri (2001) further indicates that teachers believe that even when they are aware of
materials that would be most beneficial and provide supporting efficacy data, those materials are
unavailable at their school site. It is important to examine the time available for teachers to
effectively work with students, especially those with disabilities. In addition, maximizing time is
crucial and may also lead to positive achievement gains (Mastropieri, 2001).
Teachers within this organization lack the time and resources to effectively differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of all students in their classroom. The number of students in the
classroom (30 to 40) makes it difficult to determine learning needs and styles, to plan and
execute lessons, to adapt as the lessons are presented, ad to utilize multiple methods to assess
learning and mastery. Teachers need the time to review lessons, determine learning styles and
needs, and plan accordingly. In addition, in order to differentiate instruction, teachers need
resources. These resources can be materials, personnel within the classroom, or support and
collaboration with other members of the staff. In order to effectively differentiate instruction,
teachers at SCCHS must have the necessary time and resources at their disposal.
Cultural Model Influence: One Size Does Not Fit All
Instructional differentiation addresses individual needs, rather than assuming that all
students learn in the same way. It provides for a safe environment for learning (Griess & Keat,
2014). Within the classroom, the teacher who differentiates instruction “acts as the one who
organizes learning opportunities, rather than just dispensing information” (Tomlinson, 2001).
Teachers who effectively differentiate instruction not only plan their instruction before
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 75
presentation, but also adapt their instruction as the lesson takes place (Parsons et al., 2013).
Although flexibility in teaching is important, sometimes “the child is expected to adjust to the
system rather than the system to the child” (Moores, 2013). Moores (2013) further states the
way classroom instruction is structured can impact how students interact with others in the
classroom; this, in turn, can affect the outcomes of instruction. Planning is key to effectively
differentiating instruction.
Teachers at SCCHS need to work collaboratively with their peers in order to effectively
meet the needs of all students. Teachers also need to work together to determine how to adapt
lessons. Collaboration assists teachers to better understand the goals of the organization and how
to best meet those goals by providing more than a one-size-fits-all education in the classroom.
Cultural Setting Influence: Addressing the Needs of all Students in the Classroom
Differentiated instruction includes planning instruction and curriculum that meets the
needs of all learners in the classroom by individualizing instruction that addresses student
learning abilities and provides the greatest potential for each student to reach his or her
maximum capacity (van Garderen & Whittaker, 2006). Students do not enter the class with the
same learning styles, the same learning abilities, and the same personalities; however, educators
are mandated to provide instruction that ensures that all students meet state and federal standards
(Levy, 2008). Levy further states (2008) that in order to accomplish this directive, educators
must differentiate instruction. Hendrick (2012) claims that there is a relationship between a
strong curriculum and the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction. As with their students,
educators need multiple opportunities and support to develop expertise in differentiation
(Hendrick, 2012).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 76
There is a diverse student population at Southern California Charter High School.
Students come to school with different learning styles, different interests, varying backgrounds,
and a variety of needs. Planning instruction within this organization must be about providing
multiple opportunities and multiple methods for learning, practice, and assessment. At SCCHS,
teachers must start with a strong curriculum, a strong foundation and knowledge of content, and
willingness to meet the needs of all students, maximizing their opportunities for learning.
Cultural Setting Influence: Lack of Training
Hoy (2000) asserts that the greater the amount of support that teachers receive, the
greater increase in teacher efficacy (as cited in Hawkins, 2009). Transfer of training is the effort
of the learner to transfer what is learned in training to a real-world settings , which may include
the classroom (Bosset & Bourgeois, 2015). Bosset and Bourgeois (2015) further explain that the
motivation to transfer is key to the actual transfer of training information into the work setting.
Many teachers find it difficult to differentiate instruction because the teacher training they
receive is for general instructional strategies. In order to successfully differentiate instruction in
the classroom, teachers must have a wide variety of teaching tactics, and understand how and
when to use these in order to maximize student success (Hendrick, 2012). This can be difficult if
the school or district does not offer effective professional development opportunities that focus
on providing quality instruction. The study conducted by Hendrick (2012) found that the
collaborative efforts among teachers to analyze data in order to develop differentiated lessons
made a big difference in increasing their instructional toolbox. In order to effectively teach their
classes as a whole, as well as individually, teacher training must include programs on how to
identify and meet students' needs (Anderson, Lubig, & Smith, 2012).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 77
Teachers at SCCHS must be trained within their content area, have a foundation of how
to differentiate instruction, and the opportunity to practice and strengthen their skills. In
addition, they must know how to transfer the information they learn through training experiences
to the classroom. Training must be specific to instructional differentiation, rather than to general
content. In planning professional development, organizational leaders at this site must consider
its teacher population and the students with whom they work. Ongoing support and
opportunities to work with peers is the key to solidifying the foundation of knowledge in order to
effectively differentiate instruction and meet the needs of all students.
Summary
There are four organizational factors that influence my problem of practice – lack of time
and resources, lack of training, a one-size-fits-all mentality, and the inability to meet the needs of
all students within the classroom setting. Each of these influencers affect the ability of
stakeholders to meet their organizational goal of consistently differentiating instruction in the
classroom to meet the needs of all students and to reflect on their own ability to differentiate
instruction for their students, determining the importance of differentiation, and possible next
steps to improve these skills. Table 7 provides a summary of sources for assumed causes of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues. Table 8 lays out assumed organizational
influences and assessments.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 78
Table 7

Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Issues

Causes
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organizational Causes

Learning and
motivation theory

Teachers need knowledge
of content area and the
attributes of instructional
differentiation and which
students need
instructional
differentiation in order to
access curriculum.

Teachers must have
a mastery-approach
orientation to the
task – a desire to
become proficient
in teaching,
remediating,
reviewing,
intervening, and
going above-and-
beyond the
necessary
requirements of the
task.

Teachers lack time
and resources to
differentiate
instruction in the
classroom for all
students.

Teachers need to
understand how to
differentiate instruction,
how to remediate, and
how to determine
intervention steps.

Teachers need to
see the their role in
differentiating
instruction, and
have confidence in
their ability to plan
for differentiation
and meeting
student needs.

Teachers believe there
is a culture of one-
size-fits all in the
academic instruction
for students in the
classroom, regardless
of varying needs.

Teachers need to know
that when planning
differentiating instruction
is needed; teachers also
need to know how to
adapt lessons as they are
presented, making
changes as needed to
address student needs.

Teachers need to
see the value in
differentiating
instruction for their
students.

Teachers have an
overwhelming
responsibility to
address the needs of
all students in their
classroom; however,
this is a difficult task
as there are so many
students with so many
varying needs.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 79
Table 7, continued
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organizational Causes

Teachers need to reflect
on their own teaching
methods, strengths and
weaknesses, and setting
goals to improve their
instructional practices in
differentiation.
Teachers must feel
that lack of student
achievement may
be due to their own
efforts with
instructional
differentiation,
rather than
student’s lack of
ability.

Teachers lack
knowledge and
training in how to
specifically
differentiate
instruction for students
with disabilities.
Teachers must feel that
lack of student
achievement may be due
to their own efforts with
instructional
differentiation, rather
than student’s lack of
ability.

Background and
review of literature

Teachers must
understand that
differentiation is a
philosophy rather than a
teaching strategy and that
differentiation provides
multiple approaches to
content, process, and
product.
Building teacher’s
self-efficacy is
important, as self-
efficacy is an
important factor
related to
motivation when an
individual
encounters a
difficult problem or
task.

Effective principal
leadership is critical to
successful
implementation of
reforms, programs or
other instructional
innovations introduced
into the school setting.
Teachers must have a
clear knowledge of
subject matter, as well as
an important
understanding of the
important ideas within
their subject, and the
relationship of these ideas
to exactly what they want
their students to take
away from the lesson
presented.
Teacher’s
motivation to learn
is directly related to
the amount of
effort the teacher
puts forth to make
sense of learning
how to differentiate
instruction for
students.

As instructional
leaders, principals are
expected to facilitate
improvement and
support and encourage
teachers’ ownership of
instructional change.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 80
Table 8
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessments
Organizational Mission
Southern California High School’s goal is educate our diverse student body by developing
students’ talents and skills so they will succeed in a changing world, value and respect
themselves and others, and make a positive contribution to our global society.
Organizational Global Goal
In relation to the organizational mission, it is the goal of the special education department, that
by June 2018, 100% of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) will pass their
assigned academics classes in the first semester in which the class is assigned.
Stakeholder Goal
100% of teachers consistently differentiate instruction with all students. Teachers will reflect
on their own ability to differentiate instruction for their students, determining the importance
of differentiation and possible next steps to improve these skills.
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organizational
Influence Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation or
Solution Principle
Proposed Solution
Cultural Model
Influence 1:

Teachers lack time
and to provide
differentiated
instruction in the
classroom for all
students.

Survey or interview
questions about the
time available to
differentiate time in the
classroom.

Cultural Model
Influence 2:

Teachers believe
there is a culture of
one-size-fits all in
the academic
instruction for
students in the
classroom,
regardless of
varying needs.

Survey or interview
questions about
teachers overall
feelings about
differentiation and how
they believe it applies
to them as they teach
students in their own
classroom

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 81
Table 8, continued
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organizational
Influence Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation or
Solution Principle
Proposed Solution
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:

Teachers lack the
resources they need
to differentiate
instruction and
learning in the
classroom. In
addition, resources
are not aligned with
the goals of the
organization.
Survey or interview
questions about
resources (material and
otherwise) that teachers
lack in order to
differentiate instruction
and learning in the
classroom. Survey
questions to also
determine teachers’
thoughts about how the
resources are aligned to
the goals of the
organization

Cultural Setting
Influence 2:

Teachers lack the
training needed to
consistently
differentiate
instruction in the
classroom.

Survey, interview
questions, and
documents analysis
about teacher training
on instructional
differentiation – how
much training to they
receive, how effective
is the training, and how
do teachers
implement/transfer
training from the
professional
development meeting
to the classroom?

Summary
The three elements of knowledge, motivation, and organization influence the lack of
instructional differentiation in the classroom, possibly contributing to the achievement gap for
students with disabilities. Every student is different and “requires special attention and
adaptation of the learning experience that fits their unique needs” (George, 2005). In addition,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 82
differentiated instruction is an important part of inclusive classroom settings, so that students
with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve high standards through access to the general
curriculum (Lawrence-Brown, 2004).
The three components influence how instructional differentiation impacts curriculum
accessibility for students with disabilities. All students should have the opportunity to receive
instruction based on their needs, areas of interest, and readiness levels. Differentiated instruction
provides a standard by which teachers can ensure significant educational outcomes for all
students in the inclusive classroom setting, while meeting individual student needs. It is
necessary to take into account the vast differences among students in a classroom, and
acknowledging each student’s strengths while accommodating their limitations (Subban, 2006).

