Literature+Review

Literature Review

**Literature Review**
** Methods ** ||  ** Types of Data and Data Sources **  ||  ** Data Collection Strategy and/or Instrument **  ||  ** Data Analysis Approach **  ||  ** Citation (APA 6th Edition) **  ||
 * ** Article ** ||  ** Author & Author’s Background **  ||  ** Statement or Research Problem **  ||  ** Research **
 * 1 || Regina A. Kapusnick and Christine M. Hauslein.

Kapusnick is a teacher in New Jersey. Hauslein is a Reading Specialist in Pennsylvania. ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || Kapusnick, R. A. and C. M. Hauslein. (2001). The 'Silver Cup' of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37(4), 156. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 74986561). ||
 * 2 || Holli M. Levy.

Levy is a teacher in Connecticut. ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || Levy, H., (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction: Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. The Clearing House, 81(4), 161-164. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1453633641). ||
 * 3 || Jay McTighe and John L. Brown.

McTighe is an author and educational consultant. Brown is an educational consultant for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development || This article asks if differentiated instruction and educational standards can co-exist and provide student achievement. ||  ||   ||   ||   || McTighe, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Detente Possible?. //Theory Into Practice //, 44(3), 234-244. Retrieved from ERIC database. ||
 * 4 || Kelly M. Anderson.

Anderson is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. || This article focuses on what methods can be used to ensure student success regardless of ability level of the student. ||  ||   ||   ||   || Kelly M. Anderson. (2007). Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1260881661). ||
 * 5 || Aries Cobb.

Cobb is an Assistant Professor at Baldwin-Wallace College in Ohio. ||  || This article focuses on the difference between differentiated instruction and a direct instruction based software program to increase student success. ||  ||   ||   || Cobb, A,. (2010). TO DIFFERENTIATE OR NOT TO DIFFERENTIATE? Using Internet-Based Technology in the Classroom. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45, 59. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 2084365741). ||
 * 6 || Sylvia G. Lewis and Kelly Batts.

Lewis is an Independent consultant in North Carolina. Batts is a recruitment and retention coordinator in North Carolina. ||  || Based on looking at test results from previous years the administration found that the methods being used were not effective in increasing student achievement. ||  ||   ||   || Lewis, S. G., and Batts, K. (2005). HOW TO IMPLEMENT DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION? ADJUST, ADJUST, ADJUST. Journal of Staff Development, 26 (4), 26-31. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 896008421). ||
 * 7 || Robyn Henderson and Eileen Honan.

Henderson and Honan are from the University of Southern Queensland. ||  ||   || The surveys that were conducted in reference to the article were examined to see if digital literacy was the same in low economic areas. ||  ||   || Henderson, R., and Honan, E., (2008) Digital literacies in two low socioeconomic classrooms: Snapshots of practice. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(2). Retrieved September 10, from http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/2008v7n2art5.pdf. ||
 * 8 || Jean L. Mercier Smith, Hank Fien, Déni Basaraba, and Patricia Travers

Smith is a Research Associate in Oregon. Fien is a Research Associate in Oregon. Basaraba is a Research Associate in Oregon. And Travers is Oregon Reading First Center Coordinator. ||  ||   || The article informs the reader of the types of data that must be collected when trying to increase reading achievement through the usage of differentiated instruction. ||  ||   || Mercier Smith, J. L., Fien, H., Basaraba, D., and Travers, P. (2009). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41(5). Retrieved from EBSCO, September 10. ||
 * 9 || Paul S. George.

George is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Florida. ||  ||   ||   || The article talks about the types of instruments that will be useful in data collection to show if differentiated instruction has made a difference in the students learning. ||  || George, P. S. (2005) A Rationale for Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. //Theory into Practice. 44(3). // Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals. || Hope Boeve.
 * 10 || Sally M. Reis and

Reis is a professor at the University of Connecticut. Boeve is a teacher in New York. ||  ||   ||   || This article shows mixed-method research and the outcomes that can be seen when using surveys, observation, interviews, case studies and pre- and post-testing. ||  || Reis, S. M. and Boeve, H. (2009). How Academically Gifted Elementary, Urban Students Respond to Challenge in an Enriched, Differentiated Reading Program. //Journal for the Education of the Gifted. // 33(2). Prufrock Press Inc. ||
 * 11 || Diana Lawrence-Brown.

