Running Head: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 1

Differentiated Instruction on Reading Comprehension

Madeline Cross

Franciscan University of Steubenville

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 2

Introduction

Many may wonder if differentiated instruction is an important component to include in a

lesson. As a pre-service teacher, I have always been fascinated with differentiated instruction.

In that, I have always been interested in finding new ways to differentiate instruction for student

learners, especially for those who may be struggling. According to Heacox (2012),

“differentiating instruction means changing the pace, level, or kind of instruction you provide in

response to individual learners’ needs, styles, or interests”. Moreover, differentiated instruction

is a diverse and flexible framework allowing students to take control of their learning (Heacox

2012). Thus having this understanding of differentiated instruction, the goal of this research is to

provide insight about differentiated instruction.

The Purpose

Studies have shown that more often than not, students are showing a disinterest in

literacy (Reis, et al., 2011). Furthermore, there remains a gap between high achieving students

and struggling students in literacy (Firmender, Reis, & Sweeny 2013). Thus there arises a

prevalent need in many schools to meet diverse learners (Niño, 2014) and to find ways in which

to engage students. One way that Awada and Gutiérrez-Colón (2017) proposes to meet these

learners is through differentiated instruction. For many some may wonder if differentiated

instruction is worth the effort; these are questions that will be explored and explained at length

throughout this study.

The purpose of this study is to show that differentiated instruction can have a positive

effect on children in a diverse classroom. In short, I will be studying this question, “ What are

the effects of differentiated instruction on reading comprehension in a diverse classroom?” The

way in which this study will be executed is through the use of a survey. Through the use of a
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 3

survey, I will be recording the responses of educator’s opinions and ideas about differentiated

instruction on reading comprehension. In the end, my hope is to see a positive correlation

between differentiated instruction and an increase in reading comprehension.

In short, I believe that my survey will provide a variety of reponses regarding

differentiated instruction. Furthermore, I believe that many teachers will be in favor of

differentiated instruction and the flexibility that this type of instruction provides. Moreover,

through the use of a variety of methods to improve instruction within the classroom, and through

the options that are presented on the survey, I think that teacher’s responses will show a positive

correlation to the use of differentiated instruction and an increase in reading comprehension.

Review of Literature

In a recent study done by Niño (2014), Niño looks at differentiated instruction, especially

in regards to children who have experienced interrupted schooling, come from a low

socioeconomic status, and who struggle with English as a second language. The purpose of

Niño’s study was to address the question of differentiated instruction and its benefits towards

students who come from diverse backgrounds, specifically this study looks at students from

Spanish backgrounds. In this study, 15 Spanish speaking students and two teachers from the

Procesos Básicos program of a public bilingual school in Bogotá, Colombia were used to

conduct this experiment. It should also be noted that the fifteen students that were assessed had

only received education up to the first grade. Furthermore, the study contained five females and

ten males and students’ ages ranged from eight to fifteen. Of the fifteen students, eight of the

students were Internally Displaced Persons (IDP). The way in which the author tested this

sample was through an action research analysis, in that surveys, interviews, observations, and

video recordings were used to assess this investigation. Furthermore, the author also
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 4

implemented some qualitative and quantitative techniques to help address the question and to

reach the desired results. In the end, Niño concluded that it was clearly evident that reading

comprehension surpassed writing. Niño explains in depth in his article, that since the students

were not as proficient in English their writing suffered more. Niño also notes that interventions

for reading comprehension such as visuals and graphic organizers helped the students

tremendously.

I found this article very helpful and insightful in relation to my topic. I really liked how

the author addressed the sample as well as how she tested the sample. I also thought the use of

video recordings was an effective way to assess any differentiations between the classes. One

aspect of the study that I was not very fond of was the fact that the author only focused on

English language learners coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds and interrupted

schooling experiences. I think it would have been extremely useful if the study also focused on a

group of typically developing English language learners who had not been interrupted in their

schooling. In any study, in order to make it more valid and accurate, it is important to look at

both sides of the situation and to address how variables affect other groups differently. This

article was extremely useful in understanding differentiated instruction and how it affects

children differently, especially children who have had interrupted schooling and have not been

provided with the necessary tools to be successful in school. As for the future, I think that the

author should have incorporated more types of differentiated instruction in his study, such as

learning centers, technology, and hands-on manipulatives. By providing a variety of

differentiated instruction, students will be able to engage in more meaningful and successful

learning experiences.
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 5

Some may wonder what is the importance of differentiated instruction and how teachers

feel about differentiated instruction. This article written by Pilten (2016), addresses the use of

reading differentiated instruction in the classroom. However, what is different about this study is

that it is solely based upon the teacher and their perspective. The purpose of this article is to

address the effects of reading differentiated instruction in regards to the students and the teacher

and how to best apply these instructions. In this study, seventeen teachers were assessed

amongst the region of Turkey. What is interesting to note about this study is that it looks at a

maximum diverse population. What is meant by a maximum diverse population is that it seeks

to look at teachers of all varieties such as gender, years of experience, and regions where they

reside. It is also important to note that this study was based upon the phenomenology design

which is just another way of saying that this study was a qualitative research experiment.