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 83
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this study is to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that influence teachers as they plan, implement, and reflect on their teaching practices to
meet the diverse needs of students. This chapter will outline the research questions and the
methodology by which this study will seek to answer those questions through survey, interview,
and observation.
Research Questions
In what ways are teachers able to differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of
students?
What are the challenges that teachers face in differentiating instruction to meet the
individual needs of students?
What might be the knowledge, motivational, and/or organizational influencers/elements
that teachers must overcome to differentiate instruction?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) below illustrates the foundation of the research
question: to what extent do teachers have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational capacity
to differentiate instruction in order to close the math achievement gap for students with
disabilities? Teachers work with a variety of students on a daily basis. It is the responsibility of
the teachers to meet the needs of each student, providing instruction at the level to which the
student will find success. The teacher does not work in isolation; rather, the ability of the teacher
to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students in the classroom is influenced by the
knowledge and motivation of the teacher, as well as the influences within the organization to
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 84
which the teacher belongs. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is utilized to
address these research questions and to evaluate the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influencers that determine the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction. The illustration
indicates the factors that may influence the knowledge, motivation, and organization of teachers
when they provide instruction in the classroom. The diagram also indicates that within each of
these areas, there are specific circumstances that may prevent a teacher from effectively
differentiating instruction to close the achievement gap for students with disabilities.
In the conceptual framework diagram (Figure 1), I have utilized information provided
from the reviewed literature and studies regarding differentiating instruction. Within the context
of knowledge, teacher must have declarative, procedural, metacognitive, and conceptual
understanding of the task to be accomplished. Specifically, within these frameworks, teachers
need to understand how to plan lessons according to the diverse needs of students in the
classroom, how to adapt those lessons once they are presented in the classroom, how to set goals
for their own growth and learning, and how to reflect on their ability to effectively differentiate
instruction.
Within the area of motivation, I examined various theories including: goal-orientation,
self-efficacy, attribution, and utility-value. Within these realms, I have specifically reviewed
literature that addresses a teacher’s need to see their role as an important part of the
differentiation process, the teacher’s need to have confidence in his or her ability to effectively
differentiate instruction, and the teacher’s need to take responsibility for their role in the success
or failure of a student.
Finally, I have reviewed literature as it relates to the cultural setting of the organization as
it relates to the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction. Specifically, is there a lack of time, a
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 85
lack of resources, an inability to recognize the diverse needs of students, or a lack of training that
transfers to the classroom? Individually or combined, each of the areas may impact the overall
ability of the teacher to effectively differentiate instruction in order to meet the diverse needs of
students within the classroom setting. In turn, this may inhibit the capability of the teacher to
reach the ultimate goal of closing the math achievement gap for students with disabilities.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 86
Participating Stakeholders
For the purpose of this study, the stakeholder group with whom I will work will include
teachers from Southern California Charter High School (SCCHS). These teachers will include a
percentage from each department, including the following: math, English, World Languages,
science, computers, computer/technology education, business technology, and health/life skills.
The percentage of teachers with whom I will work will be at least 50% of the overall staff for the
purpose of the survey, and six teachers from the entire staff for the interview. I will also utilize
relevant documents, including professional development agendas, as part of the research process.
The criteria that I will use when choosing this group of teachers will be those who work with
students with disabilities in the general education setting. This is important to determine how
teachers differentiate instruction to meet the needs of a diverse group of students, including those
with disabilities.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers must work with students with disabilities and typical students. It
is important for teachers to understand the diverse needs of all students, including those with
disabilities. In order to gather the necessary data, the sampling must include teachers who work
with a variety of students in the classroom setting, across all disciplines.
Criterion 2. Teachers will be chosen who teach core academic classes, including math,
English, world languages, career/technology education, health/life skills, science, and business
technology. Teachers will be chosen who teach in the general education classes, which include
students with disabilities.
Criterion 3. Teachers will be chosen with varying levels of experience in teaching
students with disabilities in the general education setting.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 87
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy that will be utilized for this study will be a non-probability
purposeful sampling method. Merriam (2009) states that non-probability purposeful sampling
allows the researcher to understand specific details or insights; therefore, he must choose a group
from which he can gain the most information. The sampling technique for this study utilizes a
purposeful method that is not random and does not allow for equal chances of individuals within
the organization being selected. This study also utilizes the convenience sampling method, in
which participants will also be chosen based on location and availability of respondents
(Merriam, 2009). This strategy is utilized because I work with the teachers within the
organization, who will be chosen, based on their accessibility and availability. I will look for a
certain number of teachers from the entire staff, who meet the requirements of the survey-
sampling criterion, as mentioned above. As a supervisor to some of the teachers participating in
the study, I will meet with them individually to ensure that this study will, in no way, be
evaluative. I will let staff members know that the information collected will be used to form our
professional development and training for our teachers. Maxwell (2013) indicates that
purposeful selection of participants who may provide the information needed to answer the
research question for the study is the most important consideration in determining which strategy
to use. I will seek out approximately 50-60 teachers to participate in the survey, which is about
50% of the overall population of the organization. I believe that 50% overall will provide an
accurate and insightful picture into the stakeholder’s overall ability to differentiate instruction for
all students at SCCHS. In addition, this is a group of stakeholders with whom I have an
established relationships, having worked with many of them in this organization, which will
allow the most productive use of time and resources to answer my research questions (Maxwell,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 88
2013). The information gathered may be generalized to the overall population of teachers as
well. This number of participants should achieve the representativeness of teachers overall
(Maxwell, 2013).
Interview Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Teachers must work with students with disabilities and typical students. It
is important the teachers understand the diverse needs of all students, including those with
disabilities. In order to gather the necessary data, the sampling must include teachers who work
with a variety of students in the classroom setting.
Criterion 2. Teachers will be chosen who teach core academic classes, including math,
English, World Languages, health/life skills, science, careers and technology education, and
business technology. I will work with those teachers who teach in the general education classes.
Criterion 3. Teachers will be chosen who have a variety of experience in working with
students with disabilities in the general education classroom. These may be teachers who may
have a foundational experience with instructional differentiation in the classroom.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
In order to recruit the group of teachers with whom I will work for this study, I will send
out a general email to teachers in the school, asking teachers to work with me on this project, and
specifically reaching out to teachers with whom I am more familiar to ensure that I have two
teachers from each department to participate in the interview process. It is important to select
participants that will make up a homogeneous group. The group must have things in common
with regard to my study (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 89
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Maxwell (2013) states that research questions “formulate what you want to understand”
and the interview questions provide the means by which the researcher can gain an
understanding of the topic. In order to best understand the research questions, researchers should
utilize a variety of methods to check one another, establishing that all the methods support a
particular conclusion. For the purpose of this study, I will use survey questions, interviews, and
document analysis to gain information about my intended research questions.
Surveys
Fink (2013) describes the purpose of a survey as a method of collecting information that
is used to “describe, compare, or explain individual or societal knowledge, feelings, values,
preferences, or behaviors.” Fink (2013) also provides three reasons for utilizing surveys: first, a
program or policy must be set or planned; second, the effectiveness of programs must be
evaluated to change people’s knowledge, attitude, health, or wealth; or third, to gather
information in order to guide studies and programs. Merriam (2009) indicates that surveys “are
intended to systematically describe the facts and characteristics of a given phenomenon or the
relationships between events and phenomena.” General education teachers who work with
typical students and students with disabilities will participate in the survey portion of this study.
Survey questions will include participant’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that influence their ability and willingness to differentiate instruction in the classroom. The
survey will also include questions that address challenges that teachers face when differentiating
instruction.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 90
Interviews
In order to ensure validity, several methods may be utilized. One way to ensure validity
is to utilize a number of methods to collect data. Along with surveys, formal interviews will be
conducted with individual teachers, with interviews taking place in either the teacher’s room or
their department office. I chose those two places because I felt that the teachers would feel that
the interview was less of an administrator/teacher interview (directly related to their
performance) if the interview took place somewhere other than my office; more specifically, I
want to meet in a place where they feel comfortable. Merriam (2009) states that, for the most
part, interviews in qualitative studies are open-ended and fairly unstructured – often referred to
semi-structured, which allows for an interview guide with flexible questions and no
predetermined wording or order. I believe interviews will be the best method for my study
because these interviews will allow my participants to answer a given question, and to expound
upon their answer and to move in a different direction (as guided by me), as needed. The semi-
structured interview process will allow me to ask those questions pertinent to my study, but
allow the respondent to provide answers that they feel are important in their work with students.
Interview questions will address how teachers differentiate instruction in the classroom,
as well as the challenges they face meeting the needs of a diverse population of students. I will
begin with the types of questions that will allow me to establish a relationship of trust with the
respondent. I will then move into questions that help me to understand the background
knowledge of content and instructional differentiation that each teacher brings to his or her
practice in the classroom. I will ask how teachers plan for differentiation and how they adapt
their lessons as they teach. Then, I will ask questions about teacher motivation in differentiating
instruction as teachers plan, present, and assess lessons in the classroom. Asking good questions
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 91
is key in the interview process, and different types of questions will provide different
information and insight into a study (Merriam, 2009). It is important to consider how my
questions are worded, using familiar language, and avoiding technical terminology. It is
important to avoid multiple questions (double-barreled), leading questions, and yes-or-no
questions (Merriam, 2009). Questions within a semi-structured interview may also go hand-in-
hand with classroom observations that will take place during the study.
Document Analysis
“Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents--
both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-transmitted) material” (Bowen, 2009).
In order to gain understanding and expand empirical knowledge as it relates to one’s research,
documents must be examined and interpreted (Bowen, 2009). Merriam (2009) states that
documents may come in a variety of forms including public and personal records, as well as
“popular culture documents.” Documents to be used in this research study will include public
records, which Merriam (2009) describes as “official, ongoing records.” The use of documents
in the research process is another way in which the researcher can triangulate data collection and
corroborate the information he or she analyzes (Bowen, 2009). Angers and Machtmes (2005)
utilized document analysis in their study of beliefs, context factors, and practices of middle-
school teachers and their use of technology curriculum. The authors “stressed the need to
triangulate the study methods (which also included observations and interviews) so as to validate
and corroborate data obtained during the study” (as cited by Bowen, 2009).
Bowen (2009) provides five ways in which document analysis may support the research
process:
● Document analysis can provide background information.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 92
● Document analysis can help provide additional questions that the researcher may not
have previously considered.
● Document analysis can provide supplementary data to the knowledge base.
● Documents analysis may provide insight to change and development over a period of
time.
● Document analysis can provide support and validation to information already collected
from other sources.
Merriam (2009) states that a “qualitative study of classroom instruction would lead to
documents in the form of instructors’ lesson plans, students assignments, objects in the
classroom, official grade reports and school records, teacher evaluations, and so on.”
In order to determine teacher’s prior knowledge about instructional differentiation and
professional development, as well as professional development and organizational support
needed in the future, I will look at prior agendas for professional staff development related to
instructional differentiation, and training specific to meeting the needs of students with
disabilities. It is important to review each document and to determine the relevancy to the
research questions and if the documents I choose will be easily accessible (Merriam, 2009).
Data Analysis
Validity
In order to ensure validity of the survey items to measure knowledge, motivation, and
organization, Maxwell (2013) indicates that researchers must be aware of “validity threats” and
how the researcher will deal with those threats. Two specific validity threats to qualitative
studies are: researcher bias and reactivity. Research bias may be present when a researcher’s
existing theories, goals, or preconceptions become part of the research process. It is nearly
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 93
impossible for a researcher to totally eliminate bias within a study; however, the researcher can
address and explain the possible biases and the way in which they will be dealt (Maxwell, 2013).
Reactivity – what Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) describe as the researcher being part of the
world he studies (as cited by Maxwell, 2013) – that what the interviewee states is always
influenced by the researcher and the interview situation.
Maxwell (2013) further indicates that there are several ways in which a researcher may
rule out any threats to validity: participate in a intensive, long-term observation/study; collect
“rich” data that is detailed and varied enough to provide a clear picture of what is going on in the
group being studied; solicit feedback from participants about data and conclusion; utilizing
informal interventions; searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases; collecting
information from a diverse group of participants or utilizing multiple methods to gather data
(triangulation); use of numbers; and informal comparisons of groups of interviewees.
In order to eliminate any threats to validity, I will explain any research bias that I feel
may hinder the validity of any results of the study. Survey and interview questions will address
differentiation in the classroom and the teacher’s feelings about their own knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support in differentiating instruction for their student population.
In addition, I will gather data and information from a diverse group of participants, including
teachers from several departments within the organization. As mentioned in Maxwell (2013),
informal comparisons of groups of interviewees and survey responses will also help to ensure the
validity of the study.
Reliability
Merriam describes reliability as “the extent to which research findings can be replicated”
(2009, p. 250). Although this may generally be true, it is often difficult to replicate results when
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 94
studying human behavior. Merriam (2009) also indicates that although it may be difficult to
obtain the same results when utilizing qualitative studies, the researcher can expect that the
results will indicate consistency and dependability – that others would agree that “given the data
collected, the results make sense” (Merriam, 2009, p. 251).
In order to ensure what Merriam would describe as consistency and dependability, the
researcher may use triangulation, peer examination, and investigator’s or researcher’s position or
biases. In addition to these tools (described above), the researcher may also an audit trail as a
method for ensuring reliability. The audit trail allows those who read the study to follow the trail
of the researcher and understand how the researcher arrived at the results of the study (Merriam,
2009). In order to ensure reliability in this study, I will be clear in the methodology of collecting
data, as well as completing a log that lays out method of collecting data, and how I arrived at the
results of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam (2009) states, “To a large extent, the validity and reliability of a study depend
upon the ethics of the investigator.” Patton (2015) indicates that essentially the credibility of the
research is tied to the credibility of the researcher, along with the methods utilized (as cited by
Merriam, 2009). In addition, Patton (2015) states that the trustworthiness of any research is tied
to the research, those who collect and analyze the research, and their competence in that process
(as cited by Merriam, 2009).
Patton (1999) relates that credibility in qualitative research may depend on three
elements: rigorous techniques for collecting data, with careful consideration for validity,
reliability, and triangulation; the credibility of the researcher; and the philosophical belief in the
value of qualitative research. In order to address each of these concerns, the researcher must be
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 95
“methodical in reporting sufficient details of data collection and the processes of analysis to
permit others to judge the quality of the resulting product” (Patton, 1999). In addition,
triangulation is the best method to ensure credibility, which may include: utilizing such
combinations as observations, interviews, and surveys within the qualitative research process;
triangulating data sources such as comparison of observational data with interview data;
checking data over time; and comparing points of view from various perspectives (Patton, 1999).
One important factor that is also a consideration in the credibility and trustworthiness of
the research is the credibility and trustworthiness of the researcher (Merriam, 2009). Patton
(1999) indicates that it is the responsibility of the researcher to approach the research process as
ethically as possible. It is also the responsibility of the researcher to maintain a neutral stance in
determining the outcome of the findings, while treating the participants with care and interest
(Patton, 1999).
Marshall (1985) states that certain standards can be applied when determining the
trustworthiness of the research. These include ten general aspects: data collection procedures,
utilization of data to determine meaning of ideas, presentation of negative aspects of data,
presentation and discussion of biases, and collection of data in a public manner, documentation
of field work, documentation of competing hypotheses, preservation of data for review,
methodology for checking data quality, and differentiation of “site-specific findings and findings
that are generalizable to other settings” (Marshall, 1985).
In order to meet the standards of credibility and trustworthiness, I plan to use a
triangulation of methods, utilizing interviews, surveys, and observations to collect the data
needed for this study. In addition, I will address and discuss any biases that may be present,
maintaining a “neutral stance” in determining the outcomes of my study, while treating my
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 96
participants as individuals, not just statistics. Finally, I will be forthcoming in the data collection
process, documenting fieldwork information, and how my research findings apply to my specific
organization and how they may be applied to the general educational setting. It is important for
me to remember that my research is only as credible and trustworthy as I am, as the researcher,
and in completing the research study.
Ethics
As a researcher, it is important to understand the ethical considerations when conducting
a research study. In qualitative research, one must be thoughtful about how to conduct the study
with regard to protecting participants. According to Glesne (2011), ethical guidelines stemmed
from various types of medical and other research that was intrusive to participants. By 1974, the
federal government directed the establishment of review boards to ensure the safety and
protection of participants in research studies (Glesne, 2011).
One way in which I can provide ethical consideration for my participants is through
informed consent. Potential candidates, through informed consent, understand that any
participation in the study is voluntary. Further, they may discontinue participation at any given
time without repercussion, and that portions of the study may affect their well-being (Glesne,
2011). In addition, the purpose and outline of my study will be submitted to the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). I will follow the guidelines and
parameters set forth by this board in order to ensure protection for the rights and safety of the
participants within my study.
Glesne (2011) states that privacy is generally of utmost concern for those who participate
in a study. As I work with stakeholders at my school, it will be important to validate their
concerns about their privacy as individuals in discussing my study with administrators on
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 97
campus. An expectation from the teachers for confidentiality and anonymity will be respected. I
will seek permission from all participants to take notes and audio record our interviews and
discussions. In addition, participants will be provided a transcript of the interview to allow them
to comment and provide input as to the accuracy of the transcript.
I will not provide incentives for participation in this study. At the end of the interviews
and discussions, I will give each individual a token of my appreciation for their contribution to
my research study. In this way, participants will not feel coerced to participate; instead, they will
receive the gift to show my appreciation for their participation in my study.
Limitations and Delimitations
One limitation that may impact the quality of the findings, and the ability to effectively
answer the questions put forth in this study, is the accuracy of the information provided by the
participants who participate. Participants will self-report about their knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers of instructional differentiation through the use of surveys and
interviews. Participant’s responses will be based their own professional and personal
experiences with instructional differentiation.
The researcher and the participants in this study are employed by the same organization.
The researcher is the direct supervisor to some of the participants in this study; therefore, some
of the participants may be hesitant to answer survey and interview questions accurately and
truthfully. In addition, those who are not under the direct supervision of the researcher may also
be concerned about the study being evaluative in nature and, therefore, may not convey their true
feelings about instructional differentiation.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 98
Another limitation may be the time frame in which the information is gathered. The time
in which this study will be conducted may only represent a snapshot that is dependent on the
conditions taking place at that particular time.
There are some delimitations that may be considered. These may include the choice of
research questions, the conceptual framework that I have chosen to use, and the population that I
have chosen to study. All of these are within my control; however, the outcomes of this study
will fall only within the parameters of these choices, which may eliminate the possibility of
covering other topics or questions. The outcomes of this study of teachers in this particular
organization do not necessarily apply to educators in other geographic areas. The selected
methodology of my study may also establish boundaries for what my findings will ascertain.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 99
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the extent to which SCCHS is meeting its
organizational goal to ensure that 100% of teachers with students in inclusive general education
classrooms will implement instructional differentiation strategies during their lessons. The
analysis focuses on utilization of instructional differentiation in the classroom by teachers, and
how this differentiation relates to achieving the organization’s goals. In addition, the study
addresses the challenges that teachers face in differentiating instruction to meet the individual
needs of students, as well as the knowledge, motivational, and/or organizational
influencers/elements that teachers must overcome to differentiate instruction.
Structure of the Chapter and Guiding Questions
In this chapter, I share the findings of this study through (a) the survey results of general
education teachers who teach students with disabilities in their classroom; (b) interview
responses from six general education teachers who teach students with disabilities in their
classroom; and, (c) analysis of professional development agendas from August 2013 to May
2017. The following questions were used to guide the research:
In what ways are teachers able to differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of
students?
What are the challenges that teachers face in differentiating instruction to meet the
individual needs of students?
What might be the knowledge, motivational, and/or organizational influencers/elements
that teachers must overcome to differentiate instruction?
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 100
Participating Stakeholders
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the main stakeholder group in this study was teachers who work with students with
disabilities in a general education setting. In order to participate in the survey, respondents in
this study had to be teachers who work with students with disabilities in the general education
setting at SCCHS. All teachers who met these criteria were invited to participate in an
anonymous, online survey. Of the 126 teachers on staff who met the criteria, 83 teachers
responded, which indicates an overall response rate of 66%. Teachers took the online survey
during winter break, off site. In addition, teachers in each department were approached and
asked to participate in the interview portion of the study. Six teachers agreed to be interviewed
as part of the study, each from a different department in which they teach students with
disabilities in the general education setting. This indicates a 4.5% participation rate of staff
members, with one member from each of 6 out of 8 total departments on campus. Document
analysis included professional development/faculty meeting agendas from 2013-2017, as well as
IEP, which teachers receive each year for students with an IEP in their general education classes.
The IEP passports include information about student goals, designated instructional services
(DIS), and accommodations. Chart 1 displays the breakdown, by department, of which teachers
participated in the survey.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 101

Figure 2. Subjects taught by survey participants.
Results
Knowledge Results
Teachers responded to survey questions that addressed four areas of knowledge, as it
relates to instructional differentiation for students with disabilities in the general education
setting. In focusing on the knowledge section of the KMO model, teachers were asked a
numbers of questions on the survey. These questions addressed the declarative, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive aspects in the area of assumed knowledge influences, as they
apply to the stakeholders within this study.
In order to successfully differentiate instruction, teachers need knowledge of content
area, the attributes of instructional differentiation, and which students need instructional
differentiation in order to access curriculum. A foundation of factual (declarative) knowledge is
a basic requirement to utilize differentiation strategies in the classroom. Three survey questions
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 102
relate to the declarative knowledge portion of the KMO model. Table 9 displays the questions
and responses related to teacher’s content knowledge, knowledge of instructional differentiation,
and how to identify the individual needs of students in the classroom.
Declarative knowledge results. Utilizing a Likert scale of 1-5, participants were asked
to determine their level of agreement regarding their knowledge of their content, and their
knowledge of instructional differentiation, and their knowledge of identifying individual needs of
students in the classroom. 95.1% of teachers self-reported that they either agree or strongly
agree that they have knowledge of instructional differentiation. In addition, the survey revealed
that 80% of teachers self-reported that they either strongly agree or agree that they have a strong
knowledge of their content area. Finally, survey results determined that 88% of teachers either
agree or strongly agree that they know how to identify the needs of students in the classroom.
Teachers must have knowledge and understanding of their content in order to have the
confidence, skill level, and competence in the area of differentiation (Brimijoin, 2005).
Table 9
Survey Results for Declarative Knowledge Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Knowledge
of
Instructional

Differentiation

99%
(N=82)
Total
Responses

0%

(N=0)
Strongly
Disagree

0%

(N=0)
Disagree

8.5%
(N=7)
Undecided

39.0%

(N=32)
Agree

52.4%

(N=43)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%

(N=1)
No
Response

Knowledge
of
Content
Area
99%
(N=82)
Total
Responses

0%

(N=0)

Disagree

5%

(N=4)
Undecided

30.5%

(N=25)
Agree

64.6%

(N=53)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%

(N=1)
No
Response

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 103
Table 9, continued
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Knowledge
of
How
to
Identify

Student
Needs

100%
(N=83)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

1.2%

(N=1)
Disagree

10.8%

(N=9)
Undecided

44.6%
(N=37)
Agree

43.4%
(N=36)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

In addition to the general declarative knowledge questions listed above, teachers who
responded to the survey questions were also asked to choose the three most important ways in
which to meet the needs of their students. Teacher choices included five options, three of which
are considered to be most important part of instructional differentiation. The five choices
included: assess student readiness, have students work in groups, assess student interest, have
student with disabilities complete fewer assignments or less work, and provide a variety of ways
in which student can demonstrate understanding. Table 10 displays teacher responses in rating
the three most important.
Table 10
Most Important Ways in Which to Begin to Differentiate Instruction in the Classroom
Ways to Differentiate Percent Responded (N=) Most Important
Assess Student Readiness 79.3% (N=65) Yes
Have Student Work in Groups 67.1% (N=55) No
Have Student Complete Less
Work or Fewer Assignments
9.8% (N=8) No
Assess Student Interest 46.3% (N=38) Yes
Provide a Variety of Ways in
Which the Student Can
Demonstrate Understanding
90.2% (N=74) Yes