Lawrence-Brown is an Assistant Professor at St. Bonaventure University in New York. ||  ||   ||   ||   || Data analysis in this article involves looking a work samples from the student, student test results, observation by outside parties and possibly a medical diagnosis. || Lawrence-Brown, D., (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32 (3). Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals. ||
 * 12 || Bruce Campbell.

Campbell is Associate Professor at Antioch University in Washington. ||  ||   ||   ||   || Campbell uses his 30+ years of teaching experience to analyze the data that is collected on students in order to use the methods that he knows will work for the students and will produce the results that are expected. || Campbell, B., (2009). To-With-By: A three-tiered model for differentiated instruction., New England Reading Association Journal, 44 (2). Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals. ||
 * 13 || Elizabeth “Betty” Marcoux.

Marcoux is an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington. ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || Marcoux, E. (2009, June). Intellectual access to information: the teacher-librarian as facilitator. //Teacher Librarian//, //36//(5), 76. ||
 * 14 || Carol Koechlin and Sandi Zwaan.

Koechlin is a former teacher-librarian and instructor at the University of Toronto.

Zwaan is a former teacher-librarian and instructor at the University of Toronto. ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || Koechlin, C., & Zwaan, S. (2008, June). Everyone wins: differentiation in the school library. //Teacher Librarian//, //35//(5), 8. ||
 * 15 || Dave Edyburn.

Edyburn is from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   || Edyburn, D. (2004). Techonolgy supports for differentiated instruction. //Journal of Special Education Technology//, //19//(2), 60-62. ||
 * ** Critique ** || Articles 1 and 2 were important to me because they explained what Differentiated Instruction is and how it can be used to help students succeed in school. || Both articles are informative in regards to differentiated instruction. One article asks if differentiated instruction has a place beside standards. The other article shows ways that will ensure student success if used properly. || Differentiated Instruction versus Direct Instruction, which method will give the best results. While direct instruction can be successful in some areas, differentiated instruction can provide more student success because of the detail that is given to the student determined by the learning style that works best for the student. || The types of data that can be used to show if differentiated instruction is working would be test scores. By comparing test scores of students before and after the implementation of differentiated instruction, one can tell by increases or decreases in the scores if the methods are working. || The use of interviews, observations, surveys, questionnaires, and case studies are discussed as instruments that can be used to gather data. || Both articles do not give information about analysis of data, rather they both present information about either methods to use or the IEP of students and how differentiated instruction can be added to that plan. ||   ||
 * Similarities || Both articles were similar in that they discussed differentiated instruction and how it can help students. || The only similarity was the topic of differentiated instruction. || Not very similar, some ideas are the same but most differ. || Both articles give examples of data that was collected and the sources from which the data came. || The articles cover mixed method research and observation of two classrooms as ways to gather the data and the strategies or instruments that can be helpful in the collection of data. || Both articles talk about methods that can be used to help a student succeed through differentiated instruction. ||   ||
 * Differences || One article gave methods that can be used to determine the type of learning a student is and the other article discussed what differentiated instruction was. || One article provided methods to use when implementing differentiated instruction and the other showed if it could exist peacefully alongside educational standards. || The topics are different in that one article shows two methods that are used to help students that are not progressing and the other article talks about the methods that were implemented at a school who did not meet the standards of growth that was expected. || The articles are taking data from different countries and possibly different economic background in regards to the students who were involved in the study. || Not many differences were present in my opinion. || The methods presented are different and yet somewhat similar to get other. ||   ||
 * Strengths || Both to me were strong and informative articles || The argument that differentiated instruction and educational standards could co-exist and achievement can be made. || Both to me were strong and informative articles || Both to me were strong and informative articles || Both were very explicit in the explanation of the instrument used and the reasons behind using that instrument as opposed to other instruments. || The article in which the IEP process is explained and ways to include strategies for differentiated instruction in the IEP plan. ||   ||
 * Weak Areas || I did not come across any weaknesses. || I did not come across any weaknesses. || I did not come across any weaknesses. || I did not come across any weaknesses. || I did not come across any weaknesses. || I did not come across any weaknesses. ||   ||
 * Take Aways || The methods you can use to determine the type of learner a student is and a clear explanation of what differentiated instruction is and how it can help students. || Both articles are full of information that I can share with teachers in my school. || I will take away more from the article that compares direct instruction to differentiated instruction than the other article. || The only things I will take with me from these articles are the ways that can be used to gather the data and the sources that will provide the data. || The examples of the instruments and the ways that those instruments work best to provide the data that is needed for analysis. || I will take away a better understanding of the IEP process and ways that students can learn and thrive by using Differentiated Instruction. ||   ||