Through the use of observations, interviews, seminars, and implementation of differentiated

instruction, Peltin was able to assess teachers’ perspectives regarding reading differentiated

instruction in the classroom. In conclusion, Peltin found that many teachers were not

implementing correct procedures for differentiated based instruction. It was not until after the

seminar on differentiated instruction did the teachers fully understand differentiated instruction

and the positive effects that this type of instruction can have on students and their success in the

classroom.

Throughout this article I really liked how the author focused on the teacher’s response

and experiences with differentiated instruction. In education, teaching begins with the teacher. If

teachers are not educated on effective teaching strategies, they are incapable of setting their

students up for success. The whole point of differentiated instruction is to promote academic

growth within the classroom. One aspect of the article that I found to be very difficult to
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 6

understand was the methodology. Throughout this study various observations, interviews, and

seminars were conducted. As I was reading this article, it was very difficult to follow the many

procedures that the teachers engaged in. However, this topic did provide for some useful

information and is very relevant to the topic I am currently studying. The topic relates to my

field of study in that, it addresses effective instructions as well as the teacher’s responses to

certain instructions that they felt were important for students to engage in. For the future, I think

that this study should incorporate teachers of all nationalities and their perspectives on reading-

based differentiated instruction in the classroom. Furthermore, additional tests should be done

on differentiated instruction across all curriculums.

This article written by Tracey and Young (2005), aims to look at technology as a form of

differentiated instruction to enhance students learning of literacy and reading within the

classroom. More specifically, this research done by Tracey and Young looks at a particular

internet based program where students engage in the reading of passages followed by activities

to complete. What makes this study so interesting is the reading level feature that the program

provides for the students. Essentially this program provides passages and activities that correlate

to each individual child’s reading level and strengths. Tracey and Young study this program at

length in order to determine whether this program is an effective form of differentiated

instruction. In this study, 219 fifth grade students of varied ethnicities were assessed throughout

one year. The study took the form of a theoretical framework in which cognitive processes,

reading processes, and any other additional factors were examined at large to assess students

understanding. Furthermore, this experiment divided the students into groups; differentiated,

non-differentiated, and a control group. This study was designed in order to assess the cause and

effect of this particular internet- based program. In other words, this was an experimental study.
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 7

In conclusion, the results showed a positive correlation between the internet-based program,

appropriate reading levels, and student’s success.

This article was extremely useful and very relevant to my topic. One topic of interest that

I felt was very beneficial to the study was the fact that the researchers addressed cognitive

processes and their importance in reading. On the other hand one element of the study that I

found difficult to understand was the way in which they measured students’ successes after using

the program. It was helpful that the authors provided an overall description of the results,

however, I would have preferred to know what the numbers represented and how they impacted

the study. As I mentioned before, this study is extremely useful and relevant to my topic because

it provides evidence of differentiated instruction in literacy and how it impacted students’

success. In the future, I can see this study expanding its horizons and maybe looking at other

internet-based programs to study with students. Possibly, this study could go even farther as to

test students of low socioeconomic status and interrupted schooling.

Differentiated instruction may be a difficult task for some teachers to implement in the

classroom, especially for those learners who may struggle with a learning disability. However,

differentiated instruction is a very important concept and one that should be studied at length.

This article written by Awada and Gutiérrez-Colón (2017) looks at the effects of differentiated

instruction on students who have dyslexia and who are learning English as a foreign language

(EFL). Specifically, Awada and Gutiérrez-Colón looked into the use of graphic organizers,

visual displays, mnemonic illustrations, technology, prediction, inference, text structure, main

ideas, and summarizing to see if these types of strategies and differentiated instruction would

have an effect on EFL students with dyslexia. The purpose of this article is to see if the above
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 8

strategies will help EFL students with dyslexia to increase their fluency and comprehension with

narrative and expository texts as well as to see how students with dyslexia perform in an

inclusive classroom. With this study, a total of 298 students participated in this experiment

coming from both private and public schools. In this experiment there were a total of 105

females and 193 males coming from varying socio-economic backgrounds some with dyslexia

and others without dyslexia. The type of design that this study followed was an experimental

study in which Awada and Gutiérrez-Colón divided the participants into experimental groups

and control groups. The way in which Awada and Gutiérrez-Colón were able to assess students’

comprehension was through a variety of pre-test and post-tests. In this study, students were

given 6 hours of combined varying types of differentiated instruction. In the end, in order to test

the questions and hypotheses, mean scores, standard deviation, and covariance were used to test

these variables. The results indicated that when the educator used the combined methods of

differentiated instruction in an inclusive classroom such as graphic organizers, visuals,

technology, the results showed an increase in reading comprehension of students who are

learning English as a second language and who have dyslexia with narrative texts. However,

when it came to expository texts, there was not a significant difference in using differentiated

instruction. The researchers propose that students who have dyslexia struggle with expository

text due to the structure of the text and insufficient comprehension skills.