Although teachers responded that they either agree or strongly agree that they have
knowledge of instructional differentiation (Table 9), 67.1% (55) of the 82 teachers who
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 104
responded identified student group work as an important way in which to differentiation
instruction in the classroom. Although having students work in groups may be an effective way
in which students may collaborate, assessing student interest is a more effective way in which to
differentiate instruction in the classroom. Chapman and King (2005) provide the standards by
which teachers should differentiate. Teachers should utilize standards as the basis for
instructional planning, should consistently assess before they plan lessons to meet the needs of
specific groups of students, continually assess students throughout the lesson to determine where
to make adjustments, utilize resources that support student learning styles, ability levels and
knowledge, and flexibly group students during the planning process. In addition, 9.8% of the
teachers who responded stated that an important part of instructional differentiation is to have
students with disabilities complete fewer assignments or less work as part of the instructional
differentiation process. Although fewer assignments or less work may be an accommodation for
some students with disabilities (written in their IEP), this is not the way in which a teacher
should differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.
Procedural knowledge results. Addressing the aspects of procedural knowledge,
teachers need to know how to plan lessons, differentiating instruction as needed; teachers also
need to know how to adapt lessons as they are presented, making changes as needed to address
student needs. Using the same Likert Scale, participants were asked to respond with their level of
agreement to the questions related to procedural knowledge of instructional differentiation.
Table 11 displays survey questions and responses related to procedural knowledge. Almost 82%
of teachers surveyed either agree or strongly agree that they have a knowledge of the process of
adapting lessons to meet the individual needs of students. 95.2% of teachers either agree or
strongly agree that they know how to reflect on their own teaching methods, and 78.4% of
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 105
teachers either agree or strongly agree that they know how to plan lessons that include
instructional differentiation. Lawrence-Brown (2004) states that teachers should plan lessons
that connect content with student learning styles and incorporate student’s interests. Teachers
who effectively differentiate instruction begin this process during the planning stages with high-
quality lessons that coordinate all materials and resources to meet students’ needs.
Table 11
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Knowledge
of
the
process
of

adapting
lessons
to
meet
the

individual
needs
of
students

99%
(N=82)
Total
Reponses

0%

(N=0)
Strongly
Disagree

3.7%
(N=3)
Disagree

14.6%
(N=12)
Undecided

39.0%

(N=32)
Agree

42.7%
(N=35)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%

(N=1)
No
Response

Knowledge
of
how
to
reflect
on

teaching
methods

99%
(N=82)

0%

(N=0)

Total
Reponses

Strongly
Disagree

0%

(N=0)
Disagree

4.9%

(N=4)
Undecided

41.5%

(N=34)
Agree

53.7%

(N=44)
Strongly
Agree

0%

(N=0)
No
Response

Knowledge
of
how
to
plan
lessons

for
instructional
differentiation

100%
(N=83)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

19.3%

(N=16)
Undecided

38.6%
(N=32)
Agree

39.8%
(N=33)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

Conceptual knowledge results. Conceptual knowledge, as it relates to differentiated
instruction, is based on the idea that teachers need to understand how to differentiate instruction,
how to remediate, and how to determine intervention steps. Table 12 shows the results to the
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 106
survey questions related to conceptual knowledge. 51.8% of teachers surveyed either agree or
strongly agree that they have knowledge to specifically differentiate instruction for students with
learning disabilities.79.2% of teacher responses indicated that they either agree or strongly agree
that they know when differentiated instruction is needed. 78.4% of teachers who responded
either agree or strongly agree that they know how to identify the individual needs of students in
their classroom. As stated above, the nature of differentiating instruction requires that teachers
in this study be flexible in their planning and instruction and to their overall approach to
providing instruction in the classroom (Dixon et al., 2014). Learning how to differentiate
instruction is an ongoing process requiring teachers to learn the process and to practice in the
classroom to ensure success (Dixon et al., 2014).
Table 12
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Knowledge
to
specifically

differentiate
instruction
for

students
with
learning

disabilities.

100%
(N=83)
Total
Reponses

2.4%

(N=2)
Strongly
Disagree

9.6%
(N=8)
Disagree

36.1%
(N=30)
Undecided

25.3%

(N=21)
Agree

26.5%
(N=22)
Strongly
Agree

0%

(N=0)
No
Response

Knowledge
of
when
differentiated

Instruction
is
needed

97.6%
(N=81)

0%

(N=0)

Total
Reponses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

17.1%

(N=14)
Undecided

40.2%

(N=33)
Agree

39.0%

(N=32)
Strongly
Agree

2.4%

(N=2)
No
Response

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 107
Table 12, continued
Knowledge of how to identify
individual needs of students in
the classroom
100%
(N=83)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

19.3%

(N=16)
Undecided

38.6%
(N=32)
Agree

39.8%
(N=33)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

Metacognitive knowledge results. Relating metacognitive knowledge to instructional
differentiation, teachers need to reflect on their own teaching methods, strengths and
weaknesses, and setting goals to improve their instructional practices in differentiation. Teachers
responded to survey questions related to metacognitive knowledge, specifically related to self-
reflection on one’s own teaching methods. Of the 82 teachers who responded about their self-
reflection on their own teaching methods, 95.2% either agree or strongly agree that they know
how to reflect on their own teaching methods. 91.4% of the 82 teachers who responded either
agree or strongly agree that they self-reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses. 86.8% of
the 83 teacher responses indicated that teachers either agree or strongly agree that they know
how to set goals to improve instruction to meet individual student needs. Related to the
importance of evaluation in teaching, 96.3% of 81 teachers who responded believe that it is
either important or very important to evaluate one’s own teaching methods. 100% of the 79
teachers who responded believe that it is either important or very important to evaluate the
classroom setting. In addressing the importance of evaluating classroom practices, lessons, and
assessments, 100% of teachers who responded (81, 78, and 78 respectively) believe that is it
either important or very important to evaluate practices, lessons, and assessments. Teacher
responses for this organization regarding reflection on teaching practices and relating instruction
to student interest as one plans lessons and assessments are similar to the study of 58 secondary
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 108
social studies teachers, in seven school divisions in a southeastern metropolitan region. In this
study, Hootstein (1999) reported that 86% of teachers reported that addressing student interests
was important or very important in planning lessons for the diverse student population within
their classroom setting.
Table 13
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Knowledge
of
how
to
reflect
on

one’s
own
teaching
methods

98.8%
(N=82)
Total
Reponses

0%

(N=0)
Strongly
Disagree

3.8%
(N=0)
Disagree

4.9%
(N=4)
Undecided

41.5%

(N=34)
Agree

53.7%
(N=44)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%

(N=1)
No
Response

Self-‐reflection
on
own
strengths

and
weaknesses

98.8%
(N=82)

0%

(N=0)

Total
Reponses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

6.1%

(N=5)
Undecided

26.8%

(N=22)
Agree

64.6%

(N=53)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%

(N=1)
No
Response

Knowledge
of
how
to
set
goals
to

improve
instruction
to
meet

individual
student
needs

100%
(N=83)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

9.6%

(N=8)
Undecided

42.2%
(N=35)
Agree

44.6%
(N=37)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

Importance of evaluating one’s
own teaching method
97.6%
(N=81)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Not
important

1.2%

(N=1)
Slightly
Important

2.5%

(N=2)
Moderately
Important

4.9%
(N=4)
Important

91.4%
(N=74)
Very
Important

2.4%
(N=2)
No
Response

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 109
Table 13, continued
Related Question Percent Responded (N=) Level of Agreement
Importance of evaluating the
classroom setting

95.2%
(N=79)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

20.3%
(N=16)

79.7%
(N=63)

5.1%
(N=4)

Total
Responses

Not
important

Slightly
Important

Moderately
Important

Important

Very
Important

No
Response

Importance of evaluating
classroom practices

95.2%
(N=81)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

9.9%
(N=8)

90.1%
(N=73)

2.5%
(N=2)

Total
Responses

Not
important

Slightly
Important

Moderately
Important

Important

Very
Important

No
Response

Importance of evaluating
classroom lessons
94%
(N=78)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

14.1%
(N=11)

85.9%
(N=67)

6.4%
(N=5)

Total
Responses

Not
important

Slightly
Important

Moderately
Important

Important

Very
Important

No
Response

Importance of evaluating
classroom assessments
95.2%
(N=81)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

0%
(N=0)

17.3%
(N=14)

82.7%
(N=67)

2.5%
(N=2)

Total
Responses

Not
important

Slightly
Important

Moderately
Important

Important

Very
Important

No
Response

Motivation Results
Teachers responded to survey questions that addressed two areas of motivation, as it
relates to instructional differentiation for students with disabilities in the general education
setting. In focusing on the motivation section of the KMO model, teachers were asked a
numbers of questions on the survey. These questions addressed goal-orientation (a mastery-
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 110
approach to a task) and self-efficacy (confidence in one’s ability) aspects in the area of assumed
motivation influences, as they apply to the stakeholders within this study.
Goal orientation results. In addressing goal-orientation as it relates to instructional
differentiation, teachers must have a desire to become proficient in teaching, remediating,
reviewing, intervening, and going above-and-beyond the necessary requirements of the task.
They must see that there is value in accomplishing the goal. Teachers themselves must be
motivated to go beyond the norm of instructional practices to find ways to differentiate
instruction (Tollefson, 2000). 83 teachers responded to a questions relating to a lack of
instructional differentiation in the classroom as the cause for a lack of student achievement. The
answers to this question were across the spectrum of agreement. 2.4% of teachers strongly
disagreed; 6% of teachers disagreed; 51.8% of teachers were undecided; 38.6% of teachers
agreed; and, 19.3% of teachers strongly agreed. In addition, teachers were questioned regarding
their agreement related to the value of instructional differentiation in the classroom. Of the 83
teachers who responded, 91.5% of teachers either agree or strongly agree that there is value in
differentiating instruction for students. The sense of self-efficacy not only affects expectations
of success or failure, but also influences motivation through goal setting (Erdem & Demirel,
2007).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 111
Table 14
Survey Results for Motivation/Goal-Orientation Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

Lack
of
student
achievement
may

be
due
to
a
lack
of
instructional

differentiation
in
the
classroom

100%
(N=83)

2.4%
(N=2)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

6.0%

(N=5)
Disagree

51.8%

(N=43)
Undecided

38.6%
(N=16)
Agree

19.3%
(N=17)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

There
is
value
in
differentiating

instruction
for
one’s
students

100%
(N=83)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

1.2%

(N=1)
Disagree

7.2%

(N=6)
Undecided

33.7%
(N=28)
Agree

57.8%
(N=48)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

Self-Efficacy results. Teachers need to understand their role in differentiating
instruction and to have confidence in their ability to plan for differentiation and meeting student
needs. They must have confidence in their ability to differentiate instruction for their students.
Table 15 displays teacher responses related to self-efficacy. 82.9% teachers either agree or
strongly agree that they are aware of the attributes of instructional differentiation. As indicated
in chapter two, a study conducted in a southeast Georgia school district, Logan (2011) surveyed
141 teachers, approximately 90% of teachers disagreed that there is only one method to
differentiate instruction. Conversely, over 80% of teachers agreed that content, processes,
products, and materials must “constantly” be modified in a classroom where instruction is
differentiated. As differentiation specifically relates to students with disabilities, of the 82
teacher responses, only 64.6% either agree or strongly agree that they are confident in the ability
to differentiate instruction for students with disabilities. 24.4% of teachers who responded were
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 112
undecided about their level of confidence. Teachers with a high level of efficacy believe that
they can strongly influence student achievement (Erdem and Demirel, 2007).
Table 15
Survey Results for Motivation/Self-Efficacy Factors
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

I
have
an
awareness
of
attributes

of
instructional
differentiation

98.8%
(N=82)

0%
(N=0)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

2.4%

(N=2)
Disagree

14.6%

(N=12)
Undecided

34.1%
(N=28)
Agree

48.8%
(N=40)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%
(N=1)
No
Response

As
a
teacher,
I
feel
confident
to

specifically
differentiate

instruction
for
students
with

disabilities.

98.8%
(N=82)

2.4%
(N=2)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

9.8%

(N=8)
Disagree

24.4%

(N=20)
Undecided

37.8%
(N=31)
Agree

26.8%
(N=22)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%
(N=1)
No
Response

Organizational Results
The third influence examined in this survey is organization. In order to achieve
organizational goals, it is necessary to have structures and supports in place so that stakeholders
(in this case, teachers) can achieve the specific organizational goal of closing the achievement
gap for students with disabilities through instructional differentiation. Cultural settings are the
tools through which teachers may accomplish what they need to do in the classroom. Cultural
models are the overall beliefs and practices that drive the day-to-day procedures. Culture within
an organization provides a framework for daily work (Lynch, 2006).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 113
Cultural Setting – Time and Resources. Lack of time and resources are a constant
discussion at SCCHS, as teachers try to accomplish all school and stakeholder goals within a
limited time period, and with limited resources. As displayed in Table 16, 58.5% of teachers
either agree or strongly agree that they have the time to differentiate instruction. In addition,
51.8% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that they have the necessary resources to
differentiate instruction. Only 17.1% of teachers responded that they agree, and 0% of teachers
responded that they strongly agree that their class size is appropriate to effectively differentiate
instruction in the classroom. This correlates with the study previously mentioned in an earlier
chapter, which states that in a study of 103 English teachers in Taipei, Lin (2006) found that
approximately 38% of the regular classroom teachers who participated in the study felt that the
barrier of time made it difficult or very difficult to differentiate instruction in the classroom.
These results were similar to the case-study approach involving three Ethiopian schools, where
81 participants revealed that teachers’ work overload prevents the fruition of teachers’
professional development (Gemeda, Fiorucci, and Catarci, 2014).
Table 16
Survey Results for Cultural Setting – Time, Resources, and Class Size
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

I
believe
that
I
have
the
time
to

differentiate
instruction.

98.8%
(N=82)

11%
(N=9)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

20.7%

(N=17)
Disagree

34.1%

(N=28)
Undecided

24.4%
(N=20)
Agree

9.8%
(N=8)
Strongly
Agree

1.2%
(N=1)
No
Response

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 114
Table 16, continued
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

I
believe
I
have
the
necessary

resources
to
differentiate

instruction.

100%
(N=83)

7.2%
(N=6)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

19.3%

(N=16)
Disagree

33.7%

(N=28)
Undecided

18.1%
(N=15)
Agree

21.7%
(N=18)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

I believe that the size of my class
is appropriate to effectively
differentiate instruction in the
classroom.

98.8%
(N=82)

26.8%
(N=22)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

21.9%

(N=18)
Disagree

34.1%

(N=28)
Undecided

17.1%
(N=14)
Agree

1.2%
(N=1)
No
Response

Cultural Setting – Administrative Support, Professional Development, and Training
Similar to survey questions regarding time, resources, and class size, teachers responded
to questions regarding administrative support, training, and professional development. As shown
in Table 17, 81.9% of respondents stated that they either agree or strongly agree that
administration supports their efforts to differentiate instruction in the classroom. In comparison,
when asked more specifically about training or professional development they receive in the area
of instructional differentiation, only 51.9% of teachers either agree or strongly agree that they
receive training or professional development needed to effectively differentiate instruction in the
classroom. This is similar to the results of a rural Georgia school district study of 52 middle and
high school general education teachers, who served students with disabilities. Knight (2016)
found that approximately 35% of teachers received training in differentiated instruction and
utilized it often or all of the time in their instruction.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 115
Table 17
Survey Results for Cultural Setting – Support and Training/Professional Development
Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

I
believe
that
administration

supports
my
efforts
to
improve

my
teaching.

100%
(N=83)

2.4%
(N=2)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

3.6%

(N=3)
Disagree

12.0
%

(N=10)
Undecided

32.5%
(N=27)
Agree

49.4%
(N=41)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

I
believe
I
receive
the
professional

development/training
needed
to

effectively
differentiate

instruction
in
the
classroom.

97.6%
(N=81)

7.4%
(N=6)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

11.1%

(N=9)
Disagree

29.6%

(N=24)
Undecided

32.1%
(N=26)
Agree

19.8%
(N=16)
Strongly
Agree

2.5%
(N=2)
No
Response

Cultural model results. In order to evaluate teacher’s perceptions of the culture of the
organization, and the environment in which they work, teachers were asked about questions
related to the cultural model of SCCHS. Table 18 displays responses when asked if they believe
that the administration provides an environment where teachers feel open to taking risks and if
they receive the professional development/training needed to effectively differentiation
instruction in the classroom. Of the 83 responses, 75.9% teachers either agree or strongly agree
that the administration creates an environment where teachers feel open to taking risks. In
addition, 81 teachers responded with 69.8% either agree or strongly agree that the leaders shape
the culture of the organization. Of the 83 respondents, 61.4% either agree or strongly agree that
the administration effectively communicates the goals of the organization. 55.4% of the 83
respondents either agree or strongly agree that administration provides direction to achieve the
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 116
goals of the organization. It is important that principals establish trust, create structures that
promote teacher learning, help connect teachers with experts in the educational field, and provide
support to their teachers, building capacity for change in their schools (Dasmawati & Boon,
2014).
Table 18

Survey Results for Cultural Models – Communication and Support to Achieve Organizational
Goals

Related
Question
Percent
Responded
(N=)
Level
of
Agreement

I
believe
that
administration

creates an environment where
teachers feel open to taking
risks.
100%
(N=83)

3.6%
(N=3)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

4.8%

(N=4)
Disagree

14.5%

(N=13)
Undecided

33.7%
(N=28)
Agree

42.2%
(N=35)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

I
believe
that
the
leaders
of
our

organization
shape
our
culture.

100%
(N=83)

3.6%

(N=3)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

10.8%

(N=9)
Disagree

17.0%

(N=13)
Undecided

32.5%

(N=27)
Agree

37.3%

(N=31)
Strongly
Agree

0%

(N=0)
No
Response

The administration effectively
communicates our organizational
goals.

100%

(N=83)

6.0%

(N=5)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

10.8%

(N=9)
Disagree

21.7%

(N=18)
Undecided

32.5%

(N=27)
Agree

28.9%

(N=24)
Strongly
Agree

0%

(N=0)
No
Response

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 117
Table 18, continued
The administration provides
direction to achieve our
organizational goals.
100%

(N=83)

6.0%
(N=5)

Total
Responses

Strongly
Disagree

13.3%

(N=11)
Disagree

25.3%

(N=21)
Undecided

28.9%
(N=24)
Agree

26.5%
(N=22)
Strongly
Agree

0%
(N=0)
No
Response

Findings
The findings of this section will be addressed in relation to the Conceptual Framework
questions. Each question will be discussed in a separate section, based on themes that developed
from the answers to the interview questions. Each teacher was asked questions that relate to the
following conceptual framework questions:
In what ways are teachers able to differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of
students?
What are the challenges that teachers face in differentiating instruction to meet the
individual needs of students?
What might be the knowledge, motivational, and/or organizational influencers/elements
that teachers must overcome to differentiate instruction?
Knowledge Foundation for Differentiated Instruction
The first question in the Conceptual Framework addresses how teachers are able to
differentiate instruction to meet the needs of their students and the knowledge that teachers have
about instructional differentiation. Although the school may mandate specific curriculum in a
given subject, implementation (or instruction) of that curriculum is left up to each individual
teacher and how he or she believes it may best be presented to meet the needs of individual
students. Six teachers participated in the interview process for this study, each from a different
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 118
department. One of the first discussion points addressed in the interview was teacher educational
preparation for the classroom. Part of this ability to differentiate is having the content knowledge
and the knowledge of how, when, and where to differentiate instruction in the planning and
presentation of the lesson for students.
Teacher responses indicated that all teachers interviewed felt that they have the content
knowledge (declarative knowledge) of their subject matter and how to teach in the classroom.
All teachers received some training in instructional differentiation through their credentialing
program, and have the theoretical knowledge to differentiate instruction in the classroom. One
theme throughout the interviews is that teachers would like to increase their knowledge base in
the area of instructional differentiation, through professional development, collaboration with
colleagues, and administrative support. Four out of six teachers specifically mentioned that they
have not received professional development in the area of instructional differentiation.
All teachers responded that they had a variety of experiences in preparation for meeting
the needs of students in a general education classroom. Those experiences ranged from one class
about “meeting the diverse needs of student learners” to specific courses such as Chicano Studies
and African American Studies, which helped provide context for meeting the needs of that
population of students. One teacher stated that “I strongly suggest that anyone that comes into
the school system should have to take something to learn how to teacher students of different
backgrounds.”
In response to a comment I made about current credentialing programs, and how they
may be changing to increase teacher preparation in order to meet the diverse needs of students in
the classroom, one teacher stated, “I hope so [that they are changing] because the problem is, I
wasn’t trained how to differentiate in a way that was meaningful for whichever environment it
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 119
was that I kind of stepped into.” All six teachers agreed that they participated in one or two
classes during their time in a credentialing program and that, although the courses were helpful,
it was not nearly enough to prepare them to meet the diverse needs of students with whom they
would be working. One teacher stated that she had “a lot of classes that taught me to
differentiate instruction, such as “lots of different literacy tactics, specially designed academic
instruction in English (SDAIE) techniques and different into, through, and beyond activities.”
They also had classes that focused on diversity, culture wise …” All teachers interviewed
responded that a lack of time is a problem for receiving professional development (PD). This
theme of lack of time addresses one of the barriers that teachers face as they try to meet the
diverse needs of students in the classroom.
Challenges That Teachers Face in Differentiating Instruction
Teachers face various challenges when trying to meet the needs of all students in the
classroom. This section discusses interview responses that relate to those challenges of
resources, time, and professional development.
Lack of Resources
The next question outlined in the Conceptual Framework asks, “What are the challenges
that teachers face in differentiating instruction to meet the individual needs of students?” The
findings of this study indicate that there are two main challenges that teachers face in
differentiating instruction. First, teachers lack resources that would allow them to more
specifically address the diverse needs of students in their classroom. Although all six teachers
stated that they receive the supplies they need, 4 of the 6 teachers also indicated that they lack
resources that they need to specifically meet the needs of students with disabilities. Two
teachers discussed the information related to students with disabilities, provided by the IEP
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 120
passports. 4 our of 6 teachers described the lack of opportunities to work with other teachers in a
collaborative planning.
Lack of Time
Lack of time to differentiate instruction not only applies to the class time itself but, as
mentioned above, a lack of common planning and collaboration time. One of the teachers
responded affirmatively about a lack of time. She suggested a collaborative time that would
allow her to have someone look at her environment and “give me tips and check how I’m doing
with the different students and just see how it’s going and see if there’s anything specific to my
food lab settings that I could do to make sure my students are getting the exact experience that
they need.” Other teachers suggested similar experiences of working with colleagues; however,
all six expressed a lack of collaboration time to work with colleagues in order to improve
teaching practices.
Lack of Professional Development
In addressing the theme of teacher preparation and professional development, teachers
were asked what they would like to see in the way of future professional development that would
increase their knowledge of instructional differentiation. All six teachers responded that there is
a lack of professional development provided by the organization in the area of instructional
differentiation. One teacher responded that it would be helpful to have examples of how to
differentiate instruction. She further suggested that maybe someone could “model and record
situations where a teacher is demonstrating instructional differentiation with students so that
other staff members could watch.” One teacher suggested that we have a professional –
“someone who is not on our staff” - come into school to explain new ways of teaching. “I
honestly think that we need to have more onsite development, and not through our Special Ed
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 121
teachers.” One teacher recommended that the school “provide substitute teachers so that staff
teachers could take the time to collaborate with one another in short, more intensive bursts.”
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influencers
Teachers were questioned about factors that influence their ability to address the diverse
needs of students in the classroom. Teachers responded to questions related to knowledge,
motivation, and organization.
Knowledge Influencers
The final question addressed in the Conceptual Framework asks, “What might be the
knowledge, motivational, and/or organizational influencers/elements that teachers must
overcome to differentiate instruction?” Although they felt they received some instruction to
support differentiation in their credentialing program, all teachers felt that it was not enough to
truly understand the differentiation process to meet the span of academic needs in the classroom.
One teacher stated, “Differentiation needs to not only be at the school level, but also where I’m
one of John Smith’s teachers and I sit down with his case carrier and that case carrier would be
like this is what’s going on with this kid. This is how he learns and this is how you can help
him” - something at more of an individual level.
Motivation Influencers
Motivation comes with teacher efficacy. Teacher motivation to differentiate instruction
comes when teachers understand the importance of differentiation and feel competent in their
efforts to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of students (Pajares, 2006; Rueda 2011). All
six teachers responded that they understand that instructional differentiation is a critical aspect in
meeting the diverse needs of students. All teachers interviewed believe that professional
development is a key part of that understanding. One teacher responded, “I’ve gotten more
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 122
development in terms of students with special needs. Not a lot of stuff on differentiating
instruction. Very, very little on that. Even in our department meetings. Not a lot. It makes it
difficult to know what to do and how to move forward, especially because our classes are so
big.”
Organizational Influencers
When asked about the ways in which administration at SCCHS support teachers in
meeting the diverse needs of students in the classroom, all six teachers felt that the
administration supports teachers in the classroom. One teacher stated that “there’s a lot of
positivity and support so that when we want things or need things, we usually get them. I feel
comfortable to talk to administration. I think that’s really important.” Another teacher stated,
“Administration supports us by definitely allowing us to understand every student’s needs,
including the blue folder (with informational “passport” summaries for students with IEP’s) that
has been provided to us for the last two years that has, you know the IEP’s and 504 plans readily
available.” In addition to providing informational IEP passports, one teacher also stated that he
felt that, as a department head, he has been able to go to administration and say, “We need this,
that, and the other and it’s happened.” All teachers interviewed felt that administration provided
the resources necessary to teach; however, interview responses from 4 of the 6 teachers
demonstrated that they did not feel that they were provided resources necessary to differentiate
instruction in the classroom. One teacher stated, “I think if we had a system where we could
have more examples of it [differentiating instruction] … how you would differentiate instruction
if you have a class. I think one of the issues is because counseling staff throws anyone in a class
if that class has fewer students or if a student requests to get a certain class. It makes it difficult
to meet everyone’s needs.”
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 123
Document Analysis
Merriam and Tisdale (2009) state that when documents contain information relevant to
the research questions and when they can be obtained in a “reasonably practical yet systematic
manner” then there is no reason not to use those documents as part of the research process. In
addressing the research questions of my conceptual framework, professional development
agendas would be a part of what could be analyzed to support or not support the evidence from
the interviews and surveys. As part of this study, I reviewed 52 professional development (PD)
agendas for SCCHS for dates ranging from August 20, 2013 to May 16, 2017. Table 19 shows
the various topics related to addressing the diverse needs of students for some of the 52 PD days.
Table 19

Professional Development Topics Related to Addressing Student Needs and Number of PD days
Related to Those Topics

Topic Related to Addressing Diverse Needs
of Students
Number of PD Days Addressing Topic
Transition to Common Core (Strategies to
address Common Core Standards)
9
SPED related topic – “Understanding the IEP
and Eligibility”
1
SPED related topic – IEP Passports (summary
of supports and services for students with an
IEP)
2
SPED related topic – “Grading students with
moderate to severe learning disabilities”
1
SPED related topic – “SST vs. 504 vs. IEP” 1

As demonstrated, in the 52 PD days held over almost four years, nine agendas related to
the implementation of Common Core standards; only five PD agendas listed topics directly
related to meeting the needs of students with disabilities; and, none of the PD days listed any
topics related to instructional differentiation.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 124

Synthesis
An important aspect of this study was to increase the credibility of the findings in order to
“shore up the internal validity of a study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). The use of multiple
methods is one way in which the authors state that this can be accomplished. For this study,
survey, interviews, and document analysis were those methods utilized to ensure the validity of
the findings.
Knowledge
Survey results indicated that teachers either agree or strongly agree that they have
knowledge of content and knowledge of instructional differentiation. In addition, those who
responded in the interviews also felt that they had knowledge of their content and instructional
differentiation through their credentialing program. However, those teachers interviewed also
felt that, although they received some foundational information through their credential classes,
their knowledge base was wide, and not very deep. Several teachers interviewed believed that
professional development in the area of instructional differentiation is key to increased
knowledge. Professional development agendas indicated that, in the past four years, there has
been very little in the way of instruction related to students with disabilities, and nothing
specifically related to instructional differentiation.
Motivation
There was agreement in both interviews and surveys that teachers did not feel confident
in their ability to effectively differentiate instruction in the classroom. This, however, was in
contrast to the responses to the survey questions related to conceptual knowledge. In the survey,
teachers responded to four different questions related to the process of instructional
differentiation, agreeing or strongly agreeing that they know the process of instructional
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 125
differentiation, how to plan for differentiation, when it is needed, and how to identify individual
needs. When asked during the interview about what instructional differentiation looks like in
their classroom, teacher answers varied. Some mentioned that students worked in groups, and
some responded that they used formative and summative assessments to drive instruction, but did
not relate it to how they used data to differentiate. There was a difference in their anonymous
survey answers and the responses provided during the interview process. When teachers
responded anonymously to general questions related to the process, they indicated a higher
conceptual knowledge level than those who responded in the interviews.
Organization Models and Settings
In the interviews and in the survey, teachers responded that they feel administration
provides support in their teaching efforts. Survey responses and interviews also demonstrate that
teachers believe they do not receive adequate professional development, specifically related to
the area of instructional differentiation. Document analysis also indicates that there is a lack of
professional development in the area of meeting individual student needs, particularly those
students with disabilities and, most specifically, as professional development relates to
instructional differentiation. In the past 52 PD opportunities, agendas show that none were
devoted to instructional differentiation. This confirms survey and interview responses as well.
Overall, teachers who responded in the interviews felt positively about the
administration’s efforts to provide what teachers need and shape the culture of the organization.
Most teachers stated that they felt they could ask for something and would usually receive what
they needed in the way of resources. The survey results demonstrate that more than half of the
teachers agree with the responses in the interviews. Document analysis confirms that the
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 126
administration provides professional development on a consistent basis to support teachers in
their teaching efforts.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 127
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influencers
This chapter provides recommendations for practice to address the KMO influencers
related to this study. It outlines a summary of the knowledge, motivation, and organization
influencers, a description of KMO recommendations, assets, and needs, metrics, and
measurements for internal and external outcomes. This chapter also addresses critical behaviors,
metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation, as well as required drivers to support critical
behaviors. This also chapter explores the components of learning that are required for the
evaluation of the program, including the methods or activities, and the timing necessary to
complete the activities. Finally, the chapter addresses components to measure reactions to the
program.
Discussion
Over the past year, SCCHS has participated in the accreditation process with the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), completed a review with the Charter Schools
Division (CSD), created and solidified goals for funding through the Local Control and
Accountability Plan (LCAP) and had a change in the leadership team, with a new executive
director and two new assistant principals. During the WASC self-evaluation process, and the
charter review, the topic of how to close the achievement gap has been discussed at great length,
particularly through the lens of state testing data to determine goals, actions steps, and strategies
for the upcoming 3-6 years (LCAP has a 3-year timeframe to achieve goals; the WASC review
will take place in 6 years) that will drive programs and instruction in order the meet the needs of
all students at school. For both WASC and CSD, this goal of closing the achievement gap, and
how to achieve that goal, is of first and foremost importance. How to accomplish that goal then
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 128
becomes the theme for continued discussion, strategy implementation, and professional
development for the next 3-6 years.
The survey and interview process for this study came at an interesting time in the
school’s history. After several years with the same executive director, many teachers became
unhappy with the operation of the school, specifically under his leadership. Eventually, the
executive director resigned. I believe that many of the answers in the survey came as a result of
feelings about the direction in which the school was headed, prior to his resignation. Many
teachers were dissatisfied with the overall lack of transparency and lack of input in how the
school should be run. In the survey for this study, a little over half of the teachers either agree or
strongly agree that the organization’s leadership communicated the goals of the organization, and
just over 60% felt that administration provides direction to achieve the goals of the organization.
Without knowledge of the organizational goals, and without direction, it becomes difficult to
achieve those goals, whatever they may be. The vision of the new executive director is to
determine the goals for the school, as related to the findings of WASC and CSD, and then
communicate those goals to the teachers, provide direction to achieve the goals, as well as
feedback to make improvements, as needed, along the way. These goals and his vision for the
organization may change how teachers feel about the goals of the organization and how those
goals, and strategies to achieve those goals, will be communicated.
Interpretation of Results
In addressing the first question in the framework, teachers believe they have the
knowledge and what they need to teach. They make the effort to understand the needs of
students in the classroom. The school provides the materials to teach and the information on the
students with disabilities so that teachers know the strengths of that student, the goals for that
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 129
student, the accommodations, and a case carrier to support the general education teacher in
meeting the needs of the student with disabilities. Overall, through survey responses, interview
discussions, and document analysis, it is apparent that teachers agree that they have the tangible
resources of materials and curriculum that they need to teach in the classroom.
Although this may address the first conceptual framework question, there are challenges
or barriers to specifically differentiate instruction for all students in the classroom, which
addresses the second conceptual framework question. Although teachers agree that they have the
resources that they need to teach, the majority agree or strongly agree that they lack time and
resources to effectively differentiation instruction in the classroom. Teachers indicate that they
have the resources they need to teach; however, they also state that they lack resources to
differentiate. This leads the research to determine that teachers have tangible resources
(materials, books, curriculum) that they need in the classroom, but lack intangible resources
(time or additional personnel) to effectively differentiate instruction in the classroom. This is
consistent with other studies reviewed during the course of this research. In addition, the
majority of teachers agree that they have strong content knowledge and a theoretical knowledge
of instructional differentiation. However, in the survey, when teachers were asked to choose the
most important ways in which to implement the differentiation process, they chose answers that
were not consistent with what research indicates as most important. It appears that teachers
believe that they know what differentiation looks like in the classroom. However, effective
differentiation is somewhat different from teacher perceptions. This leads the researcher to the
idea that there is a strong need for professional development directly related to instructional
differentiation – what it is, what it looks like in the classroom, how it can be effectively
implemented, opportunities for teacher practice, and opportunities for feedback to increase
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 130
knowledge and expertise. In the interviews and survey responses, teachers agree that more
professional development is needed. This becomes an area in which the organization can
improve, as outlined below.
The influencers in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization have been
outlined in prior chapters as related to the third question in the conceptual framework. Findings
in this study indicate a need to strengthen the knowledge base of teachers in the area of
differentiation. Motivation to implement instructional differentiation strategies may increase as
self-efficacy increases. Although almost 82% of teachers agree or strongly agree that they have
the knowledge of adapting lessons to meet the individual needs of students, only 51.8% of
teachers agree or strongly agree that they have the knowledge to specifically differentiate
instruction for students with disabilities. One area that organizational leaders need to address is
teaching understanding about differentiation – that instructional differentiation means
differentiation for all students, including those with disabilities. Additionally, as administration
strives to increase transparency about the goals of the organization, works to increase
collaboration with teachers to reach those goals, and provides more professional development to
support teachers in the area of instructional differentiation, the organization will see the
achievement gap begin to close, as related to students with disabilities, when compared to their
typical peers.
Recommendations
This section will provide recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization. Summaries of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers, along with
recommendations for improvement, desired outcomes, and metrics for measurement of those
outcomes.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 131
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Table 20 shows the summary of assumed knowledge influences as they
apply to the stakeholders within this study. The assumed influences within the table
acknowledge each of the four types of knowledge (declarative, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive) along with knowledge influence assessments, learning solution principles, and
proposed solutions, with the validation of probability, priority, principle and citation, as well as
the context-specific recommendations.
Table 20
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Declarative
(Factual):
Teachers need
knowledge of content
area and the attributes of
instructional
differentiation and
which students need
instructional
differentiation in order
to access curriculum.