This article was particularly useful in helping to understand more deeply the effects of

differentiated instruction on diverse learners. I really liked how this article provided multiple

types of varied instruction in an inclusive classroom. I also really liked how Awada and

Gutiérrez-Colón experimented with multiple grade levels and not just one. This pertains to my

topic in that the study uses a wide range of instruction to help students in a diverse classroom
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 9

who have a learning disability. One detail of the study that I found difficult to understand were

the numbers used to show the difference between the experimental group and, control group. In

addition to the numbers, it was also difficult to follow the other variables that the study assessed

such as gender, type of school, and treatment. I also did not like how the study only focused on

students who have dyslexia and who are learning English as a foreign language. I think in the

future, the study could go even further and extend the experiment to other students with learning

disabilities. As far as implications, the researchers ran into some difficulties regarding

technology especially in the public schools. In many public schools, the schools lacked the

proper technology needed. In the future, states, schools and even future researchers should look

to make sure that schools are properly equip with the necessary tools that the schools need in

order to be successful.

Many may wonder is differentiated instruction worth the time? Does differentiated

instruction really improve learning outcomes for students who may have learning disabilities?

Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller and Kaniskan (2010) examined diverse instruction across five

elementary schools ranging from 2nd to 5th grade on reading comprehension. It should be noted

that two gifted second grade classes were also incorporate into the study. The purpose of this

research was to determine effects of differentiated instruction and whole group instruction on

children’s comprehension and oral fluency. In this study, the participants were sixty-three

teachers and one thousand one hundred and ninety two students ranging from second grade to

fifth grade. In this study the method used by the researchers was an experimental design. In that,

different groups were assigned to different a treatment through cluster randomization. More

specifically this study used control groups or random assignment when testing reading

comprehension. More importantly this study employed the SEM-R intervention, which stands
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 10

for, school wide enrichment model reading. In addition, pre and posttests were given regarding

student reading comprehension and fluency. Essentially with the use of SEM-R model, the

teachers engaged in six hours of preparation in which the teachers were educated about the SEM-

R model and how to use it. With the SEM-R model, students will pass through three phases.

Phase one emphasizes the presentation of read alouds by the teacher as well as intense cognitive

engagement. The second phase stresses the importance of fostering student’s independent

reading of challenging books otherwise known as SIR. Lastly, phase three moves from teacher-

directed opportunities to student initiative opportunities such as questioning, thinking,

exploration of technology, and discussion groups. In conclusion, it was found that differentiated

instruction and the use of the SEM-R model positively affected students outcomes in regards to

fluency and reading comprehension. The big difference that sets this study apart from others was

the effectiveness of the SEM-R model and the elimination of whole group teaching. Essentially,

this study was particularly successful mainly due to the fact that self – selected independent

reading was encouraged as well as the application of differentiated instruction.

In regards to this article I felt like it was written very well. I really liked how Reis,

McCoach, Little, Muller and Kaniskan included the SEM-R model in this study. Through the

use of the SEM-R model, I was really able to gain a better understanding of differentiated

instruction and the effects that differentiated instruction can have on learning outcomes. I also

found it interesting how differentiated instruction showed better outcomes than whole group

instruction. One aspect of the study that I found difficult to follow was the control and treatment

group. Also as in any study the numbers and what the numbers represented were also very

difficult to understand. Throughout the study, other aspects such as suburban, urban, ethnicity,

pre-test, and post - test were also assessed. As important as these variables may be, I found it
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 11

hard to find their significance. As far as the relevance to the topic at and hand, which is

assessing differentiated instruction on reading comprehension in a diverse classroom, I felt like

this study was very relevant to the topic of study. This article really emphasized and showed the

importance and the effectiveness of differentiated instruction on learning outcomes especially in

regards to the SEM-R model. As for implications or limitations as with any study, treatment

fidelity should always be taken into consideration. In the future, these researchers could take

advantage of the SEM-R model and apply this model to a specific learning disability such as

dyslexia and assess the effects of instruction on reading comprehension. Furthermore, it would

be really interesting to see the effects of the use of the SEM-R model for the entire school year.

Also student engagement would be an interesting factor to measure in in the future.

Metacognition, and meta-awareness are important strategies that should be taken into

consideration when teaching reading comprehension especially with difficult texts.

Metacognition is especially important when investigating narrative and expository texts.

According to Bostas metacognition is defined as someone’s ability “to judge his or her own

learning and/or comprehension of text materials”. In this recent study, designed by George

Bostas (2017) he looks at the effects of metacognition and meta-awareness strategies on students

with and without disabilities. Essentially, the purpose of this study according to Bostas was to

look into the effectiveness of the implementation of metacognitive strategies on students with

and without learning disabilities in the field of reading comprehension with narrative and

expository texts. Narrative texts are those texts that include details such as the setting, evens,

characters, plot, and outcome. Expository texts on the other hand are more informational and

contain more developed vocabulary. For this study, Bostas reached out to a hundred and twenty

two fifth and sixth graders some of which had learning disabilities and others who did not. The
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 12

method that was used to conduct this experiment was experimental. Before the study even

began, all students were given a test in order to assess their abilities in reading comprehension,

for that reason the Test of Reading Performance was arranged. After obtaining results from this

test, students were then separated according to their performance on the test and if they had a

learning disability. Then the study was conducted. Throughout the study, multiple strategies

were used to assess students’ comprehension. However, with this particular investigation, the