HP Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)

As the needs of
students become more
diverse, our
instructional practices
must expand to meet
these needs (Parsons &
Dodman, 2013).
Help teachers to
connect new
knowledge about
instructional
differentiation in
their specific
content area or
related curriculum
to prior knowledge
about instructional
differentiation, in
order to construct
meaning.
Administrators
should connect new
learning about
instructional
differentiation to
individual interests,
content area, and
curriculum to
encourage
meaningfulness for
teachers.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 132
Table 20, continued
Conceptual:

Teachers need to
understand the
correlation between
differentiation and
student achievement.

‘HP

Y Teachers must be able
to adapt their lesson as
it progresses to
determine how a change
in current instruction
fits into the broader
goal of the lesson. This
requires an
understanding of what it
means to differentiate
(declarative
knowledge), as well as
the adaptation of the
lesson during
instruction, which
requires a more in-
depth understanding of
how differentiation can
be applied and what the
bigger picture may look
like when that happens
(Parsons et al., 2013).
Administrators
should model
effective
instructional
differentiation
strategy use,
including “how”
and “when” to use
particular
instructional
differentiation
strategies, allow
teachers to practice
what they learn, and
provide effective
feedback and data
analysis so that
teachers see the
correlation between
differentiation and
student
achievement.

Administrators
should help
teachers to connect
new knowledge
about instructional
differentiation (and
how it applies to
their own content)
to prior knowledge
and to construct
meaning.
Procedural:

Teachers need to know
how to plan lessons,
differentiating
instruction as needed;
teachers also need to
know how to adapt
lessons as they are
presented, making
changes as needed to
address student needs.

HP Y Help learners acquire
new behaviors through
demonstration and
modeling (Denler et al.,
2009).

In order to develop
mastery, individuals
must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when
to apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Professional
development may
include training,
which would
include
demonstration, the
opportunity for
practice, and
feedback on how to
plan and adapt
lessons in order to
meet individual
needs.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 133
Table 20, continued
Metacognitive:

Teachers need to reflect
on their own teaching
methods, strengths and
weaknesses, and setting
goals to improve their
instructional practices in
differentiation.

HP Y
The use of
metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).

Teacher evaluation
meetings provide
the opportunity for
teachers to reflect
on their teaching
practices, with
feedback from
administration to
improve
differentiation in
the classroom.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need
knowledge of content area and the attributes of instructional differentiation and which students
need instructional differentiation in order to access curriculum. Information learned
meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more
accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). In
addition, as the needs of students become more diverse, our instructional practices must expand
to meet these needs (Parsons & Dodman, 2013). This would suggest that providing individuals
with opportunities to connect their prior content knowledge with new content (instructional
differentiation) helps to create meaning. In addition, providing individuals with the opportunity
to connect learning (instructional differentiation) to interest (content knowledge) can assist
individuals to construct meaningfulness. The recommendation is to provide teachers with
training, meaningful practice to implement learning, and feedback to improve practice.
Teachers may face challenges when trying to differentiate instruction (Dixon et al.,
2014; Hertberg-Davis, 2009). Some teachers may not be proficient in the content area in which
they teach, which may make it difficult for them to move beyond a one-size-fits-all lesson plan
(Dixon et al., 2014). Teachers may lack the self-efficacy, which would give them the confidence
to adjust their lessons to meet the diverse needs of all students in the classroom (Dixon et al.,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 134
2014). Teaching students with varying abilities in the same classroom can be a challenge, one
that teachers must overcome in order to meet the needs of all students. In a Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK) study of two high school math departments, Horn (2009) determined that
teachers who focused on high-quality instructional tasks developed PCK more quickly than their
colleagues who focused on “streamlining the curriculum, without considering student learning.”
In addition, teachers who developed PCK less quickly were also not willing to challenge their
own ideas and the ideas of colleagues to the extent to which their peers who provided high-
quality instructional tasks for students (as cited by Lannin, Webb, Chval, Arbaugh, Hicks, Taylor
& Bruton (2013).
Conceptual knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
understand the correlation between differentiation and student achievement. Teachers must be
able to adapt their lesson as it progresses to determine how a change in current instruction fits
into the broader goal of the lesson. This requires an understanding of what it means to
differentiate (declarative knowledge), as well as the adaptation of the lesson during instruction,
which requires a more in-depth understanding of how differentiation can be applied and what the
bigger picture may look like when that happens (Parsons et al., 2013). This would suggest that
providing models of effective strategy use, including “how” and “when” to use particular
strategies, allowing individuals to practice what they learn, and provide effective feedback and
data analysis so that they see the correlation between differentiation and student achievement.
Parson et al., (2013) state that teachers who effectively differentiate instruction have
extensive knowledge of what they are teaching and how students learn. The basis for
differentiating instruction is a strong declarative knowledge, combined with the procedural
knowledge of how to apply that differentiation to the lessons being presented in the class
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 135
(Parsons et al., 2013). Teachers also indicate that differentiating instruction is time-consuming
and may not understand exactly what instructional differentiation looks like as they plan and
present lessons (Hertberg-Davis, 2009).
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need to
know how to plan lessons, differentiating instruction as needed; teachers also need to know how
to adapt lessons as they are presented, making changes as needed to address student needs. In
order to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them,
and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). It is important to
help learners acquire new behaviors through demonstration and modeling (Denler et al., 2009).
This would suggest that professional development should be provided which includes training,
modeling, the opportunity for practice, and feedback on how to plan and adapt lessons in order to
meet individual needs.
Although teachers may learn about instructional differentiation and may understand the
strategies introduced during professional development, it may be difficult to translate this
learning into classroom practice (Guskey, 1994, 2003; Guskey, 1994; Penuel et al., 2007; Rock
et al., 2008;). Effective professional development includes the enhancement of teachers’
academic knowledge and helping them to better understand the ways in which students learn the
content (Guskey, 2003). Planning and adapting lessons during the planning and presentation
process are the basis for effective differentiation (Chapman & King, 2005; Lawrence-Brown,
2004; Parsons et al., 2013;). In order to effectively differentiate instruction for all students,
teachers should broaden their view of differentiation. Teachers should: utilize standards as the
basis for instructional planning, should consistently assess before they plan lessons to meet the
needs of specific groups of students, continually assess students throughout the lesson to
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 136
determine where to make adjustments, utilize resources that support student learning styles,
ability levels and knowledge, and flexibly group students during the planning process (Chapman
& King, 2005).
In a case that studied a group of middle school teachers mandated to differentiate
instruction, data was gathered through interactions with parents, staff, and students over an 18-
month period of time. The author determined that teachers must understand how students learn
in order to address the individual needs of the diverse population of students. Teachers had to
make major changes in how they approached student learning, developing classrooms that
provided student-centered learning activities, utilizing a variety of teaching methods in order to
facilitate an “academically-responsive” classroom. Educational leaders must “diagnose and
respond directly to needs of individual teachers as they develop core skills of instructional
differentiation” (Tomlinson, 1995).
In order to develop a classroom that acknowledges and appropriately addresses broad
academic diversity among students, older and more traditional pictures of schooling must give
way to images built on a contemporary understanding of how students learn. Developing
classrooms that were student-centered and in which students worked in a variety of ways to
make sense of and apply key concepts called for major changes. Leaders who work to facilitate
differentiated instruction can take a lesson from Midland that developing academically
responsive classrooms calls for a wide array of teaching skills not common in the practice of
many teachers. It is important to diagnose and respond directly to needs of individual teachers as
they develop core skills of instructional differentiation.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Teachers need
to reflect on their own teaching methods, strengths and weaknesses, and setting goals to improve
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 137
their instructional practices in differentiation. The use of metacognitive strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006). This would suggest that individuals need an evaluation process that
provides the opportunity for individuals to reflect on their practices, with feedback from
administration to improve practices.
Teachers should encourage students to explore the content at a deeper level so that they
have a deeper understanding of the meaning of the subject. Teachers must utilize metacognitive
strategies to evaluate their own teaching methods, how instructional lessons are presented, and
how they may address and close the achievement gap for students with disabilities when
compared with their non-disabled peers (Kennedy, 1998).
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Table 21 describes a summary of motivational influences for the chosen
stakeholder group in this study. The assumed influences within the table acknowledge two types
of motivational factors, goal orientation and self-efficacy, along with motivational influence
assessments, learning solution principles, and proposed solutions, with the validation of
probability, priority, principle and citation, as well as the context-specific recommendations.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 138
Table 21
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Goal Orientation –
Teachers should have
a mastery-approach
orientation to the task
– a desire to become
proficient in teaching,
remediating,
reviewing,
intervening, and going
above-and-beyond the
necessary
requirements of the
task.
HP Y Focusing on
mastery,
individual
improvement,
learning, and
progress
promotes
positive
motivation
(Yough &
Anderman,
2006).

Goals motivate
and direct
students
(Pintrich, 2003).
Administrators should
create the opportunity
for teachers to
collaborate with
colleagues and practice
instructional
differentiation in the
classroom.
They should observe
teachers as they utilize
these skills, intervening
where necessary, and
provide feedback so
that teachers
understand all aspects
of instructional
differentiation.

Administrators should
model instructional
differentiation, allow
opportunities to
practice, provide
feedback in order to
allow teachers to
increase their
understanding and skill
level.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 139
Table 21,continued
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to
understand their role
in differentiating
instruction and to have
confidence in their
ability to plan for
differentiation and
meeting student needs.

HP Y High self-
efficacy can
positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006).
Administrators must
provide instructional
support and
feedback(scaffolding)
early on, build in
multiple opportunities
for practice and
feedback, and then
gradually remove
supports.

Administrators must
provide teachers with
multiple opportunities
to observe a credible,
models provided by
master teachers who
engage in the process
of instructional
differentiation.

Administrators must
also provide models
that build self-efficacy
and enhance motivation
in the area of
instructional
differentiation.

Goal-Orientation. Teachers should have a mastery-approach orientation to the task – a
desire to become proficient in teaching, remediating, reviewing, intervening, and going above-
and-beyond the necessary requirements of the task. Focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and progress promotes positive motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Goals motivate and direct students (Pintrich, 2003). This suggests that it is important to create a
community of learners where everyone supports everyone else’s attempts to learn. In addition, it
is important to model learning from own errors by accepting mistakes as opportunities to learn.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 140
Meaningful learning and performance does not take place if the learner does not put forth
that effort and engage in the processes that it takes to learn the process or material. In addition,
motivation to learn is reflected in the amount of effort that a learner wants to put forth to make
sense of the material that they have to learn (Mayer, 2011). There are certain characteristics of
teachers who differentiate instruction (Brimijoin, 2005; Dixon et al., 2014). Dixon et al. (2014)
state that teachers who differentiate are flexible in their approach to teaching, adjust their
curriculum and presentation of information to learners rather than expecting learners to adjust
their learning to the teaching or curriculum, and make adjustments in the content, in the activities
to learn the content, or in the product to indicate mastery of the content. Building skill level,
confidence, and competence in the area of differentiation requires knowledge of content
(Brimijoin, 2005). Teachers must have knowledge and understanding of their content in order to
have the confidence, skill level, and competence in the area of differentiation (Brimijoin, 2005).
Brimijoin (2005) states that teachers who are knowledgeable about differentiation focus on core
ideas and guiding principles that represent best practices and support student success in the
classroom.
Tomlinson (1995) studied one middle school over a period of 18 months, studying their
experience in differentiating instruction for their students. Interviews, observations, and
document study enabled the author to determine teacher attitude toward differentiation and the
outcome when that concept is applied in the classroom. In the study, Tomlinson found that it
was not black and white in the differentiation process; most teachers were along the continuum
of implementation, finding success in trying different strategies, determining “personal next
steps” toward mastery of total differentiation in the classroom. Those who implemented even a
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 141
few strategies felt that they made progress and saw growth and development in their teaching
abilities.
Self-Efficacy. Teachers need to understand their role in differentiating instruction and to
have confidence in their ability to plan for differentiation and meeting student needs. High self-
efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006). Feedback and modeling increases
self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). That would suggest that it is important to provide instructional
support and feedback (scaffolding) early on, build in multiple opportunities for practice, and
gradually remove supports. There should be opportunities to observe a credible, similar model
engaging in behavior that has functional value as well as models that build self-efficacy and
enhance motivation.
Although teachers may learn about instructional differentiation and may understand the
strategies introduced during professional development, it may be difficult to translate this
learning into classroom practice (Guskey, 1994, 2003; Penuel et al., 2007; Rock et al., 2008).
Certain instructional practices have proven effective with differentiated instruction. Teachers
should evaluate their knowledge base, teaching preferences, and skill level, while acknowledging
instructional weaknesses (Rock et al., 2008). In addition, teachers should set reasonable goals to
introduce differentiated instruction into the classroom (Rock et al., 2008). In doing so, teachers
should understand five quality indicators of effective differentiated instruction, which include:
the teacher, content, learner, instruction, and assessment. When considering ways in which
leaders can help facilitate this type of instruction in the classroom, they should consider the
effective methods of introducing differentiated instruction in professional development trainings
(Penuel et al., 2007).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 142
Those individuals providing professional development must consider resources for
supporting implementation and likely barriers to this implementation of new strategies (Penuel et
al., 2007). Teachers must be comfortable with teaching a particular topic because then they will
be more likely to allow for different types of strategies as a next step (Penuel et al., 2007). The
task of differentiation can be overwhelming. Effective professional development includes the
enhancement of teachers’ academic knowledge and helping them to better understand the ways
in which students learn the content (Guskey, 2003). Guskey (1994) also states that those
providing professional development should expect change in a gradual and incremental manner,
rather than expecting change overnight. Progress toward state goals, and school program
improvement, cannot take place without improving the skills and abilities of teachers and
instruction in the classroom (Guskey, 1994). Although professional development is an important
aspect of teacher training and professional growth, teachers must understand the application
process for utilizing newly learned skills and knowledge (Guskey, 1994, 2003; Penuel et al.,
2007; Rock et al., 2008).
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 22 describes a summary of organizational influences for the chosen
stakeholder group in this study. The assumed influences within the table acknowledge two types
of organizational factors, cultural model and cultural setting, with four influences within those
organizational factors. The table also addresses assessments, learning solution principles, and
proposed solutions, with the validation of probability, priority, principle and citation, as well as
the context-specific recommendations.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 143
Table 22
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting - Lack of
time and resources:

Teachers within this
organizational context lack
the time and resources to
effectively differentiate
instruction to meet the needs
of all students in their
classroom.

HP Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Teachers need the
time to review
lessons, determine
student needs, and
plan accordingly.
In addition, in order
to differentiate
instruction,
teachers need
resources. These
resources can be
materials,
personnel within
the classroom, or
support and
collaboration with
other members of
the staff. In order
to effectively
differentiate
instruction,
administrators must
work with teachers
to establish, from
the beginning, what
the priorities are, so
that when hard
choices have to be
made, the guidance
is already in place.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 144
Table 22, continued
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting:

The number of students in
the classroom makes it
difficult to determine
learning needs and styles,
to plan and execute
lessons, to adapt as the
lessons are presented, and
to utilize multiple methods
to assess learning and
mastery.
Teachers need the time to
review lessons, determine
student needs, and plan
accordingly.
HP Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

The
administration
needs to align
resources (time)
with
organizational
goal of
differentiating
instruction and
meeting the
individual needs
of all students.
Cultural Setting -

Teachers lack the training
needed to consistently
differentiate instruction in
the classroom.

HP Y
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Administration
needs to supply
training as a
resource so that
teachers know
how to effectively
differentiate
instruction in the
classroom in order
to meet the
individual needs
of all students.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 145
Table 22, continued
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model:

Teachers believe there is a
culture of one-size-fits all
in the academic instruction
for students in the
classroom, regardless of
varying needs.