cognitive and metacognitive strategies served as the dependent variable when the students read

texts. In addition to the metacognitive and cognitive strategies, think- aloud procedures were

also put into place while reading these texts and categorized as metacognitive or cognitive

strategies. In conclusion, it was found that students with learning disabilities, when reading

narrative texts, put to use fewer strategies than did students without learning disabilities. As the

study mentions, students with disabilities tended to use more rehearsal strategies such as

lookbacks and rereading. Metacognition and cognitive strategies use by students with learning

disabilities can be summarized as students with learning disabilities using more cognitive

strategies and less metacognitive or deeper thinking strategies when reading narrative texts. On

the other hand, students who did not have a learning disability showed higher signs of the use of

deeper processing strategies for instance elaboration as opposed to strategies like rereading. It

should also be noted however that students with and students without disabilities showed a

similar increase in the use of monitoring and regulating metacognitive strategies when reading

expository texts.

This study was very relevant to my topic because it provided another type of

differentiated instruction that can be used in the classroom. Additionally, this study increases the

reasons as to why differentiated instruction should be used in a diverse classroom. One aspect of
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 13

the study that was difficult to understand was the numbers and what they correlated to as well as

it was hard to pinpoint the independent variable. Furthermore, it was hard to distinguish the

difference between the use metacognition and cognitive strategies in regards to expository and

narrative texts. However, despite those difficulties, I really liked how the study focused on

cognitive and metacognitive strategies in reading comprehension. More often than not, cognitive

and metacognitive strategies get lost in the abyss of other well know successful differentiated

instruction strategies. It is important in my humble opinion that a variety of differentiated

instructional strategies be used in the classroom especially with reading comprehension. As for

the future, this researcher could focus attention on one specific learning disability. Also the use

of other strategies such as summarizing and answering questions may be beneficial to students

who have a learning disability in the use of expository texts in the classroom.

Methodology

In the research conducted, the way in which the study was carried out was through a

survey. However before the survey was developed, extensive literature reviews were done to

help gain more knowledge about differentiated instruction and its effects on student learners.

Thus, survey questions were developed regarding differentiated instruction within the context of

reading comprehension. My hope for the survey is that I would receive a lot of insightful

feedback about differentiated instruction in regards to reading comprehension. The survey

developed was geared towards special educators teachers, past and present, and their use of

differentiated instruction in the classroom to increase reading comprehension. After, a survey

was developed and distributed to the public. Teachers, former teachers, and special educators

were encouraged to take the survey. In order to effectively and systematically conduct this

survey, a Google survey was created. After the survey was created, it was then placed on social
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 14

media in order to spread the word. Some of the places that were chosen for this survey were:

Facebook, Twitter, Google for Education, and the International Society for Technology in

Education (ISTE). ISTE is an educational community used by teachers all over the world. The

goal of ISTE is to assist and to inform teachers about how to effectively use technology within

the classroom. After opening my survey on April 5th and closing the survey on April 10th , 2018,

I was able to gain generous amounts of information regarding differentiated instruction on

reading comprehension. It is also important to note that when I put my survey on Twitter,

Facebook, and Google for Education, I distinctly specified that this survey was designed only for

past and present teachers as well as special educators. Additionally, the reason why social media

was chosen as the platform of which to distribute my survey was because it was my hope that

through social media I would be able to acquire a wide range of responses. Secondly, social

media provided me with the best means of effectively and efficiently being able to distribute my

survey quickly. Lastly, when I placed my survey on these social media platforms, I drew quite a

significant amount of results from teachers who taught elementary grades to even those who

taught high school. I was extremely pleased with this component of my research because it adds

more validity and diversity to my study. In total, my research gained 22 responses which will be

discussed at length in the findings.

Findings

After looking through the results and demographics it is clear that differentiated

instruction especially within literacy plays an important role in classroom instruction. The

following findings as will be discussed are the results of a survey that was put forth about

differentiated instruction in an attempt to understand the effects of differentiated instruction on

reading comprehension. The results obtained were taken from a survey of eleven questions of
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 15

which teachers and special educators participated in. They way in which the findings will be

analyzed, will be as follows, the demographics of the participants followed by an analysis of the

survey questions.

Throughout this study, the demographics of this survey indicate that teachers and special

educators that responded had either taught in the past or were current teachers that had taught

from 1 to 35 plus years. As this chart states, the majority of the responses came from teachers

who taught English language arts (36.4%) followed by science (18.2%) and special education

(18.2%) producing the same amount of responses. In figure 1, the rest of the results can be

found.