HP Y Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers; it ensures
the group knows why
it needs to change. It
then addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and skill
needs (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Teachers need to
understand why it
is important to
differentiate
instruction so that
they make the
connection
between
instructional
differentiation to
meet individual
student needs and
student
achievement.
Administrators
need to work with
teachers to
remove barriers
that create a one-
size-fits-all
mentality.

Cultural models. Teachers believe there is a culture of one-size-fits all in the academic
instruction for students in the classroom, regardless of varying needs. Effective change begins
by addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it needs to change. It then
addresses organizational barriers and then knowledge and skill needs (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teachers need to understand why it is important to differentiate instruction so that they make the
connection between instructional differentiation and student achievement. In addition,
administrators need to remove barriers that create a one-size-fits-all mentality.
When considering ways in which leaders can help facilitate this type of instruction in the
classroom, they should consider the effective methods of introducing differentiated instruction in
professional development trainings (Penuel et al., 2007). Those individuals providing
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 146
professional development must consider resources for supporting implementation and likely
barriers to this implementation of new strategies (Penuel et al., 2007). Although professional
development is an important aspect of teacher training and professional growth, teachers must
understand the application process for utilizing newly learned skills and knowledge (Guskey,
1994, 2003; Penuel, et al., 2007; Rock et al., 2008;).
As teachers in this study identified that further professional development and/or training
is a critical component in building their capacity in the area of instructional differentiation, and
to better meet the needs of students with disabilities, research should be conducted in the various
types of professional development to determine what would be most beneficial to improve
teacher knowledge of instructional differentiation and how to best implement that in the
classroom. These professional development sessions should align with the goals of the
organization and should be specific to preparing teachers in the area of instructional
differentiation and building their capacity to meet the needs of students with disabilities. These
types of professional development sessions would be focused, with the expectation that all
teachers would participate.
As outlined in the literature review section of this study, Dasmawati and Boon (2014)
further indicate that as instructional leaders, principals are expected to facilitate improvement
and support and encourage teachers' ownership of instructional change. It is important that
principals establish trust, create structures that promote teacher learning, help connect teachers
with experts in the educational field, and provide support to their teachers, building capacity for
change in their schools (Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). Building teacher leadership capacity
through fostering a culture of collaboration comes when school leaders embrace current
instructional philosophies of leadership (Dasmawati & Boon, 2014). Finally, Dasmawati and
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 147
Boon (2014) state that administrators who collaborate with teachers in decision-making that
affects the teachers tend to deepen or strengthen their instructional practices.
In a study of 646 students in grades 3 through 8, Kanevsky (2011) determined that best
practices in active learning and differentiating instruction include flexibly grouping students
based on level of student learning within the subject area, embedding high-thinking skills within
the subject, the use of inquiry, and the use of student-centered opportunities that are relevant and
problem-based. In addition, Lawrence-Brown (2004) states that teachers should plan lessons that
connect content with student learning styles and incorporate student’s interests. Teachers who
effectively differentiate instruction begin this process during the planning stages with high-
quality lessons that coordinate all materials and resources to meet students’ needs. For example,
in her study of 10 teachers in the area of instructional differentiation, Thompson (2009)
determined that lessons based on standards and student interest can “effectively increase a
student’s desire to learn” by connecting the subject and the way the material is presented to the
student’s area of interest and modality of learning. It is often difficult to move beyond the one-
size-fits-all mentality. In Tomlinson’s (1995) study of middle school teachers who were
mandated to differentiate instruction for their students, the author found the following:
Many teachers expressed a clear conviction that single-size schooling as it was largely
practiced at Midland was working and that there was little need for significant adjustment
in instruction for academically diverse learners. Some educators were direct in their
opposition to the idea of differentiation. Sometimes the objections were based on
satisfaction with the status quo. We’re doing a good job here. We have high test scores.
Parents are satisfied. I don’t see any students complaining. Sometimes objections arose
from an inability to grasp how differentiation would work in practice.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 148
Cultural settings. Teachers within this organizational context lack the time and
resources to effectively differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students in their
classroom. Teachers lack the training needed to consistently differentiate instruction in the
classroom. The number of students in the classroom makes it difficult to determine learning
needs and styles, to plan and execute lessons, to adapt as the lessons are presented, and to utilize
multiple methods to assess learning and mastery. Teachers need the time to review lessons,
determine student needs, and plan accordingly.
There are actual barriers and concerns that must be addressed and overcome when
differentiating instruction. These include: managing a classroom with a variety of activities,
effectively assessing students to determine their readiness level, matching resources to teaching,
meeting the demands of high-stakes testing, and finding effective examples to model the process
(Logan, 2011). Nunley (2006) provides some suggestions to begin overcoming some of the
obstacles or challenges related to differentiation.
Keep as much structure as you need. Start with small changes in how students learn.
Keep the objectives the same; vary the process of learning the objective. You may want
to start with just two choices in seatwork or two varieties in group projects. You can add
more choices as you and your students become more comfortable with multiple events in
the classroom.
Logan (2011) claims that teachers lack time, professional development resources, and
administrative support. Although there are many barriers and concerns associated with
instructional differentiation, true differentiation is based on researched methods and provides the
teacher with a variety of resources upon which to build instruction (Logan, 2011; Tomlinson,
2001). True differentiation structures the actual process of learning for all students. It means
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 149
differentiating how students learn, what they learn, and how they are assessed (Nunley, 2006). It
does not mean grading students differently; it does not mean requiring more assignments for
students who complete their work more quickly.
Effective professional development includes the enhancement of teachers’ academic
knowledge and helping them to better understand the ways in which students learn the content
(Guskey, 2003). Guskey (1994) also states that those providing professional development should
expect change in a gradual and incremental manner, rather than expecting change overnight.
Progress toward state goals, and school program improvement, cannot take place without
improving the skills and abilities of teachers and instruction in the classroom (Guskey, 1994).
In a case-study approach involving three Ethiopian schools, Gemeda, Fiorucci, and
Catarci (2014) interviewed teachers to determine their perceptions on professional development
and the impact it has on teacher improvement and practice in the classroom. The authors found
the following:
It is indisputable that the intensification of teachers’ work has a negative impact on the
quality of teachers’ work, and on their students’ learning experiences. The data obtained
from the Professional Development in Education 81 participants revealed that teachers’
work overload prevents the fruition of teachers’ professional development. Evident is that
teachers are overloaded with multiple tasks that impact significantly in a negative way on
what and how teachers teach, and on their students’ learning.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is a method by
which leaders within organizations can evaluate training programs. The model is broken down
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 150
into four levels, each one addressing the degree to which learned material is applied and targeted
outcomes have been reached, as a result of attendance at the training. The four levels of the
training include:
● Level 1: Reaction - The degree to which participants find the training favorable,
engaging and relevant to their jobs.
● Level 2: Learning - The degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation in the training.
● Level 3: Behavior - The degree to which participants apply what they learned during
training when they are back on the job.
● Level 4: Results - The degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training
and the support and accountability package (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
For the purpose of this study, The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be utilized to design the
interventions and supports, as well as providing the evaluation tools that will be used to
determine the outcomes and success of this program. The New Kirkpatrick model is generally
laid out in reverse order - from 4 to 1 during the planning stage. Once implementation has taken
place, evaluation can occur from stages 1-4 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of SCCHS is to prepare our diverse student body for the next phase of their
educational, professional, and personal journey through a rigorous, customized academic
program that inspires the development of students’ unique talents and skills, builds character,
and provides opportunities for civic engagement and real-world experiences (Southern California
Charter High School, 2016). The goal of the organization is that by June 2018, Southern
California Charter High School will ensure that 100% of teachers with inclusive general
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 151
education classrooms will implement instructional differentiation strategies in the classroom.
During the 2017-2018 school year, teachers will focus on professional development related to
instructional differentiation in the classroom. An analysis of data collected through surveys, data
analysis, and interviews, will determine the extent to which this organization is meeting the
stated goal. The stakeholder group of teachers was chosen because of the importance of
differentiated instruction in the classroom for all students but, most particularly, for students with
disabilities. The professional interest in selecting this particular group is to determine how the
teacher’s understanding and implementation of instructional differentiation may impact the
success of students with disabilities in their assigned math classes. The ability of the teacher to
differentiate instruction in lesson planning and execution may affect the student’s ability to
understand the material presented in the class. This directly impacts the school’s ability to
achieve its stated mission statement.
The expectations for desired outcomes as a result of recommendations for the teachers at
SCCHS are that teachers will have a knowledge of the following: content area and the attributes
of instructional differentiation and which students need instructional differentiation in order to
access; understand the correlation between differentiation and student achievement; know how to
plan lessons, differentiating instruction as needed; teachers also need to know how to adapt
lessons as they are presented, making changes as needed to address student needs; and, reflect on
their own teaching methods, strengths and weaknesses, and setting goals to improve their
instructional practices in differentiation. In addition, there would be an expectation that teachers
would have a mastery-approach orientation to the task and understand their role in differentiating
instruction and to have confidence in their ability to plan for differentiation and meeting student
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 152
needs. Finally, teachers need to know that they have the time, resources, and support of the
administration to provide effective instructional differentiation in the classroom.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 23 displays the Level 4 Results, or the “degree to which targeted outcomes occur as
a result of the training and the support and accountability package” as well as leading indicators,
which include short-term observations and measurements that indicate that outcomes are on
track. These results and indicators will be measured by outcomes, metrics, and methods for both
internal and external outcomes for SCCHS.
Table 23
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1.Increased SBAC test
scores for students with
disabilities.
SBAC Test scores Review and monitor test results
for Key Performance Indicators
and increased test scores for
SWD
2. Increased overall
scores in charter
renewal process in the
area of overall
academic progress for
students in all
subgroups, as
compared with
LAUSD.
Charter School Division scoring
rubric
Review California Department
of Education test results/scores
for all subgroups, compared
with LAUSD.
3. Increased waiting
list for the admissions
lottery.
Number of new names on the
list.
Monitor the waiting list.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 153
Table 23, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Increased number of
teachers who
consistently
differentiate instruction
in the classroom.
Observation checklist created by
the executive director and
assistant principals.
Weekly classroom visitations and
observations by administrators.
Improved formative
and summative test
scores for students with
disabilities.
Classroom tests Monthly department/course-alike
meetings to review overall test
scores, with a focus on SWD.

Increased number of
students who pass their
English and math
classes in the first year
that class is assigned.
Administrators and department
chairpersons to review Aeries
reports that show all students
who failed English or math
during the first year assigned.
Review data each semester to
compare numbers with the prior
semester’s numbers to determine
increase or decrease in numbers.
Monitor data each semester when
final grades are posted in Aeries
(data system).

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Identifying critical behaviors that employees much actually do while
on the job is key during the planning process (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These critical
behaviors should address the key outcomes indicated by stakeholder goals. Setting specific
expectations for what is expected after any type of training is key so that post-training support
and accountability can take place. In this study, critical key behaviors include attending
professional development focusing on instructional differentiation in the classroom, practicing
those skills learned in the training, and collaboration with colleagues to discuss best practices.
Table 24 displays those critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 154
Table 24
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers attend
professional
development
sessions/trainings in
the area of
instructional
differentiation.
Professional
development
agendas.
Review PD agendas in
staff (admin) meetings
to see who is attending
PD sessions.
Last staff meeting
each month.
2. Teachers
demonstrate what
they learn in
professional
development, with
feedback from
administrators.
Observations
by
administrators
Observation checklist to
address intended
outcomes
Monthly
observations
3. Teachers
collaborate with
colleagues to
discuss best
practices in meeting
the needs of all
students in the
classroom.
Agendas and
sign-in sheets
for
department/cou
rse-alike
meetings.
Review agendas and
sign-in sheets;
administrators to
observe collaboration
and discussion during
meetings.
Beginning of each
semester.

Required drivers. Required drivers are those processes and systems that are
implemented by an organization that allow leaders to “reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
performance of critical behaviors on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reinforcement
of knowledge gained through training is key in the successful implementation of those newly
acquired skills within the organization. “Active execution and monitoring of required drivers is
perhaps the biggest indicator of program success for any initiative” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Required drivers within the organization in this study would include systems and
accountability that would support the teachers as they apply what they learn in training to their
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 155
teaching in the classroom. Table 25 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of teachers in the general education classroom.
Table 25
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Administrators to provide follow-up modules
to professional development
sessions/trainings, where teachers have the
opportunity to observe instructional coaches,
implement instructional strategies in their
own classroom, and receive feedback from
coaches and/or colleagues.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Administrators or teachers to provide
reminders (5-minute mini-lessons) during
monthly faculty meetings to reinforce
learning from prior PD meetings
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Administrators to provide support for
communities of practice where teachers can
meet with colleagues to plan lessons based
on knowledge from professional
development and collaboration opportunities.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Coaching provided by instructional coaches
to those teachers who would like to receive
additional support in the classroom
(generally) or with a specific lesson.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3,
Rewarding
Public acknowledgment by administrators
when teacher has successful lesson utilizing
differentiated instructional strategies.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3

Monitoring. “If there is no system of accountability in place after training, even those
with good intentions will give up or wander back to the way they are used to doing thing”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). There are several ways in which an organization can monitor
the success of a training or the implementation of a program. These may include observations,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 156
interviews, surveys, weekly reports, or performance checklists. If there is some type of
monitoring, there can be assurances of follow through after the training. Monitoring can be done
by supervisors or through a system of self-monitoring, with accountability checks in place to
ensure goal attainment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The monitoring process within this organization would include observations by both
peers and administrators, with the idea that these could be partially learning walks to gather
information and ideas (colleagues) and partially evaluative (administrators). Feedback would
take place in one-to-one meetings, small group collaboration and debriefing sessions, as well as
faculty or professional development meetings. Monitoring may also include follow up surveys
that may be reviewed by administrators or members of a professional development committee to
determine next steps in providing support to the teachers.
Organizational support. The critical behaviors, and required drivers, that are monitored
for performance in the above sections assume that the recommendations at the organizational
level have been implemented. In this case, for the stakeholder to achieve their goals, the
organization would need to provide professional development on the topic of differentiation
(training), the opportunity for teachers to collaborate with each other to discuss differentiation
strategies (time), the necessary materials to provide differentiated instruction in the classroom
(resources).
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. During the learning process, it is important for trainers to “incorporate a
variety of activities into the training that inherently test participant knowledge” (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). After participants finish training, access to data that proves that participants
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 157
have the required knowledge to proceed in implementing activities related to training is essential.
Following completion of the recommended solutions, teachers will be able to:
1. Recognize the attributes of instructional differentiation, (D)
2. Determine which students need instructional differentiation in order to access curriculum,
(D)
3. Recognize the correlation between differentiation and student achievement, (C)
4. Apply training principles to plan lessons, with differentiated instruction embedded in
lesson plans, (P)
5. Plan lessons to conform to instructional differentiation principles (P),
6. Adapt lessons as they are presented, making changes as needed to address student needs,
(P)
7. Reflect on their own teaching methods, strengths and weaknesses, (M)
8. Set goals to improve their instructional practices in differentiation, (M)
9. Demonstrate a mastery goal-orientation approach to differentiating instruction -
proficiency in teaching, remediating, reviewing, intervening, and going above-and-
beyond the necessary requirements of the task, (GO)
10. Demonstrate confidence in their ability to plan for instructional differentiation and
meeting student needs. (SE)
Program. The learning goals listed above will be achieved through a series of
professional development sessions that explore differentiated instruction and what that looks like
in the classroom. The learners, teachers, will study the various aspects of differentiated
instruction, including planning, adapting, executing, and reviewing strategies that will enable
them to meet the diverse needs of students in the classroom. Teachers and administrators will
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 158
review school data to determine various sub-groups for whom instructional differentiation may
be especially important. Teachers will be provided the opportunity to reflect on their own
teaching practices, and to set goals for improvement in differentiating instruction in the
classroom. The program will be held for two all-day sessions, and then a follow-up of four after-
school sessions.
During the school year, in after-school meetings, teachers will collaborate in course-alike
groups to review best practices, and set times to observe in each other’s classrooms. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that dedicated discussion and activity is key in building confidence
to perform new skills that may be challenging. After observations, teachers will meet to discuss
instructional differentiation strategies that were used in the demonstration lessons. In addition,
administrators will observe classroom lessons and provide timely feedback to teachers in the area
of instructional differentiation. It is important that administrators determine what barriers or
challenges teachers may face in the classroom as they incorporate newly learned skills
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Administrators and teachers will work together to create a
job aid that will provide examples and non-examples of differentiated instructional strategies to
which all teachers may refer during the school year, as they plan and execute lessons in the
classroom. Administrators will point out how learning and training in the area of instructional
differentiation will increase student achievement. In addition, administrators will work with
teachers to set concrete and challenging goals that allow the teachers to experience success in
differentiating instruction. In order to build a mastery goal-orientation approach, administrators
will focus the discussion with teachers on mastery, learning, and understanding. Administrators
will also use task, reward, and evaluation structures that promote mastery, learning, effort,
progress, and self-improvement (Pintrich, 2003).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 159
Components of learning. In evaluating the effectiveness of this program, administrators
must evaluate teacher’s declarative and procedural knowledge. The relationship of instructional
differentiation strategies and how they align with general instruction, and how students learn,
must also be a part of the evaluation process. In addition, teachers must also be confident in their
ability to apply what they learn about instructional differentiation to their lessons, and be
committed to using these strategies as they plan, adapt, and assess lessons they teach. Table 26
provides the components of learning that are required for the evaluation of the program,
including the methods or activities, and the timing necessary to complete the activities.
Table 26
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Small group activities during training that provide the
opportunity for teachers to explain what instructional
differentiation is and what it looks like in the classroom.
During initial training sessions.
Knowledge checks throughout training: quick writes,
think/pair shares, question and answer sessions.
During initial training sessions
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Brief classroom scenarios with learner “biographies”
where teachers work in small groups to create
differentiation strategies to meet the diverse needs of
their group of students.
During initial training sessions;
follow-up in workshops
throughout the year.
Demonstration lessons utilizing instructional
strategies/skills learned during professional development
sessions, with peer/administrator observations for non-
evaluative feedback and discussion.
Throughout the school year.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussion about the value of instructional differentiation
and the benefit to student achievement.
Initial training, observation
discussion groups, follow-up
workshops
Pre- and post-assessment to determine the teacher’s value
of the training and applicability to classroom instruction.
Prior to initial training, with
follow-up at workshops and at
the end of the school year.
Administrator interviews with teachers to determine
mastery, learning, and understanding.
After initial training and follow-
up workshops.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 160
Table 26, continued
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following initial training session after
teachers have the opportunity to practice and receive
feedback from colleagues and administrators.
Initial training session, follow-up
workshops.
Discussions after classroom demonstration lessons. Throughout the year.
Teachers take self-efficacy survey. After initial training and as
follow-up to workshops.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Teachers set goals for themselves to incorporate
instructional strategies in their lessons.
After initial training.
Set appointments for observations in the classroom with
discussion and feedback from colleagues and
administrators.
Throughout the year.

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define reaction as the “degree to which participants
find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs.” At this level, it is important to
obtain feedback or information to determine that the “quality of the program and instructor are
acceptable” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Formative assessments or evaluations are one
way in which to gather data and to make changes, if needed. Formative evaluation methods may
include trainer observation (check to see that learners are engaged), pulse check (check to see
how things are going), and dedicated observer (dedicated person to watch learner dynamics).
Summative assessments generally take place right after the training event. This assessment can
be completed through a survey, answering questions about the quality of the program, without
the opportunity to implement or apply the concepts they have learned (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 27 displays the components to measure reactions to the program. It
provides methods or tools by which administrators can measure teacher reactions to the training.
Areas in which administrators will measure reactions include teacher engagement, relevance of
training, and overall teacher satisfaction.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 161
Table 27
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Facilitator observation of teacher
engagement in whole and small-group
activities
During initial training and follow-up
workshops.
Attendance During the workshop
Relevance
Course evaluation including items asking
about relevance of training/materials to
classroom instruction
Two weeks after initial training
Brief survey with items asking about
relevance of training/materials to classroom
instruction
After initial observation/demonstration lessons
with colleagues.
Customer Satisfaction
Training evaluation/survey to determine
teacher satisfaction
At the end of the initial training and ongoing
workshops
Observation during training sessions of
teacher engagement and interaction with
trainer and activities
Throughout initial training and workshops

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
During the training, presenters and/or administrators will observe to determine teacher
engagement and participation. For Level 1 evaluation, discussion and feedback will be used to
determine how relevant teachers feel the material is to instruction in the classroom. Immediately
after the initial training, a satisfaction survey/evaluation will be distributed to the participants to
gauge overall satisfaction with the session. This evaluation will measure teacher satisfaction
with the materials, the presenters, and the way in which the material was presented. For Level 2
evaluation, presenters and/or administrators will utilize individual and group activities to check
for understanding and to provide opportunities for practice with items taken from the materials
presented in the session. The evaluation instrument is found in Appendix E.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 162
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately six weeks after the initial training, administrators will send out a survey to
teachers, containing multiple choice and short-answer questions to measure the satisfaction and
relevance of the training, from the perspective of the teachers (Level 1), the confidence they have
in applying what they have learned and the value it adds to their instruction and meeting the
needs of the diverse population of students (Level 2), the level of support they receive from
administrators and colleagues as they implement newly learned skills (Level 3), and the extent to
which they are able to differentiate instruction in the classroom (Level 4). The evaluation form
is found in Appendix F.
Data Analysis and Reporting
In order to start the implementation of the training program in the right direction and to
provide the necessary support, it is important to report on the outcome of the training evaluation
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Accountability is an important aspect of the follow up in the
training process. “When people know they will be asked to report their progress, they do not
want to show up with nothing to share. The mere existence of the touch point actually drives the
performance outcomes and creates data for you to report” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recently, this organization went through the accreditation process. One of the outcomes
from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) report was that the school needs
to utilize data to drive instruction and to determine which programs to implement. With this goal
in mind, creating a solid evaluation tool to determine teacher reaction to the training, transfer of
acquired knowledge to classroom, and change in teachers’ instructional strategy use in the
classroom, ensures that SCCHS can review data to determine how to best support the teachers in
the general education classroom setting. Data collected through observations and surveys will be
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 163
analyzed and utilized to increase the likelihood of increased use of differentiated instruction in
the classroom. This information can also be used to determine future trainings and to deepen
teacher understanding and implementation of differentiated instructional strategies.
The newly formed professional development (PD) committee will review the Level 1 and
2 feedback, and present this data to the staff during the next faculty meeting. The PD committee
can determine how to best present this information (teacher driven) in an informative and
creative method, which will also allow for input, questions, and feedback from staff to drive
additional trainings for the future. Although this method of analysis and reporting provides data
on the foundations of the program, it is also important to follow up with analysis and reporting
on a deeper level. To that end, one more method of analysis and reporting will take place.
One goal for this organization is to increase professional development opportunities in
order to meet the needs of sub-groups who may be underperforming on standardized
assessments. Once the initial training has taken place, the PD committee can review the
evaluation forms, as well as feedback from faculty meeting, to determine next steps for
implementation and further training. In addition, this committee may also reach out to teachers
to see who would like to work collaboratively to plan lessons, observe each other’s lessons, and
to debrief after observations are made. This also achieves a WASC goal of allowing teachers
more time to collaborate to improve instruction in the classroom. This group of teachers may
also teach a class in the next all-day professional development training, planned, structured, and
taught by teachers.
This longer-term data collection and analysis will be reviewed at the end of the school
year. Those who participate in the on-going implementation, observations, and debriefing
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 164
sessions will be invited to attend to a half-day panel discussion and luncheon to acknowledge
successes in the newly implemented program.
Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016) is a framework by which
organizational leaders can effectively create and implement programs within their organization.
This framework provides the tools for this organization to create and implement a plan to address
the needs of teachers who want to better serve the diverse needs of students in their classroom
through the use of differentiated instructional strategies. Before this program or plan could be
created and implemented, research needed to be conducted to determine if, and where,
At the end of the first semester, 83 teachers participated in a survey regarding knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers and barriers to instructional differentiation. In
addition six teachers from six different departments participated in an interview asking their
opinions about the same topics. Teachers answered questions about the various challenges and
barriers to meeting the diverse needs of students through instructional strategies. In determining
next steps, the application of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model would be the next
steps to apply in addressing the concerns of the teachers.
One of the Kirkpatrick foundational principles is that “the end is the beginning” and that
trainers must have the end in mind and have the desired results in mind (Level 4) as they plan
and decide what is needed to accomplish their goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). After
determining organizational metrics to achieve success in the implementation of the program,
desired behaviors were outlined which, in this case, included teachers attendance at professional
development sessions/trainings in the area of instructional differentiation, teachers demonstration
to show what they learn in professional development, with feedback from administrators, and
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 165
teachers collaboration with colleagues to discuss best practices in meeting the needs of all
students in the classroom. Required drivers, which reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
performance of these critical behaviors on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required
drivers for this organization include ongoing training, follow up support by administrators and
coaches, collaboration time with colleagues, and public acknowledgement of successes in the
classroom, just to name a few.
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors are key indicators of success in
today’s organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008). The knowledge skills of members of the
organization are important in solving problems and adapt to changing conditions within the
organization. With knowledge comes confidence and a motivation to keep going and to
complete the job (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) also state that when knowledge
and motivation are present, organizational factors often become the barriers to success. In order
to successfully plan for increased differentiated instruction in the general education classroom, it
is necessary to work together as a stakeholder group to determine what teachers need to do, what
administrators need to do, and the direction in which both groups can move in order to be
achieve the goals outlined by this organization. Teachers will say that a number of instructional
plans come and go in the educational setting. If you teach long enough, some method of
teaching will come around again that went out of style years before. If all teachers have the
opportunity to be a part of the creation of training and professional development, and can provide
input and feedback, along with the utilization of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick New World
Model, there may be a solid implementation of an instructional program that may meet the
diverse needs of students at SCCHS.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 166

Implications for Future Research
In order to address the needs of teachers in improving educational practices in the
classroom, research should be conducted in the various types of professional development to
determine what would be most beneficial to improve teacher knowledge of instructional
differentiation and how to best implement that in the classroom. Research may be done to
determine the most effective methods to ensure accurate knowledge about differentiation and to
build confidence in meeting the individual needs of students. Further research may also address
how students with disabilities receive prioritization in the planning process of instruction.
Finally, further research is needed to address the factors of underachievement of students with
disabilities, as this research study showed that teachers did not attribute lack of achievement to
their teaching.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 167
References
Abdul Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M., & Abdul Rahman, A. (2004). The influence of organizational
Culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(2), 161-179. (print).
Achievement gaps. (2015, September 22). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
Adoniou, M. (2015). Teacher knowledge: a complex tapestry. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(2).
Aeries. Southern California High Charter High District. (2015, June 4). Retrieved from
https://aeries.asp.aeries.net/elcaminoreal/Login.aspx
Akos, P., Cockman, C., & Strickland, C. (2007). Differentiating classroom guidance.
Professional school counseling, 10(5), 455-463.
Alschuler, A. S. (1970). Teaching achievement motivation: Theory and practice in psychological
education.
Alvesson, M., 1956, & ebrary, I. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London:
Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational
psychology, 84(3), 261.
Anderson, D. L., Lubig, J., & Smith, M. (2012). Meeting the needs of all students: How student
teachers identify individualization. Education Research and Perspectives, 39, 1-23.
Arroyo, A. A., Rhoad, R., & Drew, P. (1999). Meeting diverse student needs in urban schools:
Research-based recommendations for school personnel. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 43(4), 145-153.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 168
Auster, E. R., & Wylie, K. K. (2006). Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic
approach. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 333-353.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (1994). Selfefficacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment
and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502.
Bengtsson, J. (1995). What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher
education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 1(1), 23-32.
Benjamin, A. (2006). Valuing differentiated instruction. Education Digest, 72(1), 57.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32(3),
347-364.
Borders, C., Jones Bock, S., & Michalak, N. (2012). Differentiated instruction for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. (pp. 203-219) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bosset, I., & Bourgeois, E. (2015). Motivation to transfer: Linking perceived organizational
support to training to personal goals. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(S1),
169-199.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Boyle, C., Topping, K. J., & Ebooks Corporation. (2012).What works in inclusion? (1st ed.).
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 169
Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and high-stakes testing: An oxymoron? Theory into
Practice, 44(3), 254-261
Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled
students in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 194-202.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
California Department of Education. (2013). 2012-13 California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE) Results. [News release]. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel78atta.asp
Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural knowledge.
Cavanaugh, T. W. (2002). Preparing teachers for the inclusion classroom: Understanding
assistive technology and its role in education. In Annual Meeting of the Oxford Round
Table: Oxford University, Oxford, UK. http://www. unf. edu/~
tcavanau/presentations/preparing_teachers_for_the_inclu. htm.
Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). 11 practical ways to guide teachers toward differentiation.
Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 20.
Cilliers, F., & Greyvenstein, H. (2012). The impact of silo mentality on team identity: An
organisational case study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(2), 75-84.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clarke, S. P. (2006). Organizational climate and culture factors. Annual Review of Nursing
Research, 24, 255.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 170
Clinchot, M., Ngai, C., Huie, R., Talanquer, V., Lambertz, J., Banks, G., . . . Sevian, H. (2017).
Better formative assessment. The Science Teacher, 84(3), 69.
Cochran, K. F. (1991). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Tentative Model for Teacher
Preparation.
Connolly, M., James, C., & Beales, B. (2011). Contrasting perspectives on organizational culture
change in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 12(4), 421-439.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of
procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 4(4), 253-278.
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and
emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Dasmawati, A., & Boon, Y. (2014). Readiness of makassar public high school counsellors in
coping organizational change. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(2), 171-178.
Dawson, P. (1994), Organizational Change: A Process Approach, Paul Chapman, London.
De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational
psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
"Difference Between Curriculum and Instruction." (2012). DifferenceBetween.Com. Retrieved
from www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-curriculum-and-vs-instruction.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction,
professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
37(2), 111-127.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 171
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153-159.
Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual
knowledge falls through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teach mathematics for
understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8-40.
Erdem, E., & Demirel, O. (2007). teacher self-efficacy belief. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 35(5), 573-586.
Executive Summary School Accountability Report Card, 2011–12. Southern California High
Charter High School. (2015, June 4). Retrieved from http://www.SCHSchs.net/wp-
content/uploads/2011_2012_sarc1.pdf
Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. Jossey-
Bass.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education
Brief, 2(4), 1-5.
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to
teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109-
120.
Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Jong, d., Ton. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge.
Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105-113.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Gamoran, A. (1989). Measuring curriculum differentiation. American Journal of Education,
97(2), 129-143.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 172
Gemeda, F. T., Fiorucci, M., & Catarci, M. (2014). Teachers’ professional development in
schools: Rhetoric versus reality. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 71-88.
George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory
into practice, 44(3), 185-193.
Georgeff, M. P., & Lansky, A. L. (1986). Procedural knowledge. Proceedings of the
IEEE, 74(10), 1383-1398.
Ghavifekr, S., & Pillai, N. S. (2016). The relationship between school's organizational climate
and teacher's job satisfaction: Malaysian experience. Asia Pacific Education Review,
17(1), 87.
Gilmore, D., Bose, J., & Hart, D. Postsecondary education as a critical step toward meaningful
employment: Vocational rehabilitation's role. Research to Practice. 7, 4 (July
2001). Institute for Community Inclusion, Boston
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson. Chapter 6, pp. 162-183.
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and
graduation rates: What are the outcomes?. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4),
241-252.
Griess, C. J., & Keat, J. B. (2014). Practice what we preach: Differentiating instruction and
assessment in a higher education classroom as a model of effective pedagogy for early
childhood teacher education candidates. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
35(1), 98-109.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 173
Grossman, Pamela L. 1953- (Pamela Lynn). (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher
knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Guskey, T. R. (1994). Professional development in education: in search of the optimal mix.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?. Phi delta kappan,
84(10), 748.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on.
Harmon, K. (2012). Planning for effective instruction: Best practices (part 2). Marzano Center.
Retrieved from http://www.marzanocenter.com/blog/article/planning-for-effective-
instruction-best-practices-part-2/.
Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to implementing differentiation: Lack of confidence, efficacy
and perseverance. New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 11.
Hedrick, K. A. (2012). Differentiation: A strategic response to student needs. Education Digest,
78(4), 31.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human relations, 49(5), 621-641.
Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to
gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will
to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253.
Hootstein, E. W. (1999). Differentiation of instructional methodologies in social studies at the
secondary level. Journal of Social Studies Research, 23(1), 11.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 174
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program
evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential Differentiation What Types of Differentiation Do Students
Want?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279-299.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141-184.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st
century. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 28(4), 147.
King-Sears, M.E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: Differentiation and the general education
curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55-
62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00371.x
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training
Evaluation. Association for Talent Development.
Kloeppel, T., & Kulinna, P. H. (2012). Strategies for teaching healthy behavior conceptual
knowledge. Strategies, 25(7), 26-30.
Knight, S. M. (2016). The self-reported relationship between a teacher's perception of learner
characteristics for students with disabilities and a teacher's use of differentiated
instruction in georgia public schools grades 6-12.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 175
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Kettler, R. J. (2014). Assessing
opportunity-to-learn for students with disabilities in general and special education
classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(1), 24-39.
Lakomski, G. (2001). Organizational change, leadership and learning: culture as cognitive
process. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 68-77.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009).
The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance.
John Wiley & Sons.
Lannin, J. K., Webb, M., Chval, K., Arbaugh, F., Hicks, S., Taylor, C., & Bruton, R. (2013). The
development of beginning mathematics teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 403-426.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based
learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(2), 34.
Levinson, E. M., & Ohler, D. L. (1998). Transition from high school to college for students with
learning disabilities: Needs, assessment, and services. The High School Journal, 62-69.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping
every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161-164.
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 34.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 176
Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., & Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction
on student achievement in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics,
1932202X14549250.
Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher
Education Journal, 13, 1.
Lovin, L., Kyger, M., & Allsopp, D. (2004). Differentiation for special needs learners. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 11(3), 158-168.
Lynch, P. (2006). understanding organizational culture. Leadership, 36(1), 20.
Marin, E. (2014). Are today's general education teachers prepared to face inclusion in the
classroom? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 702-707.
Marshall, C. (1985). Appropriate criteria of trustworthiness and goodness for qualitative research
on education organizations. Quality and Quantity, 19(4), 353-373.
Marshall, S. (1993). Managing the culture: The key to effective change. School Organisation,
13(3), 255.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Virginia: ASCD Publishing.
Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty?: Challenges encountered by first-
year special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 66-74.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McGrath, D., & Tobia, S. (2008). Organizational culture as a hidden resource. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2008(144).
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 177
McGee, A. (2011). Skills, standards, and disabilities: How youth with learning disabilities fare in
high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review,30(1), 109-129.
McMurray, D. (2001). The importance of 'goodness of fit' between organizational culture and
climate in the management of change: A case study in the development of online
learning. Alt-j, 9(1), 73-83.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College
Classroom. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students'
motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 483-491.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1348130503?accountid=14749\
Moores, D. F. (2013). One size does not fit all: Individualized instruction in a standardized
educational system. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1), 98-103.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011).
The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years after
High School: A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).
NCSER 2011-3005. National Center for Special Education Research.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Nunley, K. F. (2006). Differentiating the high school classroom: Solution strategies for 18
common obstacles. Corwin Press.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 178
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as
effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and teacher education,
22(1), 1-21.
Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Dorsey Press.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Palincsar, A. S., Collins, K. M., Marano, N. L., & Magnusson, S. J. (2000). Investigating the
engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science
teaching. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 240-251.
Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2013). Broadening the view of
differentiated instruction: Differentiation shouldn't end with planning but should continue
as teachers adapt their instruction during lessons. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 38.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health
Services Research, 34(5), 1189-1208.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American educational research journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational
Dynamics, 2(1), 3-15.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
procedural knowledge (2015). (4th ed.) Oxford University Press.
Possibilities for learning. (n.d). Retrieved from http://possibilitiesforlearning.com.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 179
Pyle, N., & Wexler, J. (2012). Preventing students with disabilities from dropping out.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(5), 283-289.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge
of mathematics. Oxford handbook of numerical cognition.
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 52(2), 31-47.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in
postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 307-323.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American Psychological
Association.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19. References
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture.Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361-388. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-
113011-143809
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schultz, M., & ebrary. (1995). On studying organizational cultures: Diagnosis and
understanding. New York;Berlin;: W. de Gruyter.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 180
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4),
207-231.
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Organizational learning. CRC Press.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (2014). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Taylor & Francis.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional children, 63(1), 59-74.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7.
Sergiu, G. (2015). Developing the organizational culture. Revista De Management Comparat
International, 16(1), 137.
Shaw, K. M., & London, H. B. (2001). Culture and ideology in keeping transfer commitment:
Three community colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 91-114.
Southern California High School. (2015, June 4). Retrieved from www.SCHSchs.net
Stetser, M. C., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates
and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. First Look. NCES 2014-
391. National Center for Education Statistics.
Stoll, L., & Bolam, R. (2004). Developing leadership for learning communities. Developing
Leadership: Creating The Schools Of Tomorrow: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow, 50.
Stürmer, K., Könings, K. D., & Seidel, T. (2013). Declarative knowledge and professional vision
in teacher education: Effect of courses in teaching and learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(3), 467-483.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis. International education journal,
7(7), 935-947.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 181
Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., & Mokhtar, M. (2012). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in
problem solving. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 416-425.
Tajasom, A., & Ahmad, Z. A. (2011). Principals' leadership style and school climate: Teachers'
perspectives from Malaysia. The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services,
7(4), 314-333.
Taylor, B. K. (2015). Content, process, and product: Modeling differentiated instruction. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 51(1), 13-17.
Thomas, J. C. (2008). Administrative, faculty, and staff perceptions of organizational climate and
commitment in Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 7(3), 226-252.
Thompson, V. (2009). The impact of differentiation on instructional practices in the elementary
Classroom
Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 12(1), 63-83.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's
journey. Gifted child quarterly, 39(2), 77-87.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
ASCD.van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated, multicultural
instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3),
12-21.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Ascd.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding
by design: Connecting content and kids. ASCD.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 182
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated
classroom. ASCD.
Trujillo, T. M. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising
equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27(3), 531-559.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956.
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A
(III), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 3 March
2015]
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
Van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction for
secondary inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 12.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted
learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211-217.
Wagner, Mary M., and Jose Blackorby. "Transition from high school to work or college: How
special education students fare." The Future of Children (1996): 103-120.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first
look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).Online Submission.
Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2013). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303.
Waters, A. (1995). Differentiation and classroom practice. Teaching Geography, 20(2), 81-83.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 183
Watts-Taffe, S., (Barbara) Laster, B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., &
Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2013). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher
decisions. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303.
Willingham, D. B., Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural
knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
15(6), 1047-1060.
Willrodt, K., & Claybrook, S. (1995). Effects of Inclusion on Academic Outcomes.
Winkelmann, R. (2014). Unemployment and happiness. IZA World of Labor.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-
theoryhttp://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory
Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Kortering, L. J. (2007). Performance on Exit Exams by Students
With Disabilities A Four-Year Analysis. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 30(1), 48-57.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 184