Figure 1

Furthermore, 45.5% of responses came from teachers teaching grades 4-6, with high

school teachers (22.7%) generating the second most responses. The rest of the grade levels of

which were recorded are shown in figure 2. What is interesting about the question poised is that

the majority of the participants responded to being teachers to fourth and sixth graders. This

may indicate that differentiated instruction is used more frequently in these grades possibly due

to the fact that that is the age where they need different modes of looking at information for

reading comprehension.
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 16

Figure 2

The first question of this survey looked at the methods of differentiated instruction and

their effectiveness on increasing students’ reading comprehension. After examining the results,

it is clear that visual displays is one of the most used methods of differentiated instruction in

reading comprehension. As the chart shows, 77.3% responded to using visual displays in the

classroom. Following, visual displays, opportunities to respond and graphic organizers

generated the second highest utilization within the classroom with 72.7%. The other forms of

differentiated instruction can be found in the below chart (figure 3). The chart also indicates that

mnemonics (31.8%) and metacognitive strategies (36.4%) produced the least amount of

implementation. Upon further analysis of the data many teachers within this study provided

rationales for the use of differentiated instruction within the classroom. Many teachers in this

study alluded to the fact that differentiated instruction allows the teacher to be able to address the

different needs and styles of their students. However, others stated that differentiated instruction

allows students to take control of their learning as well as it provides for more engagement

within the classroom. Still other participants believe that independent reading was a key strategy

for reading comprehension. Never the less, most participants who replied to the open - ended
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 17

questions responded to using differentiated instruction in the classroom as a way to meet the

needs of their students and to address different learning styles.

What methods of differentiated instruction have you found to be useful for increasing your
student’s reading comprehension? Select all that apply. Why? (Optional)

Figure 3

Visual displays- 77.3%

Graphic Organizers-72.7%
Technology- 63.6%
Internet based programs-54.4%
Independent reading-68.2%
Metacognitive strategies-36.4%
Opportunities to respond-72.7%
Mnemomics-31.8%
Other-4.5%

The second question asked the participants of the study to evaluate which form of

differentiated instruction was easiest to implement in the classroom. After examining the

responses, many responded to saying technology was easiest to implement (40.9%) followed by

opportunities to respond (36.4%) and visual displays (36.4%). It was interesting to see that out

of all the available forms of differentiated instruction, only 22.7% responded to using internet -

based programs and 40.9% responded to using technology in the classroom. In looking at the

open – ended responses of the participants, one participant reported that self- choice was a big

factor in deciding what method of differentiated instruction to use. In that, this participant

explained that different learning activities around the classroom would be available to students to

work on either individually or through small groups. Many of the participants also reported to

using technology because it was quick, efficient and easy to implement. Additionally, one
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 18

participant noted to using independent reading because it “was easy to carve time out”. Yet still

other members of the study responded to using physical tangible forms of differentiated

instruction such as graphic organizers. One participant responded to using a different strategy

that was not presented in the survey; the strategy is called the “Daily Five”. Essentially, with the

“Daily Five” strategy the teacher begins the lessons with whole group instruction; after, the

students are broken up into groups based upon their reading level (Boushy & Moser 2009). The

teacher is then able to address the students’ needs through guided instruction by observing and

providing help to the small groups (Boushy & Moser 2009). The rest of the results can be found

in figure 4.

Of these methods, which has been the easiest to implement? Select one. Why? (optional)
Figure 4
Visual displays- 36.4%
Graphic Organizers-27.3%
Technology- 40.9%
Internet based programs-22.7%
Independent reading-31.8%
Metacognitive strategies-0%
Opportunities to respond-36.4%
Mnemomics-0%
Other-0%

The third question of the survey analyzed the use of differentiated instruction with

English language learners (ELL’s) and which form of differentiated instruction best benefits and

promotes growth in reading comprehension. Out of all of the available choices, visual displays

rendered the most results of 81.8%. Following visuals displays was technology with 68.2%

responses, with graphic organizers producing the 3rd greatest amount of results of 59.1%. The

rest of the results can be found in figure 5.

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 19

Additionally, many participants provided rationales for reasons as to why they chose a

specific a strategy. One particular participant stated that internet-based programs provided

different levels of flexible readings for students who may be ELL’s to use in the classroom to

help with their reading comprehension. The same participant also added that verbal response,

such as repetition helps ELL’s to become more accustomed to the language. Additionally,

another participant noted that in their opinion they believed that mnemonics and metacognitive

strategies were more difficult for ELL’s to grasp, however the participant also added that most

all of the other methods are effective strategies to use in the classroom. Furthermore, based upon

the findings in the below chart (figure 5), it was interesting to see that the use mnemonics was

regarded as a useful form of differentiated instruction to use with student who are English

language learners.

Of these methods which would you use for a typical ELL? Select all that apply. Why?
(optional)
Figure 5
Visual displays-81.8%
Graphic organizer- 59.1%
Technology-68.2%
Internet based program-45.5%
Independent reading-18.2%
Metacognitive strategies -27.3%
Opportunities to respond-50%
Mnemonics-22.7%
None-0 %

The fourth question analyzed the use of differentiated instruction on typically developing

students who have dyslexia. More specifically, the question looked at which forms of

differentiated instruction is used more frequently with this learner. As has been chosen in the

past by the participants, 86.4 % responded to using visual displays, proceed by graphic organizer

producing 54.4% implementation in the classroom. The rest of the results are portrayed in the
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 20

below graph (figure 6). An interesting component of this question to note are the participants

that responded to using independent reading as a form of differentiated instruction that they

would use with students who have dyslexia. Given the struggles that these students face with

literacy, it was interesting to see that independent reading generated some results.

Of these methods which would you use for a typical student with dyslexia? Select all that
apply. Why? (optional)

Figure 6 Visual displays-86.4%

Graphic Organizers-
54.5%
Technology-59.1%
Internet-based
programs-31.8%
Independent reading-
18.2%
Metacognitive
strategies-31.8%
Opportunities to
respond-45.5%
Mnemonics- 31.8%
None-0

The next question studied the use of differentiated instruction with a typical student who

is gifted. After looking at the results, it is clear that technology (72.7%) was most useful to

implement in the classroom to increase reading comprehension. Additionally, the second highest

was independent reading with (68.2%) responses, followed by metacognitive strategies (63.6%).

Given the nature of a student who is gifted, the results seem to imply that independent reading,

technology, and metacognitive strategies are more beneficial as opposed to other strategies such

as: internet-based programs (59.1%), graphic organizers (50%), opportunities to respond

(45.5%), visual displays (40.9%), and mnemonics (9.1%). Nonetheless, it was interesting to see
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 21

the results and responses that the participants regarded as being useful to increase reading

comprehension with students who are gifted.

In addition to the results, participants provided rationales for the use of different forms of

differentiated instruction and why they believed they are beneficial to students who are gifted in

reading comprehension. One participant reported to using internet - based programs where the

student can continue to read at their reading level, strive for goals, and continue to progress to

higher levels by working independently. Yet another participant responded by saying that it

depends upon the student, and what works best for them individually. A good visual of the

results can be found in figure 7.

Of these methods which would you use for a typical student that is gifted? Select all that
apply. Why? (optional)
Figure 7

Visual displays-40.9%
Graphic organizers-50%
Technology-72.7%
Internet-based program-59.1%
Independent reading-68.2%
Metacognitive strategies-63.6%
Opportunities to respond-45.5%
Mnenomics-9.1%
None-4.5%

The sixth question deals with differentiated instruction on students who have a learning

disability. As noted in the previous questions dealing with students and learning disabilities, the

form of differentiated instruction that brought in the most results was visual displays with 86.4%

implementation in the classroom. The second highest rate of responses came from graphic

organizer (72.7%) and on the lower end of spectrum, responses came from internet – based
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 22

programs (36.4%). This is an interesting observation to note because in the past, questions

dealing with learning disabilities such as those students who are ELL’s or who are gifted,

produced relatively higher response rates to using internet- based programs in the classroom.

Furthermore, in the context of this question, mnemonics (50%) seemed to be more highly used

with students who have a learning disability. This is an interesting observation considering the

fact that mnemonics was not a highly used form of differentiated instruction to increase reading

comprehension in the previous survey questions. One of the participants stated, “depending on

the student, all methods may be helpful”. This statement alludes to the fact that in order to

effectively increase the reading comprehension of a student, one must first assess the student’s

needs. The rest of the results for this survey question, can be found in the below chart (figure 8).

Of these methods which would you use for a typical student who has a learning disability?
Select all that apply. Why? (optional)
Figure 8

Visual displays-86.4%
Graphic Organizers-72.7%
Technology-68.2%
Internet- based programs-36.4%
Independent reading-31.8%
Metacognitive strategies-45.5%
Opportunities to respond-68.2%
Mnenomics-50%
None-0%

The seventh questions looks at the teacher’s perspective and which methods of

differentiated instruction are used most often in class to increase reading comprehension. After

looking at the data, it is evident that technology rendered the greatest results of 45.5%

implementation in the classroom. Equally just as important are the results of visual displays and

graphic organizers. Both forms of differentiated instruction, visual displays, and graphic
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 23

organizers produced 36.4% implementation in the classroom. Additionally, internet-based

programs and opportunities to respond also produced the same amount of responses of 31.8%.

One component of this survey question that was interesting to note were the amount of

responses that were received for visual displays and graphic organizers (36.4%). In that, the

responses for graphic organizers and visual displays were significantly lower than had been

shown in the past survey questions. Upon looking back at the data many participants responded

positively to using visual displays and graphic organizers as a form of differentiated instruction.

Moreover, the results of this question indicate that while visuals displays and graphic organizers

may be effective forms of differentiated instruction, within the context of this question, graphic

organizers received a decrease in implementation. The results suggest that this may be due to the

fact that graphic organizers and visuals displays may take more time and effort to implement.

Additionally it is important to note that 4.5% of the respondents reported to using

independent reading as a way to foster reading comprehension. One of the participants of the

study provided an explanation as to why independent reading is important to use in the

classroom. This participant stated that by providing students with a chance to independently

read, students are given a better opportunity to enjoy reading, select books that they are

interested in and it further aids the practice of skills. The rest of the results regarding the most

use of differentiated instruction can be found in the chart below (figure 9).
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 24

Of these methods, which do you use the most often? Select one. Why? (optional)

Figure 9
Visual displays-36.4%
Graphic organizers-36.4%
Technology-45.5%
Internet –based program-31.8%
Independent reading-18.2%
Metacognitive strategies-9.1%
Opportunities to respond-31.8%
Mnenomics-4.5%
None-0%
Other-0%

The eighth question of the survey examined the results of why the participants chose the

methods that they use in regards to increasing reading comprehension. After analyzing the

results, it is clear that most of the participants responded to using differentiated instruction

because it produced more student engagement (59.1%). While others participants responded to

saying that differentiated instruction was due to such a diverse classroom (45.5%). However, out

of all the educators that participated, all responded to having no students who have dyslexia

(0%). Furthermore, one participant went on to provide an explanation for the use of graphic

organizers (18.2%). In that, this participant stated that the uses of graphic organizers are a

beneficial form of differentiated instruction because they promote variety. In that, graphic

organizers can be used in a variety of forms such as through the use of the internet or paper.

Nevertheless, it was interesting to note the comparison between the available responses that

produced response rates for student success, easy implementation, variety, and useful aids for

students. The following table illustrates the rest of the results (figure 10).
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 25

Why are those the methods you use most often? Select one. Why? (optional)

Figure 10

 Many ELL Students-9.1%

 Many dyslexic students-0%
 Many gifted students-9.1%
 A diverse classroom-45.5%
 Graphic organizers are
easiest to implement-18.2%
 Technology yields more
student success-36.4%
 Internet-based programs
provide better forms of
differentiated instruction-
22.7%
 Students tend to show more
engagement-59.1%
 Visuals are an easy aid for
students-22.7%

The ninth question analyzed the use of differentiated instruction in direct instruction. In

particular, after examining the results of the below chart it is evident that visual displays (68.2%)

renders the greatest amount of implementation to increase reading comprehension. Yielding the

second greatest results were graphic organizer with an implementation rate of 59.1%. The third

form of differentiated instruction that produced a substantial amount was technology with a

54.4% rate of being used in the field. One aspect of this survey question that was quite

intriguing and that produced low numbers of responses were forms of differentiated instruction

that focused on strategies and independent work. Despite this observation, and as was previously

stated, visual displays, graphic organizers, and technology exhibited the most responses of being

used in the classroom. The following results from this survey question can be found on the next

page (figure 11).

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 26

During instruction, which of the following do you implement for direct instruction? Select
all that apply. Why? (optional)

Figure 11

Visual displays-68.2%
Graphic Organizers-59.1%
Technology-54.4%
Ipad-27.3%
Manipulatives-50%
Internet-based programs-31.8%
Independent reading-27.3%
Metacognitive strategies-31.8%
None-0%
Other-4.5%

The tenth question of this survey looks at the analysis of standardized test results in

correlation to direct instruction. Moreover the question was designed understand the participant’s

thoughts and feelings towards standardized tests. Direct instruction could include any of the

methods spelled out in the previous survey questions or other methods of differentiated

instruction that have been known to increase reading comprehension. After the data was

collected, 13.6% reported to standardized test being extremely useful, 40.9% responded to

standardized test being more useful, 27.3% reported to standardized tests being some what useful

and 18.2% reported to standardized tests not being useful at all. The following data can be found

in figure 12.
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 27

How helpful is the analysis of standardized test results for direct instruction?

Figure 12

The eleventh question of the survey analyzed the responses of the participants in regards

to differentiated instruction and when the participants believe it is necessary to begin

differentiated instruction. After examining the results, most participants responded to enforcing

differentiated instruction immediately (86.4%) and 9.1% responded to implementing

differentiated instruction in the middle of the lesson. Likewise, on the lower end of the

spectrum, 4.5% responded to implementing differentiated instruction at the end of the lesson or

later if the student still seems to be struggling and 0% responded to never using differentiated

instruction.

Additionally, many participants of this study, provided justification as to why and when

they would begin differentiated instruction. One participant noted that they look for areas of

weaknesses in which the student can improve through administering formative assessments.

Customized learning was also a rationale provided by one of the participants in the study. One

participant stated, “I look for patterns in learning”. In the end the most participants responded to

enforcing differentiated instruction immediately upon seeing a need to be addressed. The

following chart can be found on the next page (figure 13).

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 28

When you see a struggling student, when do you begin differentiated instruction? Why?
(optional)

Figure 13

Recommendations

In conclusion, after analyzing the raw data, it clear that out of all the forms of

differentiated instruction, visual displays, graphics organizers, technology yielded the greatest

results of implementation to increase student’s reading comprehension. However it is important

to highlight the survey question regarding which form of differentiated instruction is easiest to

implement. Given this question, the response rates for visual displays was 36.4%, graphic

organizers 27.3%, and for technology 40.9%. Given these statistics, one may interpret these

results to mean that while visual displays and graphic organizers rendered positive responses in

the past survey questions, technology may provide quick and easy forms of differentiated

instruction.

Additionally, in regards to technology and which forms of differentiated instruction are

used most often, technology rendered a substantial amount of implementation of 45.5%.

Similarly, in regards to that same question, visual displays and graphic organizers produced a

lower response rate of 36.4%. Despite these low results, it is important to draw a comparison
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 29

between these three statistics, in that many participants responded positively to the past survey

questions dealing with learning disabilities and most usefulness in reading comprehension with

high response rates to visual displays and graphic organizers. However it is important to note

that with gifted students response rates were lower for visual displays and graphic organizers

with and increase in technology, internet – based programs, independent reading, and

metacognitive strategies. This may be due to the fact that visual displays and graphic organizers

are an effective and useful tool to use in the classroom that helps to increase students’ reading

comprehension with certain learners. Furthermore, many of the participants responded

positively to the fact that differentiated instruction is enforced within the classroom because of a

diverse classroom (45.5%) and because students tend to show more engagement (59.1%) when

different forms of instruction are incorporated.

In light of the research done to increase reading comprehension, visuals displays, graphic

organizers, and technology are strongly recommended. As was previously discussed, many of

the educators responded positively to using visual displays, graphic organizers, and technology

within the classroom as a way to foster reading comprehension. Taking into consideration this

result, it is safe to say that graphic organizers, visual displays, and technology are forms of

differentiated instruction that should be considered when increasing students’ reading

comprehension.

One recommendation or limitation that should be noted is the fact it would have been

useful to know, geographically speaking, where these teachers have taught or are still teaching.

In that, by knowing this statistic, the research done would have obtained more validity and

diversity. Another limitation that was present in the study is the fact many of the survey

questions provided an optional response for the participants to write their thoughts and feelings
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 30

about the survey question at hand. Responses were received from these questions, however not

all the questions received optional open-ended answers. In the future, if all open-ended

questions received answers, the responses chosen by the participants would have weighed more

strongly to the effectiveness of one form of differentiated instruction as opposed to another by

having that rationale.

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 31

References

Awada, G. M., & Gutiérrez-Colón, M. (2017). Effect of inclusion versus segregation on reading

comprehension of EFL learners with dyslexia: Case of Lebanon. English Language

Teaching, 10(9), 49-60.

Botsas, G. (2017). Differences in strategy use in the reading comprehension of narrative and

science texts among students with and without learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 139-162.

Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom (pp. 5-7). Minneapolis,

MN: Free Spirit Publishing Inc.

Niño Santisteban, L. (2014). The effects of differentiated instruction on the literacy process of

learners with interrupted schooling. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, (9),

31-49.

Pilten, G. (2016). A phenomenological study of teacher perceptions of the applicability of

differentiated reading instruction designs in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and

Practice, 16(4), 1419-1451.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects

of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five

elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462-501.

Tracey, D. H., & Young, J. W. (2005). An internet-delivered, individually differentiated reading

program: Effects on students' literacy achievement and technology skills. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491559.pdf
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 32

Yenmez, A. A., & Özpınar. (2017). Pre-service education on differentiated instruction:

Elementary teacher candidates' competences and opinions on the process. Journal of

Education and Practice, 8(5), 87-93.

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 33

Appendix

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the different forms of differentiated instruction used
within the classroom. Differentiated instruction is defined as, “an instructional method which
considers students' differences in preparedness levels, interests and learning styles, develops
learning environments suitable for these differences to give a chance to every individual to
succeed and supports development of students in acquiring information, interpretation and
expressing what they learn” (Heacox, 2002; Oliva, 2005).

1.) What methods of differentiated instruction have you found to be useful for increasing
your student’s reading comprehension? Select all that apply. Why? (optional)
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 Other

2.) Of these methods, which has been the easiest to implement? Select one. Why? (optional)
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 Other

3.) Of these methods which would you use for a typical ELL? Select all that apply. Why?
(optional)
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 None
4.) Of these methods which would you use for a typical student with dyslexia? Select all that
apply. Why? (optional)
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 34

 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 None

5.) Of these methods which would you use for a typical student that is gifted? Select all that
apply. Why? (optional)
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 None

6.) Of these methods which would you use for a typical student who has a learning
disability? Select all that apply. Why? (optional).
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 None

7.) Of these methods, which do you use the most often? Select one. Why? (optional).
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Internet-based program
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 Opportunities to respond
 Mnemonics
 None
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 35

 Other

8.) Why are those the methods you use most often? Select one. Why? (optional).
 Many ELL students
 Many dyslexic students
 Many gifted students
 A diverse classroom
 Graphic Organizers are easiest to implement
 Technology yields more student success
 Internet based programs provide better forms of differentiated instruction
 Students tend to show more engagement
 Visuals are an easy aid for students

9.) During instruction, which of the following do you implement for direct instruction?
Select all that apply. Why? (optional).
 Visual displays
 Graphic organizers
 Technology
 Ipad
 Manipulatives
 Internet-based programs
 Independent reading
 Metacognitive strategies
 None
 Other
10.) How helpful is the analysis of standardized tests for Direct Instruction?
1 (not helpful at all) 2 3 4 (extremely helpful)

11.) When you see a struggling student, when do you begin differentiated instruction? Why?
(optional)
 Immediately
 In the middle of the lesson
 At the end of the lesson
 Later, if the student still seems to be struggling
 Never

Demographics

1.) What grade level do you primarily teach?

 Pk-3
 4-6
 7-9
 10-12
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 36

2.) What area do you primarily teach?

 ELA
 Math
 Science
 History
 Foreign Language
 Fine Arts
 Physical Education
 Special Education

3.) How many years have you been teaching?

___________________________________________

Raw Data
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION ON READING COMPREHENSION 37

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ctCVNwKAPvF3-6IOtiWD6-
BJ7voByQ6flxgAmDXyWmI/edit?usp=sharing