Appendix A
Instructional Differentiation Survey
Instructions: The purpose of this survey is to collect your responses about differentiating
instruction in the classroom and the support you receive in that endeavor. Select the response
that most accurately reflects your beliefs.
Background:
1. How many years have you been teaching? (Please check one)
o Less than 1 year
o 1-3 years
o 4-6 years
o 7 or more years
2. Do you teach students with disabilities in your classroom?
o Yes
o No
3. What subject do you teach?
o English/ESL
o Math
o Science
o World Languages
o Business Technology
o Career and Technical Education
o Social Studies
o Visual/Performing Arts
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 185
4. What type of training or professional development did you/have you received that has
prepared you to work with a diverse population of students in the classroom?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Question Very
Importa
nt

Importa
nt
Moderat
ely
Importan
t
Slightly
Importa
nt
Not
Importa
nt
Not
Applicabl
e
How important do you
think it is for teachers
evaluate their teaching
methods?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important do you
think it is for teachers
evaluate their
classroom setting?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important do you
think it is for teachers
evaluate their
classroom practices?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important do you
think it is for teachers
evaluate their
classroom lessons?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important do you
think it is for teachers
evaluate their
classroom
assessments?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important do you
think it is to
differentiate
instruction?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important are
formal assessments in
the differentiation
process?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important are 5 4 3 2 1 0
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 186
informal assessments
in the differentiation
process?
How important is it to
identify individual
student needs in order
to plan lessons?
5 4 3 2 1 0
How important is it to
identify student
learning levels to plan
instruction?
5 4 3 2 1 0

Question Strongly
Agree
Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Not
Applicable
As a teacher, you know
what instructional
differentiation is.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you how to
identify individual needs
of students in the
classroom
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
the process of adapting
lessons to meet the
individual needs of
students.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to plan lessons for
instructional
differentiation.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to reflect on your
own teaching methods.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you reflect
on your own strengths and
weaknesses.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to set goals to
improve instruction to
meet individual needs of
students.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to the process of
differentiating instruction.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
when differentiating
5 4 3 2 1 0
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 187
instruction is needed.
As a teacher, you have a
strong knowledge of your
content area.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you are
aware of the attributes of
instructional
differentiation.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to adapt lessons as
you plan.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
how to adapt lessons as
they are presented.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you see the
value in differentiating
instruction for your
students.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you feel that
lack of student
achievement may be due
to a lack of instructional
differentiation.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you believe
that you have the time to
differentiate instruction.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you have the
necessary resources to
differentiate instruction.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you know
which students need
instructional
differentiation in order to
access curriculum.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you receive
the training/professional
development needed to
differentiate instruction.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you feel
confident in
differentiating instruction
for students with learning
disabilities.
5 4 3 2 1 0
As a teacher, you utilize
fluid student grouping as
part of your instruction.
5 4 3 2 1 0
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 188
As a teacher, you use
multiple types of
assessments as part of the
instructional process.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The administration creates
an environment where
teachers feel open to
taking risks.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The administrators do act
as effective role models.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The administration
supports your efforts to
improve your own
teaching methods.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The leaders of our
organization shape
organizational culture.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The administration
effectively communicates
our organizational goals.
5 4 3 2 1 0
The administration
provides direction to
achieve our organizational
goals.
5 4 3 2 1 0

You have a student participating in your general education classroom who has a learning
disability. How would you plan your lesson to meet the needs of this student? Choose the three
most important ways in which you would differentiate instruction.

o Assess student readiness

o Have student work in groups

o Have student with disability complete less work/fewer assignments

o Assess student interest

o Provide a variety of ways in which student demonstrates understanding

In utilizing assessments to drive instructional practices to meet the varying needs of all students,
teachers should use the following formative assessments (choose all that apply):
o quick notes taken while watching students work on an assignment
o journal entries
o short-answer quizzes
o thumbs up/thumbs-down signals from students
o entry cards
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 189
o exit cards
o scanning student work for specific qualities

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 190

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
1. Tell me about your teaching experience teaching here at El Camino.
a. How long have you taught here?
b. What subjects do you teach?
2. What prompted you to decide on teaching as a profession?
3. Tell me about your educational preparation for teaching?
a. What kind of classes did you take that would prepare you to meet the diverse
population of students who attend El Camino?
b. In what way did these classes prepare you for the responsibilities of teaching a
diverse population of students?
4. What are your thoughts about differentiated instruction in the classroom?
a. What does differentiated instruction look like in your classroom?
5. What is your process for planning your lessons?
a. How do you plan for meeting the diverse needs in your class?
6. Once you begin your lessons, how do you adapt to meet student needs?
a. If you see that a student/students do not understand, how do you adjust your
teaching?
7. What do assessments look like for your students?
a. What might be an example of a formative assessment?
b. What might be an example of a summative assessment?
8. What types of professional development have you received that support you in meeting
the diverse needs of students?
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 191
9. What would you like see in the way of professional development that would increase
your knowledge in differentiating instruction for your students?
10. In what ways does administration at El Camino support you in meeting the diverse needs
of students in your classroom?
a. In what ways could the administration better support you in meeting the diverse
needs of students in your classroom?
11. Is there anything other information that you would like to add to this interview that you
haven’t already provided?

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 192

Appendix C
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Teachers Perceptions about Instructional Differentiation in the Classroom Setting
at Southern California Charter High School
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the Rossier School of Education.
Your participation is not mandatory and is completely voluntary. This document will provide
information about the study. If you have any questions or something is confusing to you feel
free to ask questions.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to better understand teacher perceptions regarding instructional
differentiation in the classroom in order to meet the needs of the diverse population of students
within our organization. This study is being conducted in order utilize data to best plan future
professional development and provide support for teachers in our organization.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to participate in a semi-structured
interview that will last approximately one hour, as well as a 1:1 interview of approximately the
same length. Guiding questions will be asked, but the interview will be conversational with
possible probing questions to further the discussion and to better understand the answers
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 193
provided. The interviews will be recorded and you do not have to answer any question with
which you are not comfortable answering. If you do not wish to be taped, you will not participate
in the study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will receive a $10 gift card for their participation in the interview.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The alternative is to not participate. Your participation or non-participation will not affect your
role in the organization.
CONFIDENTIALITY
You will not be asked any identifying information in the survey or in the interview. You will
have the right to review the audio recordings and edit the transcripts. Once the audiotapes have
been transcribed, they will be destroyed. Personal identities will be shielded and audio
recordings will be destroyed at the end of the study. The researcher and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of the research
subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact:
Wendy Treuhaft
Tel: 818-674-1654
Email: treuhaft@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 194
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
Appendix D
Recruitment Letter
Dear Prospective Survey Candidates,
As a doctoral student in the Organizational Change and Leadership program at the University of
Southern California, I invite you to participate in collecting information and data about your
perceptions in differentiating instruction in the classroom to meet the diverse needs of our
students within our organization. Your participation includes individual interviews. The purpose
of this study is to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
teachers as they plan, implement, and reflect on their teaching practices to meet the diverse needs
of students. You are eligible to participate in this program because you are a teacher who works
with a diverse population of students within our organization. Your contribution and experience
in this study will benefit our organization’s leaders and professional development committee
members as they plan professional development and support teachers in differentiating
instruction in the classroom.
Your participation is voluntary; there is no penalty for non-participation. If you choose to
participate, you will take part in the survey, the 1:1 interview: the interview lasting
approximately one hour.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 195

Appendix E
Immediate Evaluation of Levels 1 & 2
Training Date: Workshop Subject:

Directions: We appreciate your attendance at our instructional differentiation workshop. Our
school values your attendance, participation, and input regarding our training. To assist us in
addressing the quality of future workshop and the needs of attendees, please take the time to
respond to the following items related to today’s training. The feedback form is completely
anonymous and will be helpful to organizational leaders in making changes or adding
additional training sessions in the future.

1. I was satisfied with the seating, atmosphere, and location of today’s training.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

2. I felt that the materials were presented in an engaging manner.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

3. I felt that the pace of the training session provided time for learner engagement.

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 196

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

4. As a teacher, I felt that the information presented in the training was relevant to
differentiating instruction in my classroom.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

5. As a teacher, I felt that materials utilized in the training were relevant to differentiating
instruction in my classroom.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

6. Overall, my learning was enhanced by the knowledge of the facilitator.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 197

7. In order to differentiate instruction, I must determine the student’s readiness level so that I
know how to plan my lessons.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

8. Once I determine readiness level, I can place students in small groups for the rest of the
school year.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

9. I do not need to worry about any type of formative assessments after I initially assess my
students.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

10. Differentiation includes multiple approaches to instruction through content, process, and
product.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 198
1 2 3 4 5

11. After initial assessment to determine student readiness, I should do any one of the
following (check all that apply):

Group students
by readiness
level

Allow students
to choose what
they want to do
from various
activities

Utilize flexible
grouping

Allow students
to work at their
own pace in
paper/pencil
activities

Plan lessons that are
engaging and
challenging

12. Overall, I was satisfied with the training.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 199

Appendix F
Delayed Evaluation (Levels 1, 2, 3, & 4)
Final Teacher Evaluation Form (Sample Survey Questions)
Name: Date:

Directions: We appreciate your time in completing this instructional differentiation training
evaluation. Your feedback is important to us as we consider the effectiveness of this year’s
training, as well as future training and professional development for teachers. At the end of this
form, you can provide feedback or make suggestions for future training. These survey forms are
anonymous.

L1. Overall, I found the information presented in this year’s workshops/trainings to be
engaging.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

L1. Overall, I feel that the information provided during this year’s trainings was relevant to
instruction in my classroom.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 200

L2. The information provided in the trainings (materials and handouts) helped me to learn new
ways in which to differentiate instruction in my classroom.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

L2. The goals of the training and professional development aligned with my goals as a teacher.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

L2. You have a student participating in your general education classroom who has a learning
disability. How would you plan your lesson to meet the needs of this student? Choose the three
most important ways in which you would differentiate instruction.

A. Assess student readiness
B. Have student work in groups
C. Have student with disability complete less work/fewer assignments
D. Assess student interest
E. Provide a variety of ways in which student demonstrates understanding

L3. My level of confidence in addressing the needs of the diverse population of students in my
classroom increased as a result of the trainings that I have attended this year.
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 201
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

L3. Outside of this year’s trainings, I have collaborated with the following individuals about
instructional differentiation:

A. Other teachers
B. Department chair
C. Administrators
D. Parents
E. Students
F. Other (Please specify: _________________________________________)

L3. Due to the information I learned during this year’s professional development and trainings, I
did the following:

A. Differentiated instruction while planning instruction
B. Differentiated instruction during my lesson
C. Differentiated formative assessments
D. Differentiated summative assessments
E. Managed the classroom with a variety of activities
F. Assessed students to determine their readiness level
G. Utilized flexible pacing
H. Reflected on my teaching practices
I. Debriefed with colleagues

CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 202
L4. In the space below, please describe your plan to increase the level of instructional
differentiation in the classroom.

L5. During the school year, I was able to successfully differentiate instruction in my classroom
through planning, adapting, and assessing my students to drive my instruction.

A. Yes, I successfully differentiated instruction in my classroom utilizing at least two
methods listed above.
B. Yes, I began the differentiation process utilizing one method listed above.
C. I did not yet begin differentiating instruction in my classroom.

If you answered C above, please explain why in the space provided below:

Additional Feedback: In the space below, please provide any additional feedback about
instructional differentiation and/or the trainings in which you participated this year. What would
you like to see more of next year in the way of professional development or training? What
additional topics would you like to discuss in relation to instructional differentiation?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Factors that promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to identify and refer students with anxiety or depression for evaluation

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Educator professional development for technology in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Lack of support for gifted students in the United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Treuhaft, Wendy Gayle (author)

Core Title Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/31/2017

Defense Date 06/22/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement gap,instructional differentiation,OAI-PMH Harvest,students with disabilities

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Ephraim, Ronni (committee member), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member)

Creator Email treuhaft@usc.edu,wendytreuhaft@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-425829

Unique identifier UC11265650

Identifier etd-TreuhaftWe-5700.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-425829 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TreuhaftWe-5700.pdf

Dmrecord 425829

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Treuhaft, Wendy Gayle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA