Page |1

Table of Contents
Chapter 1.....................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction to the Study............................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................................................5
Nature of the Study.....................................................................................................................................7
Assumptions................................................................................................................................................8
Summary...................................................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2...................................................................................................................................................12
LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................................12
Education and Students With Disabilities..................................................................................................17
Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................21
Chapter 3...................................................................................................................................................27
Methodology and questions......................................................................................................................27
Research Design........................................................................................................................................31
Chapter 4...................................................................................................................................................34
Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................................34
Data Collection..........................................................................................................................................36
Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................................................38
Summary...................................................................................................................................................42
FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................................44
Interpretation of the Findings....................................................................................................................44
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................48
Implications...............................................................................................................................................52
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................54
References.................................................................................................................................................57
Page |2

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Study

Introduction
More than a decade ago education was declared a national priority; but most schools remain

unchanged. According to Wagner (2008), only one-third of high school graduates are prepared

for college, and 40% of all students entering college need to attend a medical room. The current

education system in the United States needs more research to determine the best way for teachers

to use the planning system to prepare for any type of education for higher education or careers.

The average reading score for 13-year-olds saw only a small increase in 2008 and has not

improved significantly since 1992, according to long-term average reading score data from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The results of a survey conducted with

17-year-olds are no different from the 1970s.

In education, there is recognition of the need to prepare generalist and specialist teachers to meet

the needs of students with disabilities and diverse learners. Cognitive and brain-based thinking

have become important tools to improve student learning outcomes in special education. Both

describe the teaching process that requires clear and precise guidance. These assumptions are

based on students' personal strengths, weaknesses, needs and learning styles, as well as cognitive

processes. Incorporating different teachers teaching in the general education classroom and

whether the student has a disability will lead to solutions to close the achievement gap between

special education girls and students without disabilities.

According to the Disability Education Act (2004), this includes a commitment for all students to

receive their education alongside their non-disabled peers within the LRE or, as far as possible,
Page |3

in the general education curriculum. Additionally, inclusivity is also mandated by the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires teachers to differentiate instruction

across the curriculum to meet the special educational needs of all students. Inclusion Providing

equal education to students with disabilities can lead to success and improve relationships with

their non-disabled peers. Students without disabilities can also benefit from participation by

developing a better understanding, tolerance and acceptance of diversity (Ryan, 2006).

Neurocognitive Psychology provides a foundation for a variety of methods that teach students'

cognitive abilities and interests (Jang, Deci, & Reeve, 2010). Kazu (2009) defined individual

learning differences as personality, thinking, ability and intelligence characteristics. Teachers

need to examine what students like and dislike to learn in order to encourage and use students'

abilities, reveal more truths and clarify what needs to be learned, that is, the reality of teaching

(Seifert, 2004. Research shows that teachers' Practice Providing differentiated instruction based

on students' learning and interests is the most can be an effective method (Wormelli,

2006).Social cognition (Bandura, 2002) and neurocognitive learning theories (Jensen, 2005)

show that students' motivation and learning are directly related to teaching and learning

Individual student needs and learning styles. When developing teaching methods, teachers must

(a) pay attention to the meaning of the content,

(b) retain knowledge of individual students, and

(c) know the existing content.

Cognitive psychology and neurocognitive learning theory recognize the importance of

instructional differences. The main purpose is to identify students' strengths and weaknesses and

give specific recommendations so that students can learn well. Good teachers need to understand
Page |4

the curriculum and students who should determine instruction (Kazu, 2009). For more than 25

years, national test results have shown only modest increases in college scores (NAEP, 2011).

Additionally, according to the Project for International Student Assessment (2009), the United

States has one of the largest gaps between high-performing and low-performing students in the

world's business arena. According to Nie and Lau (2010), this is still a concern because teachers

in the United States have not considered how the teacher's style and instructional design affect

learning. Teachers who consider how students learn and engage at different levels of instruction

can improve learning outcomes (Smith, 2007). This study will examine how different teaching

methods affect the academic performance of students with and without disabilities in order to

advance educational research in this area with the goal of developing all students and closing the

achievement gap.

Barnett (2011) found that teachers should use information to assess students' strengths and

weaknesses in teaching because failure to do so could impact students' reading scores. According

to Clark (2005), inclusion for all students and its success depend on the use of different teaching

methods according to teachers' practices and students' needs. Differentiated instruction

encourages student self-determination and helps provide a foundation for learning beyond

specific courses.

Special education is founded on the belief that all students are capable and willing to learn. All

stakeholders (parents, administrators, school districts, school boards, teachers, etc.) have a

responsibility to provide appropriate education for each student, to recognize and understand the

uniqueness of each student, to promote the value and dignity of each student, and to elevate the

value of each student. Educational success for every student (IDEA, 2004).
Page |5

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to support the teaching of integrated and differentiated instruction

through pre-teaching and re-teaching to improve learning outcomes. This study examined the

impact of different teaching methods on the LRE learning outcomes of students with and without

disabilities. In order to support education for diverse and differentiated teaching and learning,

teachers must share the vision and understanding that all children can learn and that students

must be differentiated from pre-teaching and re-teaching techniques to close the reading gap

between students and students with disabilities. talented students. The use of pretests and pretests

provides assessment data to guide instruction based on students' strengths and weaknesses, which

should be retaught and retaught to struggling students (Barnett, 2011). Solheim (2011) found that

teachers' understanding of the learning process and psychological science can affect teachers'

teaching practices and academic success. Tolerance does not mean diversion of water; Rather, it

means teaching differently when depth of knowledge is needed (Clark, 2005).

The purpose of this study is to reveal the effectiveness of different teaching methods (whether

students received prior and repeated instruction) and student types (students in shared classes) as

measured by MSA (dependent variable) performance in the 8th Grade Reading course. Integrated

education is provided to students with and without disabilities in classes with two teachers, one a

general educator and the other a special educator.

The independent variable of teaching strategies based on students' knowledge and specific

instruction can be accomplished by making adjustments in content, methods, or delivery.

Different lessons are classified according to the group of students being previewed and/or
Page |6

retaught. In this study, different teaching methods were divided according to percentage rates.

The city average is 31 percent.

The second variable is whether the student is disabled or not. This independent modification is

for special education students or students without disabilities.

A disabled student is a student who has an up-to-date Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

written through the special education system for disabled individuals. Non-disabled students do

not have an IEP or disability ID card.

The difference is the 8th grade MSA reading score, which is based on a continuous scale where

scores are weighted against state performance standards and reported as a percentage.MSA

scores are calculated based on the number of students who managed to read in the eighth grade.

8th Grade MSA scores are based on a continuous scale that provides minimum and maximum

scores for each student's reading ability. A continuous variable can have an infinite number of

variables between two elements (Creswell, 2009).

The independent “teaching diversity” method is based on data collected by researchers who

joined a team of 13 experts developing instructional tools in the field of special education (Anne

Arundel County Instructional Coaching Tool, Appendix A), aiming to identify specific indicators

of instructional diversity. in the class. From September 2011 to January 2013, the team evaluated

informal classrooms in 17 secondary schools using teaching tools. Figures for different teaching

methods are calculated as the percentage of each school using pre-school teaching and reteaching

in common classrooms, compared to the city-wide average of 31 percent.

As the student population increases in diversity, general education and special education teachers

must work harder to improve educational outcomes for all students by teaching differently.
Page |7

Collaborative planning encourages teachers to use assessment data to support pre- and reteaching

by connecting them with students in need in the classroom (Corno, 2008). Differentiated

classroom instruction recognizes that not all students learn the same things or achieve desired

results at the same time (Kazu, 2009). It encourages ongoing assessment and evaluation to ensure

that students are learning and, if they are not, learning or reteaching in a specific or different way

(Barnett, 2011). The following research questions were formulated to guide this study.

Nature of the Study

The nature of this research is an experimental design in a natural environment. This study used a

post hoc design in which subjects (i.e., students) were not randomly assigned to classrooms with

or without differentiated instruction. Participants in this study may or may not have received

different training, which was not controlled for. This study used a control group in which

students were not brought together and there was no physical control in the experiment. It has

not yet been determined which students will receive differentiated instruction and which will not.

Using data collected using teaching aids in shared classrooms (special teachers and general

education teachers) in 17 secondary schools, the study determined the percentage of use of

different teaching methods across schools compared to the average for all secondary schools.

Schools in Anne Arundel County, Maryland have MSA scores in reading. MSA performance is

evaluated using different teaching methods and whether students have disabilities.

The purpose of quantitative analysis is to determine how different teaching methods make a

significant difference in helping close inequities and improve learning for all students. This

quasi-experiment makes the sampling technique possible in a natural school setting. This study

examined whether there was an impact on MSA between different teaching methods and student
Page |8

performance. Students are placed in the same class; therefore, this study is a post-hoc experiment

in which students were first assigned to groups. This study used a two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) to examine the effects of instructional variables on the MSA performance of eighth-

grade students in 17 middle schools. Information regarding the use of different instructional

strategies was obtained from data collected from instructional aids provided by the Anne Arundel

County School District. Chapter 3 will discuss the nature of the study and the literature review in

more detail.

Assumptions

This study assumes that all students receiving special services in shared classrooms have a valid

IEP at the time the MSA is implemented. It is assumed that students will also receive the

assistance and support specified in their Individual Education Plan. Vygotsky's theory is

confirmed by this research, which supports that students should be challenged to reach their

potential. Vygotsky's (1978) ZPD theory provides a perspective that supports the connection

between psychological, social, and cultural processes of learning. Cultural context, as it relates to

the content and understanding of education and values, emphasizes the importance of engaging

in the learning process with learners and understanding cultural differences to understand the

“what” and “why” of human emotions. . The role of the teacher is that of the teacher who

supervises and facilitates the learning process. The problem is that in any given course, for any

content, students will be at varying levels or levels of ZDP content, and it is likely that some

students will leave without the skills and still understand the content. Neuroscience research

shows that the brain's primary function is survival, and learning to operate outside the ZPD can

create stress. Students will fight or flee to avoid appearing incompetent in front of their peers.
Page |9

The integration of the learning environment, curriculum, assessment, instruction and classroom

management and student perceptions are related to the planning and implementation of teacher

instruction with different texts (Vallerand and Lalande, 2011). Federal laws and regulations have

established new guidelines for students with disabilities (No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB],

2001, IDEA, 2009). These activities require educators to reexamine the beliefs and pedagogies of

each subject to benefit academic, professional, and civic engagement.

The main limitations of this study are that it is retrospective, there are many uncontrollable

factors, and it is not possible to assign groups in a simple sample. Another limitation of this study

is the reliance on the expertise of special educators and general educators in pretest and test

design. These limitations affect the effectiveness of the results (Creswell, 2009). Psychological

theory recognizes the importance of psychological processes, understanding how people learn,

and self-efficacy, which is the work of a person's beliefs and norms (Bandura, 2002). It shows

that internal learning is related to belief, thinking and learning (Klassen, 2010). But social

psychology cannot explain why test scores are low and does not help stakeholders engage with

teachers in today's society. . According to Zhang et al. (2010), student participation in learning

requires autonomy, support, and modeling. Differentiated instruction maximizes each student's

potential by designing lessons based on student learning in different contexts. He wants teachers

to take a different approach to students sometimes or most of the time. Innovation will teach

students to ask teachers to self-evaluate and re-motivate by setting personal learning goals and

setting learning goals (Ryan, 2006).

The education system is responsible for the student's success and learning. students can learn.

Although teachers change their brains every day through teaching, there is still a gap in the

literature regarding the influence and support of nature in explanations of learning and practices.
P a g e | 10

The application of neuroscience knowledge in the classroom leads to a change in society that

recognizes the integration of biology and the environment (Jensen, 2006). Because brain tests are

conducted in a controlled environment, the data cannot be applied to memory and memory-

related psychological processes in natural classrooms (Murphy and Benton, 2010). However,

teachers are a valuable resource that can provide neurologists with data-based information for

further investigation and research.

Summary

The driving philosophy behind special education is that every child can learn. Effective teaching

strategies and differentiated instruction can provide all students with opportunities to socialize,

build friendships, and increase academic success. Cognitive psychology and the psychology of

learning to understand how and why students learn. Students' self-efficacy, motivation and

academic success are related to the classroom environment and student-student relationships

(Dweck, 2002). Use assessment to differentiate instruction Assessment should guide instruction,

allow for a variety of activities, be aligned with student learning and provide actionable

instruction, and advance and reteach difficult students (Barnett, 2011). The impact of classroom

instruction on student achievement in secondary school is an important area of educational

research. Effective teaching methods such as interactive teaching, student participation, and self-

directed learning can improve student understanding and learning outcomes. Additionally, a

positive classroom environment, supportive teachers, and appropriate technology contribute to

the overall development of students. For example, outdated or ineffective instruction can hinder

student learning. Research shows that student pathways, active learning, and differentiated
P a g e | 11

instruction based on student needs can lead to increased performance and academic achievement

in schools.

Emotional intelligence and brain learning play an important role in special education. They

define teaching as a process in which implicit and explicit teaching is used, based on students'

own needs and standards as well as their cognitive development (Dever and Karabenick, 2011;

Jensen, 2005; Kazu, 2009; Smith, 2007; Sousa, 2009; Wagner, 2008). The relationship between

instructional strategies and student performance may explain differences between students with

disabilities and students without disabilities. Student learning and motivation depend on

instruction that differentiates according to students' individual learning needs and provides

students with the opportunity to make their own decisions, which provides the framework for

learning beyond the classroom (Clark, 2005). Chapter 2 will present a literature review on the

importance of differentiating instruction and helping students in LRE. The literature review

includes the background and legitimacy of using instructional strategies to increase the

achievement of all students. This study examines the effects of MSA's integrated teaching and

learning outcomes in reading, with particular emphasis on whether students have disabilities and

the achievement of boys, special education girls, and students without disabilities.
P a g e | 12

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Effective teaching strategies and differentiated instruction provide students with disabilities with

opportunities to participate in LRE, improving their learning and mental health. This is based on

the philosophy of special education that every child can learn. Nationally, scores on state

secondary school assessments have not improved significantly since 1992; The average 8th grade

reading score increased only 1 point from 2007 and 4 points from 1992 (NAEP, 2011). In Anne

Arundel County, Maryland, MSA scores for 8th grade students with disabilities continued to

decline, while scores for students without disabilities increased only slightly, making no

significant difference (Maryland State Department of Education [MSDE], 2013).

LRE promotes social participation and relationships; students with and without disabilities

benefit from participation (Reiss, 2004). Cognitive psychology and the psychology of learning to

understand how and why students learn. Students' self-efficacy, motivation and academic success

are related to the classroom and student-student relationships, relationships between students.

The success of inclusion and LRE depends on the guidance and collaboration of special

educators and general education. Students need to be encouraged to learn, make their own

decisions, and feel safe and protected in the learning environment. A supportive environment for

students requires decision-making that includes multiple perspectives, increased understanding,

and professional development. Social change is a process, not an outcome. Driving change in

U.S. education requires educators to reconnect and rethink how and why students learn, as well

as their own goals and career aspirations. The goal of education reform should reflect the global

achievement gap between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Federal laws
P a g e | 13

and regulations have established new guidelines for students with disabilities, such as NCLB

(2002) and IDEA (2004). These activities require teachers to re-examine their belief system and

teaching methods in order to be effective in all types of learning. Special educators and general

educators must work together to identify the unique and diverse needs of the students they serve.

Special education consists of three independent groups of students with severe, mental and

physical disabilities. On December 3, 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, which reauthorized IDEA to improve the

education of students with disabilities and placed strict responsibilities on schools, districts, and

states responsible for education. students with disabilities This legislation represents Congress's

attempt to address challenges in services and educational standards for students with disabilities

identified in NCLB (2001). NCLB and IDEA (2004) aim to help students achieve the highest

levels of academic success; However, efforts to integrate these requirements have led

stakeholders to consider changes to specific educational processes and to require teachers to

develop Individual Education Plans; because each A. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

is provided to each student according to the child's needs.

With a focus on compliance and bureaucracy rather than academic achievement and social

outcomes, the current U.S. system fails too many children with disabilities. In the state of

Maryland, IDEA (2004), in combination with the state law known as the Code of Maryland

Regulations (COMAR), monitors compliance and academic performance of students who have

disabilities. Originally, IDEA included a commitment to pay 40% of the average per-student cost

for every special education student. Until passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act in 2009, which increased federal funding significantly, Congress was funding IDEA at less

than 18% for students with disabilities (US Department of Education, 2006). Although funding is
P a g e | 14

important for students who require extensive accommodations to access the general curriculum,

needs vary with individuals, and instructional pedagogy must move into the 21st century with

technology and instructional methods that have been transformed from a cognitive neuroscience

framework to recognize that all children do not come to school with the same intellectual tools.

Funding mechanisms continue to raise concern through the reauthorization of IDEA in which

states will be given financial incentives for placement decisions. Not all stakeholders share a

common language or a collaborative definition for the implementation of effective services or

instructional methods that will meet the diverse needs of learners, and this has led to over

identification of students requiring special education services and a disproportionate number of

children misclassified as having a disability and being misplaced and excluded from non-

disabled peers. This can cause stigmatization and other long-term consequences for students

(Ortiz, 2002). IDEA and NCLB (2001) caused educators to make a paradigm shift that moves

education from a culture of compliance to a culture of accountability for results for all children.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is committed to Results Driven

Accountability (RDA). Local educational agencies are held accountable through compliance

procedures set by NCLB and IDEA that mandate monitoring school performance for students

with disabilities. Compliance refers to IDEA program requirements. The current U.S. system

places heavy emphasis on procedural compliance and less focus on how the requirements impact

student learning outcomes and accountability for how instruction is delivered to meet diverse

student learning needs, thus providing more accountability at local levels to ensure all students

are learning based student state assessment scores across all states and individual school

jurisdictions. This is cause to provide a more balanced approach between compliance and
P a g e | 15

program effectiveness, with the greatest impact being increased academic performance for

students.

Teachers who foster self-esteem increase student motivation for learning (Ferkany, 2008).

Teachers can enhance student belief systems and confidence by having an inviting student-

centered classroom that is safe and free from harsh criticism. Student self-esteem is facilitated

within the culture of the school and classroom environment, which are interrelated with teacher

practices and instruction. It is important for all students to believe they can succeed based on

their own efforts (Geary, 2009). Learners construct knowledge from individual and social

experiences, emotions, motivation, aptitude, beliefs, values, self-awareness, purpose, and

meaning (Zurbriggen & Sturman, 2002). An increase in the perceptions of students, teachers, and

others regarding the need to provide students with disabilities access to the general curriculum

challenges educational systems to appropriately address the needs of students with disabilities

and prepare them for higher standards.

Differentiated instruction is an active approach that uses preteaching and reteaching based on

formative assessments to provide specialized instruction for struggling learners as needed

through modified content, methodology, or delivery. It is an effective method of providing

instruction that challenges all students to discover their unique interests and abilities (Klassen,

2010). Differentiated instruction acknowledges that all students bring their own versions of the

world into the classroom, and all students do not learn the same way or at the same time.

Classroom environments that model and instill acceptance for differences facilitate student

engagement and enhance academic performance (Corno, 2008). Students demonstrate higher

achievement when they are expected to meet their full potential and have a positive student–

teacher relationship (Dweck, 2000). However, teachers often have negative beliefs and attitudes
P a g e | 16

toward students with disabilities and do not hold the same high expectations for them that they

hold for students without disabilities. This phenomenon is called the expectancy effect, which is

represented through instructional practices that do not extend to students with disabilities the

appropriate academic challenges that enhance academic performance or require students to meet

their full potential (Ferguson, 2007).

Research Strategy Literature gathered for this review includes articles obtained from multiple

sources such as books, journals, and government documents regarding student academic

progress, response to intervention, inclusion, and the global achievement gap between students

with and without special education needs. Online searches were conducted through the Walden

online library in which Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete, ERIC, and

PSYC INFO databases were accessed using general search terms “differentiated instruction,”

“adaptive instruction,” “learning disabilities,” “academic progress in reading,” and “teaching

students in least-restrictive environments.” Additionally, important information was obtained

from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES); the U.S. Department of Education,

and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). There was not extensive literature

regarding how inclusion opportunities and instructional practices bridge the achievement gap

between students with learning disabilities and their nondisabled peers. A large amount of

literature was descriptive regarding how classroom environment and teacher practices have a

positive correlation to student self-efficacy that increases student achievement. Thus, the content

of this literature review aims at identifying how instructional practices and inclusion may benefit

students by using a universal design that facilitates higher level learning for all students by

differentiating instruction to increase academic performance for all students, whether or not a
P a g e | 17

student has a disability, and which may actually assist in narrowing the achievement gap between

special education students and students without disabilities.

Education and Students With Disabilities

All students have the right to an FAPE, and special education and an LRE provide that for

students with disabilities, including through specialized instruction and related services such as

speech or language that are designed based on individual student need. IDEA (2004) was

instrumental to providing the full continuum of educational opportunities offered in the LRE for

each student. It is the duty of all stakeholders to uphold the rights of students with disabilities,

protect parents, and provide appropriate educational programs for students free from stigma or

criticism (IDEA, 2004). To provide an LRE for all students, several objectives refer to how

students are identified for special education and the placement process. Identifying a child with a

disability is an ongoing process that may begin at birth and continues until age 20. All educators

have the responsibility to respond to progress and interventions to ensure students are making

annual progress toward specific goals and objectives as outlined in their IEPs (IDEA, 2004). The

IEP should be specific and identify student strengths and weaknesses as they apply to

educational impact as well as any related services the student may need that assist them to access

the curriculum in the LRE. The IEP school team must work collaboratively with the student and

parents to ensure equal footing and a comprehensive student program. Communication with

parents offers the opportunity to partner with schools to ensure students are receiving the most

appropriate interventions and support in the LRE. Other considerations address confidentiality of

information, procedural rights of parents and students, and transition activities that foster self-

determination skills and postsecondary transition into adult life. Supporting the LRE for students
P a g e | 18

with disabilities requires that special and general educators have continued opportunities for

professional development and instructional coaching to enhance their instructional skills (Darling

Hammond, 2000).

The organizational culture, such as shared beliefs, expectations, and values, within a school

environment create an open school climate that promotes inclusion and effective teaching

practices (Weiner, 2008). Student-centered classrooms that guide instruction are based on student

diversity and learning profiles that consider the best interest of the student and direct instructors

to facilitate the learning process through strategic planning using a variety of activities,

understanding content specific criteria, and conducting formative assessments that inform

instruction and encourage differences while holding high expectations for all students (Ortiz,

Flanagan, & Dynda, 2008). Cognitive psychology recognizes the teacher as a guide and validates

that learning is the reciprocal interactions of teacher to student and student to student. Nie and

Lau (2010) conducted a quantitative study in which some students were instructed with either a

constructivist or didactic approach. The students who received a constructivist’s approach to

instruction were more motivated and engaged in the lesson. These students reported that the

learning was useful, relevant, and individualized. Student engagement is directly correlated to

instructional practices (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

Inclusion practices and its’ success is dependent on instructional practices and the use of

differentiated instruction. Clark (2005) contended inclusion works for all students based on

individual student learning needs as well as the intent to provide students selfdetermination skills

that foster a foundation for learning beyond content-specific curriculum. Inclusion is a concept

that has been drawing attention for several years based on the premise that students with and

without disabilities can benefit from increased opportunities with each other (IDEA, 2004).
P a g e | 19

RtI challenges educators to rethink how and why students succeed. Instruction that is

differentiated considers individual learning styles across settings and classroom factors and also

uses data from a variety of informal alternative methods of assessment to design lessons based

on student strengths and weaknesses (Corno.2008). Fisher (2012, p. 166) identified the ethics of

teaching with a pedagogical obligation for stakeholders to come together and disclose their

scholarly judgment and knowledge to inform instructional practices that provide students with an

accurate picture of the content that fosters self-examination and reflection to encourage further

learning. Educating students in the 21st century requires developing a comprehensive picture of

student learning that is not dependent on a label or diagnosis but on student strengths and

weaknesses; it is about formulating and testing hypotheses regarding what a student can and

cannot do and then helping those who work with them understand why the student experiences

patterns of strengths and weaknesses (Freeman & Miller, 2001). According to the National

Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010) and the National Center for Educational Progress

(NAEP, 2011), students with disabilities are not making significant academic gains compared to

nondisabled student groups. The state of special education according to the NCES (2010) in

accordance with NCLB (2001) all students were required to be proficient or advanced in reading

and math by 2014. As the targets increase, students with disabilities are not making adequate

growth to keep up with increasing Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO).

Originally intended as flexible instruments of learning, IEPs have evolved into written records of

compliance with formal instruments and state and local academic assessments. Identification of

learning and/or behavior disabilities has been significantly disproportionate to ethnic and English

learners due to the construction of intelligence tests. Students have been labeled and placed in

special education programs as well as alternative schools based on test bias and misuse (Ortiz,
P a g e | 20

2008). For example, students with sensory or physical deficits have been misdiagnosed and

misclassified due to their inability to respond or attend to a specific test, causing concern for test

misuse and potential bias. Students with special needs require highly competent professionals

who uphold ethical practices to administer appropriate test accommodations and/or modification

of the test (AREA, 2007 p. 102). The emphasis on prevention versus identification and eligibility

of a disability must consider the role of teachers to provide adequate instruction and deliver

respect for student diversity, culture, language, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. IDEA (2004)

and NCLB (2001) struggle to coexist balancing new demands for accountability, a need to

safeguard pre-existing protections, and implementation of individualized education programs to

increase academic performance for all students.

Rethinking special education in the 21st century requires rethinking how and why students learn

(Geary, 2009). Guthrie et al. (2007) found that reading comprehension and student achievement

were directly related to instructional strategies that employed clear instructional strategies across

a variety of classroom activities, such as students' learning preferences, needs, relationships, and

teacher-student autonomy. Solheim (2011) states that students should be motivated to learn; If

students with good self-efficacy avoid reading difficulties and hinder their learning, this may

negatively affect their development. Smith (2007) stated that there are teachers who understand

cognitive skills and have a deep understanding of how students should be trained and trained.

IDEA (2004) should provide advance support for equity and inclusion for all students, including

assessment and monitoring of teacher competencies and development opportunities. RtI can only

work if there is greater support from partners to promote quality classrooms for students, identify

educational and personal services, and use individualized instruction to make knowledge

accessible to all students. IDEA should encourage states and localities to fulfill the federal
P a g e | 21

government's commitment to promote and provide qualified teachers in all counties to recruit

and retain teachers. The education system must evolve to enable teachers to meet the diverse

needs of students in rural and urban communities, including initiating collaboration with federal,

state, and local agencies and among schools and families. This is an important task due to the

diversity and communication differences of the classroom environment and the global economy,

which must reflect cultural heritage and adapt to the learning process (MSDE, 2011).

Summary and Conclusions

Key points in the literature confirm Vygotsky's historical perspective on thinking about learning

as an active process and interaction between students and teacher that supports the student's

ability to create meaning through a variety of methods. Sousa (2009) suggested that psychology

provides a psychological model for teaching many things that uses intrinsic and extrinsic values,

including reviewing and rethinking teaching methods to inform students of academic knowledge,

genetics, culture, and experience. . Social learning theory also argues that course design will

create effective classroom discussions; use strategic questions and full participation; create

different lessons; and overall, evaluate, collect, and use evidence of learning to make changes.

(Money, 2011). Student profiling often emphasizes the importance of: encouraging student self-

evaluation helping students monitor their own learning so they know how to perform well

leading to personal learning characteristics knowing the type of effort that leads to success and

enhancing their learning to achieve desired goals and supporting metacognitive ideas ability to

adjust. Wormelli (2006) defines differentiated instruction as an integrated approach to providing

instruction to more than one student in order to promote learning and motivation. Effective

teaching and learning is about teachers' practices that create and create positive ideas for
P a g e | 22

students, thereby increasing motivation and learning. The design of educational technology

should be based on students' preparation (pre-assessment, evaluation design), student knowledge,

academic knowledge, professional knowledge thinking and the student's level of human

development (Steifert, 2004). Brain learning (Jensen, 2005) suggests that learning difficulties

involve multiple neural pathways; Logical thinking precedes intellectual knowledge. The

Reticular Activation System (RAS) filters all incoming data. The strongest learning is physical

needs. If the environment is too stressful, students may appear bored, less productive, or less

engaged because the filter is open (Wormelli, 2007). Internal and external factors influence how

and why students learn. Other important factors include the physical environment, room

temperature, peer support, and relationships with teachers. Intrinsic factors are based on the

brain's ability to facilitate learning. These factors include involvement (attention and action

toward the goal), repetition (initiation, review, and revision), comprehension (proficiency, speed,

and knowledge), integration (facts and prior knowledge), time (date and time). spaced learning),

error correction (errors, feedback, and support), and emotional (safety and success).

The cognitive process clearly shows that learning is related to motivation and self-esteem. Social

learning theory recognizes that motivation and self-esteem are related to teaching styles because

they are related to self-directed learning and students' thoughts about the cloud atmosphere in the

classroom (Kelly, 2008). Cognitive and cognitive neuroscience show that information in context

is associated with beliefs, emotions, and learning, and describe behavior as a continuous product

of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. This section addresses the educational

development of all students. In addition, inclusive and differentiated education is valid for

students with and without disabilities, and the issue of closing the educational gap between

students with special needs and students without learning disabilities is also relevant.
P a g e | 23

This study shows differences in the literature based on effective teaching; This means that using

different teaching methods may be a way to improve learning outcomes. It is positive for all

students and provides students with opportunities to grow in a meaningful environment. .

Concerning the training of special teachers and general teachers. An inclusive environment and

differentiated instruction will be key to enhancing learning and providing equal learning

opportunities for all students, while recognizing that not all students learn the same way and may

have inaccurate and inconsistent thought patterns. Asking students what they know and asking

them to relate it is also important to increase their knowledge about the connections to learning

(Jensen, 2005). Mental practice can improve performance (Jensen, 2005). Psychological

structure, motivation and self-esteem are additional variables related to the classroom

environment, student beliefs and practices (Sousa, 2009). Authentic teaching is the analysis and

design of lessons based on different students in order to increase student motivation (Ferkany,

2008). Cognitive psychology is concerned with the importance of psychological processes,

understanding of how students learn, and self-efficacy as a function of personal beliefs and

standards. Motivation to promote social change in education depends on goals and expectations

regarding success or failure. External factors are also important in supporting social change.

Support and encouragement from all stakeholders, as well as environmental support, influence

motivation and social change (Bandura and Locke, 2003).

Differentiated instruction, the use of pre-teaching and re-teaching based on formative

assessments, considers how students learn and provides optimal conditions for the learning

process (Corno, 2008). Educators do not teach the brain to think; they help learners organize

information to enhance complex processing (Sousa, 2006). Teacher practices have a direct

relationship to student motivation and engagement, and feedback is one of the greatest sources of
P a g e | 24

intrinsic motivation (Jensen, 2005). Self-esteem is connected to the confidence and motivation

children need to engage in and achieve educational goals and can and should be facilitated

socially, that is, not only, or even primarily, through the interactions between teacher and student,

but between student and the social environment of the school itself (Ferkany, 2008). According

to Jensen (2005), brain-based teaching and cognitive social learning theories imply it is a process

that considers the steps necessary before, during, and after class to increase academic benefits for

all students. Teachers with fluid mindsets understand all students can learn, and they create work

to empower all types of learners (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011). Bloom’s Taxonomy is a perfect

example of extended thinking that facilitates using all five senses to gather information from the

environment, encouraging thinking and learning (as cited in Sousa, 2006). Using this knowledge

and the revised taxonomy, teachers can creatively design the classroom to encourage both

convergent and divergent thinking.

Social change requires motivation that is rooted in self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem is

social in nature, and redesigning instructional practices requires a sense of self-worth and a sense

of belonging to and acceptance by most educators to reinforce a change. As a consequence,

teachers may stop differentiating instruction if stakeholders (educators, parents, administrators,

specialists, and institutions of higher education) do not value effort and ability and there is no

guarantee of success. Self-efficacy may require professional development opportunities to show

what successful performance looks like, consider personal learning traits, recognize the kind of

effort that results in success, and enable adapting their instruction to achieve the desired goals

and facilitate meta-cognitive strategies. Educating students in the 21st century requires

developing a comprehensive picture of student learning that is not dependent on a label or

diagnosis but on student strengths and weaknesses; it is about formulating and testing hypotheses
P a g e | 25

regarding what a student can and cannot do and then helping those who work with them

understand why the student experiences patterns of strengths and weaknesses (Freeman & Miller,

2001).

Guthrie et al. (2007) found that reading comprehension and student progress are directly related

to instructional practices that use explicit strategies based on individual student interests and

needs, relevance, and also student–teacher autonomy. Solheim (2011) found that students must

be motivated to learn; students with low self-efficacy avoid challenging reading tasks and inhibit

their learning opportunities, and this negatively influences their development. Learning occurs

when content is delivered in a way that fosters confidence and a sense of personal responsibility

that engages and motivates students for reading (Smith, 2007). Hence, this theoretical

perspective acknowledges the evolution of education that encourages a multidimensional

approach to understanding behavior and recognizes the interrelatedness of the brain and

environment is always developing and changing based on social demands and problems.

Future implications suggests that to reduce identification rates of students with disabilities,

prevent students from being misrepresented, and narrow the achievement gap, requires a change

in pedagogy and a paradigm shift to how teachers deliver instruction, as well as consideration of

practices for differentiating instruction that address the unique learning needs of students in a

multicultural, multimedia, and global economy. Teaching and pedagogical philosophy supersede

content knowledge (Wagner, 2008). This is a major task given the diversity of classroom

environments and a global economy that must reflect cultural heritages and accommodate

different styles of learning and communication (MSDE, 2011).

The review of this literature has discussed research and literature connected to the research

questions for the proposed study.

P a g e | 26

Q1; As a student or an educator, are you implemented or experienced FLIP learning, what is your

opinion of this instructional style.

Q2; When teachers use differentiated instruction, do students' reading scores on the Maryland

State Assessments (MSA) significantly change?

Q3; Does a student's ability to pass the MSA significantly change depending on whether or not

they have a disability?

P a g e | 27

Chapter 3

Methodology and questions

This section includes a description of the content and research methodology for this study. I

describe the research design and approach; the setting and participants; the instrumentation,

materials, data collection, and constructs; the data analysis; and the ethical considerations. The

purpose of the study is to examine the effect differentiated instruction has on MSA in reading

and FLIP learning , whether or not a student has a disability. Differentiated instruction fosters a

classroom environment that values individual differences (strengths and weaknesses), increases

student independence and self advocacy, and promotes engagement and motivation toward

educational outcomes. Differentiated instruction allows for a continuum of support that ranges

from low to high intensity and that easily moves between the two based on student need, always

with the goal of student independence. Differentiated instruction circumvents student

weakenesses through preteaching and reteaching that are based on formative assessments in

which assignments and tasks are differentiated based on student learning profiles (Corno, 2008).

Teacher practices that are absent of bias and embrace cultural diversity provide a positive

environment in which students can maximize their strengths. Thus, teacher practices that

promote differences based on the learning needs of individual students help to eliminate

competition and foster collegiality (Ferkany, 2008).

FLIP instructional style is revolutionizing education, offering students and educators a fresh

approach to teaching and learning. Whether you're a student looking for an exciting way to

absorb knowledge or an educator seeking to inspire your students, FLIP learning has something
P a g e | 28

incredible in store for everyone. So grab your textbooks (or tablets!) and get ready to embark on

an educational adventure like never before. Let's dive into the world of FLIP learning together!

FLIP learning, also known as the Flipped Classroom model, is an instructional style that has

gained popularity among educators and students alike. In a traditional classroom setting, teachers

usually introduce new concepts during class time and assign homework for further practice at

home. However, in a FLIP learning environment, this process is flipped! Students are provided

with pre-recorded lectures or reading materials to study before coming to class.

This allows students to familiarize themselves with the topic in advance and prepare them for the

questions or areas they want to study in depth. In the classroom, students do not listen to lectures,

they participate in discussions and work collaboratively in accordance with the teacher's

instructions. The beauty of FLIP training is its flexibility. Students can work at their own pace

and refer to notes as needed. This self-paced approach increases students' understanding and

retention. Additionally, FLIP education encourages self-directed learning because it requires

students to take responsibility for their own learning. They develop skills such as critical

thinking, problem solving, and independent research—skills critical for success both in and

outside the classroom. Students can participate in their learning by participating in class

discussions rather than taking notes in lectures.

In addition, FLIP training also improves relationships between students and teachers. Students

who receive more personal attention in face-to-face meetings with teachers can get instant

feedback on their understanding of content or clarify questions they have while studying

independently.
P a g e | 29

Anne Arundel County Issues In Maryland, there is an 18% gap between students with special

needs and students without disabilities in reading comprehension at all levels of MSA. The

achievement gap between disabled students and non-disabled students studying at university is

even larger at 32 percent. Since 2003, fewer special education students have made progress,

while students without disabilities have continued to improve. NCLB (2002) mandated that all

students must complete state assessments by 2014. Jang et al. (2010) recommended that teachers

adopt practices that encourage student participation and enhance learning.

Differentiated teachers provide personal support and models for teaching and interacting with

students. Student engagement and support are closely related to learning. Anne Arundel County's

mission is to improve the performance of all students and record achievement for all students. In

2006, experts from the middle school special education leadership team wrote a grant application

for differentiated instruction in all 37 middle schools (grades 6 through 12). This grant includes a

teaching tool as a measurement tool to capture and aggregate data that will be used to evaluate

the evaluation to monitor the success of the grant. The Maryland Department of Education has

recognized the Instructional Standards as an effective tool for assessing and promoting

differentiated instruction. The tool is also used to inform schools about their success in using

different teaching methods in group teaching. This grant provides funds to bring in two out-of-

state experts in different disciplines to provide professional development for teachers in each

school. In addition, the grant provides the teacher team with the opportunity to attend three

national conferences on different teaching methods, as well as several citywide and regional

conferences. Training is provided in schools focusing on school improvement plans and strategic

plans. Schools also receive an annual grant that allows teachers to attend classes, visit other

schools, collaborate with programs across content, and participate in the school's professional
P a g e | 30

development in pre-service training, retraining, evaluation, and documentation. analysis. The

Anne Arundel County Board of Education has been supporting differentiated instruction and

investment for the past nine years to close the gap between students with and without disabilities,

according to school administrators.

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of classes (pre- and post-instruction) in which

different teaching methods are used on MSA reading. The research also examined the

relationship between different teaching methods and student types (whether students have

disabilities or not) and academic achievement. This study is based on 3 years of different data

from all secondary schools, where all secondary schools participated in teaching across the

school and in different cities, mainly based on training given by teachers and regular field trips

that provided school materials to inform practice. Two methods were used for research design in

this study. The first method examines MSA performance as a function of how different schools

teach. The second method examines MSA performance according to whether the student has a

disability or not. This study uses data collected during 18 months of classroom visits using

teaching aids in 17 urban secondary schools. The frequency with which schools used different

teaching methods was determined to be 17 on average, with an average of 72 classroom visits

per school. For the frequency of secondary schools' use of different teaching methods, the

average across all schools was calculated to give a base figure of 31%. Methods in group

teaching lessons (pre- and post-teaching). Schools are divided into upper ones in the central area

(these schools are considered separate) and lower ones in the city center (these schools are not

considered distinct). For the purposes of this study, students who were determined to be suitable

for learning disabilities and who received special education services within the scope of the

Individualized Education Plan were counted as disabled students.

P a g e | 31

This study reports data collected by researchers based on classroom observations using

instructional tools by multiple observers on the private middle school leadership team between

September 2011 and January 2013. Eighth grade was chosen because most students attended in

the same cohort from sixth through eighth grade. This group of students was selected to

determine whether Anne Arundel County was successful in the eighth grade AMO following 3

years of professional development, data collection, and monitoring of schools using different

teaching methods.

Research Design

The research methodology is a quasi experimental design in a natural setting that examines the

use of differentiated instruction (pre-teaching and re-teaching) and its effect on MSA

performance in reading for eighth grade students with and without disabilities. The

quasiexperiment uses an ex post facto design because the school setting has students who are

nonrandom and scheduled in classes through standard county scheduling procedures. The

participants in this case were students receiving instruction in cotaught classes who may or may

not have received differentiated instruction. It was not predetermined which students would

receive differentiated instruction. The research applied a quantitative approach to examine MSA

performance as a function of whether students received differentiated instruction and whether or

not students had a disability. The quantitative research used archival data collected over 18

months for 17 middle school cotaught classes. Thirteen trained educators conducted informal

classroom observations using the instructional coaching tool, which was specifically designed to

measure the frequency with which cotaught classes used preteaching and reteaching

(differentiated instruction). Quantitative research was selected to analyze MSA data with
P a g e | 32

differentiated instruction (preteaching and reteaching), a specific indicator on the instructional

coaching tool over a span of 18 months.

The dependent variable for this study was MSA performance in reading for eighth grade. State

performance standards use scaled scores in which students are identified as achieving basic,

proficient, or advanced levels on the assessment. MSA data is examined based on the number of

students who received good grades. Test scores are used to create cutoff scores, and performance

is measured by students at each achievement level. MSA's performance among student groups is

also compiled to inform local schools of MSA performance standards. Maryland collects student

demographic data to determine the percentage of students with disabilities and students without

disabilities performing at achievement level by state standards. MSA performance was calculated

for 17 middle schools and showed the percentage of students who scored well in eighth-grade

reading using differentiated instruction and whether male students had a disability. MSA

performance data is also used to show the performance of students with special needs and those

without disabilities. Data analysis shows whether different teaching methods affect MSA

performance for students with and without disabilities.

This study has two independent variables; The first of these is the teaching variable.

Differentiated instruction is defined as the use of prior and repeated instruction (such as

pretesting or formative assessment) to guide specific instruction, including student performance

on standards, learning, interest, and content assessment. Pre-teaching and re-teaching allow

general or special education teachers to support groups of students in the classroom and provide

specific instruction as needed by modifying the content, method, or delivery. This independent

variable, instructional differentiation, fell into two groups: (a) schools that used pre- and

reinstruction (undifferentiated instruction) less than the city average, and (b) schools that used
P a g e | 33

them more than the city average. The second independent variable was the type of student or

whether the student had a disability. This change is completely different: Whether the student

receives special education services identified by the BEP under IDEA (2002). The performance

of the 2014 MSA was analyzed, specifically examining the percentage of students who

successfully completed different courses and whether students had disabilities.

The selection of this design was based on numerical performance scores and numerical

terminology compiled from individual school records showing the percentage of use of different

teaching methods (pre-teaching/re-teaching) for each secondary school. Through MSA data, the

study also examined the use of different teaching methods and whether students had disabilities.

These data represent the percentage of students graduating with a basic, proficient, or advanced

degree according to MSA at each of 17 secondary schools (by student type and using different

wording). Using differentiated instruction can give students a better understanding of whether

different practices and instruction help improve learning, according to a study by the state

Department of Education.

Questionnaire

Do you employ pre-teaching methods to introduce upcoming lessons or topics? (Yes/No)

Do you provide re-teaching sessions for students who struggle with understanding the material?

(Yes/No)

Are adjustments made in content delivery to accommodate students with diverse learning needs?

(Yes/No)

Do you frequently teach in integrated classrooms that include both special education and general

education students? (Yes/No)

P a g e | 34

Do you modify teaching strategies to cater to the needs of students with disabilities in integrated

classrooms? (Yes/No)

Do you assess the effectiveness of your teaching methods on student learning outcomes?

(Yes/No)

Have you observed positive outcomes in academic performance due to pre-teaching techniques?

(Yes/No)

Have re-teaching sessions shown improvement in the understanding of struggling students?

(Yes/No)

Do you feel confident in your ability to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities?

(Yes/No)

Have you faced challenges in implementing differentiated instruction for diverse learners?

(Yes/No)

Do you collaborate with other educators to implement differentiated instruction techniques?

(Yes/No)

Do you believe that differentiated instruction methods can be scaled effectively for larger student

populations or different school settings? (Yes/No)

P a g e | 35

Chapter 4

Data Analysis

Quantitative data on differentiated instruction is archival data collected from September 2011 to

January 2013 using the Instructional Coaching Tool (Anne Arundel County, 2014) for 17 middle

schools. For this research, Indicator 8 on the Instructional Coaching Tool was used and

calculated with a percentage for frequency of use individual schools differentiate instruction

(pre-teaching/re-teaching) and compared to the county mean middle school average of 31% of

frequency of use middle school cotaught classes differentiate instruction. Schools will be

categorized as either exceeding the county average (differentiating instruction) or being below

the county average (not differentiating instruction). Appendix B represents the mean middle

school average on each indicator collected using the instructional coaching tool from September

2011 to January 2013. The special education data analyst aggregated all eighth-grade MSA

performance scores for the last 3 years by type of student, whether or not the student has a

disability, with the percentage of students scoring basic, proficient, or advanced for each of the

17 middle schools.

This study uses a research design that compares quantitative data from student performance on

the MSA with archival data based on frequency of use of differentiated instruction and whether a

student has a disability. This research design supports using a two-way ANOVA. An ANOVA

was used for MSA performance data, use of differentiated instruction, and type of student. There

are three assumptions when using a two-way ANOVA. First, the dependent variable is normally

distributed for each of the populations as defined by the different levels of the factor; the
P a g e | 36

variances of the dependent variable are the same for all populations; and the cases represent

random samples from the population, and scores on the test variable are independent of each

other. The dependent variable is based on a continuous scale: MSA test scores. There are two

factors for the independent variable of differentiated instruction. Schools that exceed the county

average for the percentage of frequency of pre-teaching/re-teaching and schools that are below

the county average. The second independent variable is measured by category, whether or not a

student has a disability. The third assumption relies on the independence of the observations

between each group.

Data collection was obtained from archival data collected from the electronic Instructional

Coaching Tool designed for Anne Arundel County. The Instructional Coaching Tool uses Excel

software to calculate the percentages of frequency of use schools differentiate instruction from

informal classroom visits conducted between September 2011 and January 2013. Data analysts

from Anne Arundel County permitted the secondary special education team to input all data

electronically; they then calculated percentages for frequency of use on the specific indicator,

pre-teaching/re-teaching, for each cotaught class. All data were calculated as school percentages

for the frequency of use individual middle schools differentiated instruction. The software tool

has the ability to aggregate data by individual school, observer, grade, and subject; it also allows

for specific filters in Excel to generate reports based on specific criteria or a specific indicator on

the coaching tool. All data obtained from the coaching tool for each middle school will examine

use of differentiated instruction (pre-teaching/re-teaching) with performance on MSA in 2014 for

eighth grade reading.

P a g e | 37

MSA performance will also be evaluated by student type. To examine the differences in MSA

performance between students with disabilities and students without disabilities and to determine

the effect of these differences on academic achievement using different teaching methods.

Research questions and hypotheses inform such analyses. Performance Matters, a software

program also offered by Anne Arundel County Public Schools, calculates students' eighth-grade

MSA scores regardless of whether the student has a disability. A two-way ANOVA was used to

analyze MSA performance, the number of students scoring well in 8th grade at each secondary

school, the use of different teaching methods, and whether students had learning disabilities.

SPSS is a social science statistical software program used to analyze data. A two-way ANOVA

compared the difference between MSA performance (variables) and the number of students

scoring well on the two independent variables (teaching difference and student type).

Results will be interpreted as the percentage of students in each secondary school who performed

well on the 8th grade MSA reading test in 2014. Results will be grouped by whether the student

has a disability and compared to: A school using MSA to differentiate instruction based on

information from the Instructional Design Guide.

Data Collection

All data collected from the Teacher Preparation Program were collected through the middle

school system from 17 middle schools in Maryland's Anne Arundel County between September

2011 and January 2013. This time, a total of approximately 1,207 classrooms were visited. All

data is stored electronically and includes each school's percentage use of different courses (as

stated in the introduction and/or replay). Each secondary school sent a team of three to visit and

observe classrooms an average of 72 times (see Appendix A). Students include men, women,
P a g e | 38

ethnicities, and students with special needs. Sampling for this design used the entire population

of 8th grade MSA students. The Grade 8 MSA data were chosen as a simple, single-level sample,

which was appropriate given the large data set (Creswell, 2003).

Anne Arundel County has a large student population with a total of 78,000 students. The

secondary school has approximately 17,137 students; Approximately 5,100 students and 555

students in eighth grade receive special education services. The school boundary includes urban

and rural areas and is determined by size and population. To analyze the research questions, data

from Teacher Education were divided into schools with a frequency of pre-teaching and re-

teaching (differentiated teaching) that was 31% above the city average and schools that had a

frequency of 31% below the city average. city average (teacher difference). undifferentiated

instruction), 2014 MSA scores for all 8th grade students. MSA data were also analyzed by

student type, whether the student had a disability, and MSA performance. As discussed in

Chapter 3 of this study, this is a quantitative study that uses SPSS (a computer program to

analyze data) and compares individual differences, instructional differences, and group mean

differences of student types with different MSA performance. This is a quasi-experimental post-

hoc research design that uses two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare two

independent variables with one variable. Analysis of variance assumes that each participant's

score is independent of the variable. In this study, two factors are used as criteria for the MSA

score: whether the student has received a different education and whether the child has a

disability.

The two-way ANOVA analyzed variances between the independent and dependent variables and

also examined the interaction between differentiated instruction and type of student with MSA

performance in reading. MSA 2014, Grade 8 reading had approximately 5,090 students
P a g e | 39

participate in taking the assessment. Of the 5,090 students, 4,161 (81.7%) scored proficient or

advanced on the exam. Students with disabilities comprised 398 students among those who took

the Grade 8 reading MSA compared with 4,922 students without disabilities who took the

assessment. The researcher was interested in looking at how differentiated instruction and

whether or not a student had a disability affected MSA performance in reading.

The two-factor ANOVA design analyzed students’ scores on MSA based on the two factors;

whether or not students received differentiated instruction and whether or not a student had a

disability. The main effect was analyzed by each level of the factors with the dependent variable,

student scores on MSA performance. Observations within each population of groups are

independent of each other, and each group has equal variances, and is normal. The two way

ANOVA allowed me to examine the effects of more than one independent variable in the same

test.

Descriptive Statistics
Below are the results of an analysis of variance using instructional variables and student types

(regardless of students with disabilities) to predict scores. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics

for this analysis. For students who did not receive differentiated instruction, students with

disabilities (M = 381.06, SD = 27.30) were compared with students without disabilities (M =

420.56, SD = 34.58). Among students receiving differentiated instruction, students with

disabilities (M = 383.60, SD = 26.24) were compared with students without disabilities (M =

422.66, SD = 33.17). Results were analyzed by grouping two groups of students according to

different teaching and student types, for both students without disabilities (M = 421.68, SD =

33.89) and students with disabilities (M = 382.45, SD = 26.72). has been made.
P a g e | 40

Table 1

DI Status Spec. Ed. Status Mean SD N

Without N 420.56 34.68 2272

Y 381.06 27.30 180

Total 417.67 35.71 2452

With N 422.63 33.17 2650

Y 383.60 26.24 218

Total 419.67 34.29 2868

Total N 421.68 33.89 4922

Y 382.45 26.72 398

Total 418.74 34.96 5320

Analysis of variance has a number of assumptions that need to be identified and tested in this

analysis. ANOVA first took into account the difference between these data and the variables that

were data and was explained by statistics and mean MSA scores.

Dependent variables at the interval level were determined by analyzing the differences between

students' MSA scores, instructional variables, and student types and mean MSA scores.
P a g e | 41

Analysis of variation also assumes homogeneity of variation; that is, the variation of the

dependent variable will not differ much across the independent variable category. In this review,

this was tested using the Levene test for homogeneity of variance. The significance of this test

indicates that the hypothesis is violated, indicating a significant difference in the results obtained

from the levels of the independent variables, W(3 , 5316) = 14.167, p < .001. Although the

results of this evaluation have been shown to be meaningful, this view only affects the choice (if

any) after the evaluation is completed (Howell, 2010). This assumption is therefore not relevant

to the current analysis because the two independent variables have only two sets of possible

responses and therefore do not need to be compared together.

Next, analysis of variance assumes appropriate sum of squares. The sum of squares is a measure

of the total variance of the scores around the mean of the scores. The sum of squares is calculated

by first calculating the difference between each score and its average. These difference scores or

differences are calculated according to Equation 2. This assumption is only problematic when

data are not available for some cells; this was not the case in the current analysis. Additionally,

multivariate normality is assumed in ANOVA, which includes a normally distributed variable for

each group of independent variables. This was tested using boxplots and histograms of the data.

First, Figure 1 below shows the distribution of the variables with DI status and student type as

independent variables. As can be seen, the averages of different DI (instructional differences)

groups are similar, while the average of special students (SE status) is lower than other students.

However, in terms of the distribution of differences, this seems to always tick this box, with

some observations, particularly for basic, non-specific studies that respond well to DI.
P a g e | 42

Figure 1

Summary
Second question: Are there differences in MSA reading scores when teachers engage in different

instructional practices? Using a 95% confidence level and a p < 0.05 significance level, the

percentage of the sample in schools that did not receive differentiated instruction was 76%, and

the percentage of the nondifferentiated sample consisted of 2,452 students who took the test. The

difference, which is the same for students in schools with different teaching, is 80%, and the

student sample is 2,868. Analysis of variance failed to show a significant interaction between
P a g e | 43

instructional differences and MSA performance. Additionally, the only significant result was the

MSA performance of students without disabilities. The mean difference between students who

received differentiated instruction and students who did not receive differentiated instruction was

very small, p > 0.05. The null hypothesis was not rejected, there was no significant difference in

MSA performance when teachers were different. Second question: How does MSA performance

differ depending on whether students have a disability? The documentation regarding this

question consists of two parts. This question identified 218 students with disabilities and had a

response rate of 36%. The population share of MSA students without disabilities is 83% and the

number of members is 2,650. Using a two-tailed test and a significance of 0.05, the difference is

47% of the difference; A positive and significant effect is obtained and the p>0.05 hypothesis is

rejected. MSA performance varies greatly depending on the student's disability. While analyzing

the data, comparisons were also made between students with and without disabilities and

different teaching methods and MSA performances. Although key information was found to be

associated with MSA performance depending on whether the student had a disability, the main

effect of using the instructional variable did not produce a significant effect on MSA

performance. Students without disabilities scored higher on the MSA than students with

disabilities despite receiving different instruction. The non-significant effect of differentiated

instruction on MSA performance rejected the hypothesis that differentiated instruction does not

benefit students with or without disabilities. Therefore, there is no significant relationship

between the use of different teaching methods and whether the student is disabled or not.

The effectiveness of this approach may be affected by individual characteristics and whether the

group is comparable. Significant differences between groups may be explained by individual

characteristics rather than treatment, leaving room for data that would expand the question.
P a g e | 44

Comparison of the performance of students receiving different instruction showed a positive

relationship between the effects of instructional practices on academic performance, as well as

group differences of 0.034 indicating equal variance and p < 0.05. Based on an analysis of all

eighth-grade students who participated in the test, the only significant effect found was that

students without disabilities continued to score higher on the MSA than their peers, despite

receiving different instruction. Teaching, especially pre-teaching and re-teaching. According to

data analysis, students without disabilities scored better on the MSA in reading than their peers

with disabilities, with only a small effect; Students with disabilities receiving differentiated

instruction had higher mean MSA scores than students without disabilities. Without differential

instruction, the difference for differential instruction is 4.08%; however, this did not reach

significance, p > 0.39. It is worth noting that demographic differences may affect these results;

While the population size of students with disabilities who receive differentiated education is

218, the population size of special education students who do not receive differentiated education

is 180, which may affect the analysis. The pass gap between the group of students achieving an

advanced or further qualification at MSA was 0.06 per cent. While 48.2% of students with

disabilities who did not receive differentiated education scored at or above the average level, this

rate was 47.6% for students with disabilities who received differentiated education.

FINDINGS

The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine if differentiated instruction, preteaching

and reteaching, had an impact on eighth grade students’ reading scores on the Maryland State

Assessment (MSA) and the significance of this finding as it relates to whether or not a student

has a disability. Data from test scores of students that received differentiated instruction across
P a g e | 45

17 middle schools were compared with those students who did not receive differentiated

instruction, whether or not students had a disability. The results of the data analysis showed that

students who received differentiated instruction, preteaching and reteaching, did not yield

significant results of improved performance on MSA. Students without disabilities yielded

overall better performance on MSA with or without differentiated instruction compared to

students with disabilities. In this section the results of the study are discussed. This section also

includes social implications of differentiated instruction, conclusions, and recommendations

going forward for future studies.

Interpretation of the Findings

The purpose of this study is to examine eighth grade students as a group to see whether there is

an improvement in the performance of students receiving different instruction and whether there

is a student effect on MSA performance. Therefore, the main effects of diverse teaching and

whether students have disabilities are examined according to students' MSA scores. Relevant

information is displayed only as it corresponds to the type of student, regardless of whether the

student has a disability, whether students without disabilities score higher, and the main effect of

different teaching methods and the interaction between different teaching methods. students

without intervention. Significant differences were found in MSA scores. The average difference

in MSA performance between students with disabilities and students without disabilities is very

small despite receiving different education. Students with disabilities perform better than

students without disabilities, even if they receive different education.

This research supports and extends the knowledge that effective teaching and learning in

education requires a variety of methods and theoretical learning methods, without exception

being more integrated. Knowledge construction does not occur in a vacuum, it is general
P a g e | 46

knowledge (Bandura, 2002). State-sponsored examinations make academic achievement difficult

to measure because they do not take into account the progress of a single student within a given

group of students in the same group. Students' motivation and self-confidence are also related to

success, so students with low self-efficacy and learning disabilities often avoid reading, which

affects their learning opportunities (Solheim, 2011). Self-efficacy and past learning are a guide to

future learning that is related to the teacher's practice and creates positive attitudes in students. In

this case, motivation and learning success can be increased by providing different instruction to

each student according to their learning and needs. Cognitive training uses theories of multiple

intelligences and learning techniques to provide a framework for learning and thinking that

supports the interaction of understanding, abilities, and knowledge within specific contexts and

psychological filters (DeGloma and Friedman, 2005). Young people strive to be enthusiastic and

supportive. Thought teachers put their attitudes, care, and interpretations of learning into action

(Sousa, 2009). If the goal is for students to learn, then teachers need to provide specific training

to activate neural connections in the brain that lead to false and uncertain outcomes such as

learning and memory (Gregory and Parry, 2006).

Implications from this study suggest effective teaching and learning may be more closely aligned

with student motivation and use differentiated instruction which may look different for all

classrooms and student learning profiles. To increase academic performance educators need to

consider how and why students learn. Positive social change involves all stakeholders, (parents,

teachers, organizations, students, and state departments of education); to re-align their

philosophies and/or biases with a tolerance and acceptance that there are all types of learners and

different students may require different things (Corno, 2008). Brain-based teaching employs

theories of multiple intelligences and learning styles to provide a foundation for learning and
P a g e | 47

perspectives to support the interrelatedness of perception, ability, and cognition in specific

contexts and socio-mental filters (DeGloma & Friedman, 2005). If the goal is for students to

learn, then educators need to provide specialized instruction to activate neural networks in the

brain that tap into implicit and explicit emotional learning and memory (Gregory & Parry, 2006).

To promote self-efficacy and academic performance in students, educators need to consider how

cognitive perceptions influence learning of material (Wormelli, 2006). Educators can enhance

learning outcomes by providing a variety of learning activities that engage students based on

student preferences, interests, and learning styles. Self esteem is a manifestation of emotion that

characterizes how a person feels about themselves and the level of self-confidence that has

negative or positive behavioral benefits (Ferkany, 2008). The big picture going forward to

increase academic achievement depends on many factors; developing individual teacher styles

that promote self-esteem, engagement, and self-efficacy, all of which foster and increase

student’s perceptions regarding their competencies and their beliefs that what they are learning is

meaningful and useful (Bandura, 2002). Cognitive neuroscience supports brain based teaching

that recognizes emotional messages guide behavior, attention, and student performance (Sousa,

2009).

Improving student achievement has many different components, including access to prior

knowledge, recognizing the unique differences that students bring to the classroom, and

recognizing the role of genetics, culture, and prior experiences in teaching new knowledge in

motivation to transfer knowledge into long-term memory. students. is its meaning (Sosa, 2009).

Providing instruction that includes personal connections to real-life situations has been proven to

encourage students to use higher-order thinking processes to increase neural activity and promote

brain learning. Differentiated instruction assumes that there are specific technologies and
P a g e | 48

activities that can be used to accommodate different student learning styles to help students learn

the material. Learning such as collaboration, activities, and tools can be used to strengthen

students' strengths and weaknesses in general. educational environment (Column No, 2008).

Educational psychology focuses on predicting and providing explanations for student learning.

Education and student success are social disciplines based on their work to meet the needs of

each child and society as a whole (Weiner, 2010). The common thread in educating all students

appears to be reliance on standards and teachers' support to ensure that all students have the skills

necessary for academic success (Jang, Deci, and Reeve, 2010). Instruction based on students'

individual learning, interests, interests, and needs should be part of the learning process to

encourage student participation and enhance education (Phan, 2010).

Future recommendations include training courses for special educators and general educators

that include instructional programs that enable effective learning to provide students with

student/teacher autonomy and personal behavior, which can be defined by recognizing prior

knowledge and preliminary assessment of student learning. Support. student reading (Gunthrie,

McRae, and Klauda (2007). Solheim (2011) found that teachers' understanding of the learning

process and the use of psychological research can influence teacher education and effective

learning are interconnected. Teachers need professional development opportunities to improve

their self-confidence and self-efficacy in the classroom (Amiot and Sansfacon, 2011).

The aim of our education is to help all students gain the skills they need to compete in the global

market. Education goes beyond established standards by differentiating instruction to meet the

different learning needs of each student. Teacher satisfaction and success are also very important

and require teachers to rethink and examine their motivation to become teachers (Amiot and

Sansfacon, 2011).
P a g e | 49

Recommendations

This study assumes that all students receiving special services in shared classrooms at the time of

the Maryland assessment had a current IEP. It is assumed that students will also receive the

assistance and support specified in their Individual Education Plan. All students in this study

received English language instruction in eighth grade. Neuroscience is providing students with

new lessons in challenging behaviors such as staying calm, controlling emotions, and

maintaining relationships with peers and adults. Teachers are teachers who today must have

teachers who will guide students' actions and actions, contributing to the learning process as

planned by general and special teachers. Teachers participate in instruction through a variety of

activities, understand specific content, and implement measures designed to teach diverse

students while maintaining expectations for all students (Ortiz, Flanagan, & Dynda, 2008).

According to Sousa (2009), understanding the emotional and psychological aspects of the

adolescent brain has important implications for providing instruction and strategies to improve

education. Smith (2007) concluded that student learning outcomes based on the district's high-

stakes testing outweigh the need for teachers to teach based on student performance, personal

needs, and learning styles.

Universal design for learning (UDL) requires teachers to anticipate student learning differences

and plan instructional activities and methods of engagement to differentiate process, product, or

outcomes (Wormelli, 2007). UDL incorporates a community of learners that acknowledges there

are different types of children with different special needs. The main objective for the LRE is to

provide a system of learning that identifies student weaknesses, and then develops strategies to

help the student learn (Klassen, 2010). The teaching/learning process involves problem solving
P a g e | 50

with a team of professionals to identify educational goals, set objectives, and employ strategies

that will enable students with disabilities to maximize their learning potential.

Differentiated instruction implies that teachers recognize barriers to learning, strategically plan,

modify instruction, and use meaningful data to monitor student progress.

Differentiated instruction is giving all students what they need to access the curriculum which

may require specialized instruction that adds in technical supports and incorporates specialized

instruction through not only pre-teaching/re-teaching but a multitude if interventions that builds

upon students ‘strengths as well as provides accommodations and/or modifications to enhance

the learning process for all learners and increase overall achievement (Corno, 2008).

It is suggested that educators should avoid putting labels and diagnoses on students and simply

design positive learning experiences that foster self-efficiency, motivation, and engagement

through the use of pre-assessments and formative assessments to support strategic planning

based on what students should know and be able to do (Wormelli, 2007). Preteaching and

reteaching is based on student learning profiles which may also require specialized instruction

that use multiple instructional formats, including such as small groups, partners, or individuals,

as well as using a variety of instructional strategies based on learning preferences (Jang, Deci, &

Reeve, 2010).

According to Nie and Lau (2010), students who receive a student-led instruction are more

motivated to engage in learning because they view instruction as relevant, interesting, and

important. According to Zhang et al. (2010) Solheim (2011) stated that students should be

motivated to learn; Students with good self-efficacy should avoid reading difficulties that hinder

their learning and negatively affect their reading. Restructuring the way we teach students
P a g e | 51

requires teachers to restructure their motivations and self-reflect by identifying personal learning

goals and setting educational goals (McClelland, 1985).

Educational systems have a responsibility to students in terms of achievement and student

learning outcomes. Although teachers reshape brains daily through instructional practices, gaps

in the literature continue to support a nature and nurture explanation for learning and educational

practices. In the twenty-first century, motivation is triggered by social media and technology that

require a self-determination approach to promote social change in education. Students learn

when they are motivated and engaged (Nie & Lau, 2010). This requires the use of technology

tools and other resources, involvement with interesting and relevant projects, and learning

environments—including online environments—that are supportive and safe. Motivation and

instructional change indicate that teachers receive tools and training in the use of technology,

become partners in learning, constantly seek knowledge, and gain new skills with students.

Therefore, the recommendations of this study suggest establishing partnerships with universities,

students, schools and community members, based in schools, to provide students with skills,

knowledge and studies that involve students. ' learning needs and preferences (Corno, 2008).

Reciprocal interventions require teachers to rethink how and why students succeed.

Differentiated teaching and learning requires teachers to consider individualized learning across

settings and classrooms, use data from a variety of informal assessments, and create instruction

based on students' strengths and weaknesses (Corno. 2008). Fisher (2012) sees teaching ethics as

a practice of stakeholders; that is, participants come together to share the practice by coming

together to share their decisions and knowledge so that students can understand the content

correctly, thus stimulating and therefore encouraging their own research and thinking. education.
P a g e | 52

Implications

The results of this study suggest that effective teaching may be based on student motivation and

the use of different teaching methods, which may be different for each classroom and student. To

improve learning outcomes, teachers need to consider how and why students learn. Positive

social change involves all stakeholders (parents, teachers, organizations, students, and the state

education department); they adjust their views and/or biases to avoid and accept all types of

learning, and different students may need different things (Corno, 2008). Cognitive training uses

theories of multiple intelligences and learning techniques to provide a framework for learning

and thinking that supports the interaction of understanding, abilities, and knowledge within

specific contexts and psychological filters (DeGloma and Friedman, 2005). If the goal is for

students to learn, then teachers need to provide specific training to activate neural connections in

the brain that lead to false and uncertain outcomes such as learning and memory (Gregory and

Parry, 2006). To increase students' self-efficacy and academic success, teachers need to consider

how understanding affects the learning of information (Wormelli, 2006).

Teachers can improve learning outcomes by providing a variety of engaging activities based on

students' interests, interests, and learning. Self-esteem is the expression of emotions that enable a

person to trust himself and his good values or good behavior (Ferkany, 2008). All expectations

for educational development depend on many factors; develop personalized teaching methods

that encourage individuality, collaboration, and self-efficacy; all of which support and enhance

students' perceptions of their own abilities and their confidence that what they are learning is

useful and useful (Bandura, 2002).

P a g e | 53

Neuroscience knowledge supports teaching the brain by identifying thoughts in the mind to

guide students' behavior, attention, and work (Sousa, 2009). Increasing student achievement has

many different components, including access to prior knowledge, recognizing the individual

differences that students bring to the classroom, and recognizing the role of genetics, culture, and

prior experiences in teaching new information in motivation to transfer knowledge to long-term

memory. students. is its meaning (Sosa, 2009). Providing instruction that includes personal

connections to real-life situations has been proven to encourage students to use higher-order

thinking processes to increase neural activity and promote brain learning. Differentiated

instruction assumes that there are specific technologies and activities that can be used to

accommodate different student learning styles to help students learn the material. Learning such

as collaboration, activities, and tools can be used to strengthen students' strengths and

weaknesses in general. educational environment (Column No, 2008). Educational psychology is

concerned with predicting and explaining students' academic performance.

Education and student work is a good social discipline based on work to meet the needs of all

children and our society as a whole (Weiner, 2010). A positive message in educating all students

appears to be trusting teachers to develop and support standards to ensure that all students have

the necessary skills for graduation (Jang, Deci, and Reeve, 2010). Instruction based on students'

individual learning, interests, interests, and needs should be part of the learning process to

encourage student participation and enhance education (Phan, 2010).

Future recommendations include training courses for special educators and general educators

where effective learning relates to instruction that ensures student/teacher autonomy and

individuality by identifying prior knowledge and prior student assessment to encourage student

reading (Gunthrie, McRae) and Klauda (2007).Solheim (2011) found that teachers'
P a g e | 54

understanding of the learning process and use of psychological research can influence teachers'

teaching practices and learning. class (Amiot and Sansfacon, 2011). The aim of our education is

to provide all students with the skills they need to compete in the global market. Education goes

beyond established standards by differentiating instruction to meet the different learning needs of

each student. Teacher satisfaction and success are also very important and require teachers to

rethink and examine their motivation to become teachers (Amiot and Sansfacon, 2011).

Conclusion

Differentiated instruction that improves learning outcomes refers to the use of a variety of

assessment, formative assessment, and multitasking methods to meet students' needs and the use

of the learning model to collaborate and improve learning outcomes for all students (Barnett,

2011). The success of inclusion and LRE depends on the guidance and collaboration of special

educators and general education. Students should be encouraged to learn, make their own

decisions, and feel safe and protected in the learning environment. Creating a positive

environment for students requires a decision-making process that includes multiple perspectives,

additional insights, and professional development for teachers. To overcome the problems,

teachers still face various student and teaching problems; This requires the process of teaching

students using vague and precise teaching methods, such as students' cognitive development,

personal and academic needs (Kazu, 2009); Sousa, 2009; Jensen, 2005; Smith, 2007; Dever and

Karabenick, 2011; Wagner, 2008).

Although this study does not confirm the importance of different teaching, pre-teaching and re-

teaching, teaching and learning, the importance of further research on the relationship between

teaching strategies and students is not emphasized. . Sexuality helps explain differences between
P a g e | 55

students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Effective teachers encourage

individual differences to guide their teaching (Ryan, 2006).

Response to Intervention (RtI) is the practice of providing effective instruction and intervention

based on student needs, frequently monitoring progress to determine instruction or goals, and

using student-specific information to make important educational decisions in a timely manner

(Barnett, 2011) to all students from initial Significant training, services, interventions and

positive behaviors should be provided from now on, and services should be provided as needed

(Corno, 2008). Student learning and motivation are based on instructional practices that vary

based on students' individual needs and provide students with an individualized decision-making

framework for learning beyond specific content (Clark, 2005).

Educational methods aimed at increasing teacher and student performance require continuous

and intensive work on student development and learning success. Collaborative professional

development can support school change beyond one classroom. Other countries that perform

better than the United States on international measures recognize the need to invest more in the

professional training of teachers, allocate time in the school calendar for ongoing teacher

development, and allow collaboration with other teachers during internships (NSDC Year 2009).
P a g e | 56

References
AERA, APA, & NCME. (2004). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: AERA.

Alpay, E. (2003). The contribution of Vygotsky's theory to our understanding of the relation

between the social world and cognitive development. London: Imperial College.

Retrieved from

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/chemicalengineering/common_room/files/PsychEd_5.pdf

Amiot, C. E., & Sansfacon, S. (2011). Motivations to identify with social groups: A look at their

positive and negative consequences. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,

15(2), 105-127.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 51(2), 269-290.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.

Barnett, A. (2011). Using data to inform instructional practices. Mercer University, Douglas

Regional Academic Center. Educational Psychology Review, 2011- Springer.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general

and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17–22.

Cash, R. M. (2011). Advancing differentiation: Thinking and learning for the 21st Century.

Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

Clark, A. (2005). Inclusion research at work at Boston Arts Academy. Horace, 21(2), 1- 6.
P a g e | 57

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161-173.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological wellbeing

across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.

Dever, B. V., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Is authorative teaching beneficial for all students? A

multilevel model of the effects of teaching style on interest and achievement. School

Psychology Quartely, 26(12), 131-144.

Diliberto, J. A. (2009). Effects of teaching syllable skills instruction on reading achievement in

struggling middle school readers. Litercy Research and Instruction, Vol 48, 14-27.

Dweck, C. A. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. New

York, NY: Psychology Press.

Ferguson, R. F. (2007). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the

achievement gap. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Ferkany, M. (2008). The educational importance of self-esteem. Journal of Philosophy of

Education, 42(1), 119-132.

Fisher, C. B. (2012). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists, (2nd ed.).

California, Sage Publications.

P a g e | 58

Freeman, L. & Miller, A. (2001). Norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and dynamic

assessment: What exactly is the point? Educational Psychology, 17(1), 3-16.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of

Curriculum and Instruction, July 2008 2(2), 9-19.

Gardner, H. (1999, February). Who owns intelligence? The Atlantic Monthly, 67-75.

Geary, D. (2009). The why of learning. Educational Psychology, 44(3), 198-201.

Gregory, G, H. & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies, one size doesn’t fit

all (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading

instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational

Psychologist, 43(3), 237-250.

Howell, D.C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Centgage Learning.

Jang, H., Deci, E. L., & Reeve, J. (2010). Engaging students in learning activites: It is not

autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kazu, I. Y. (2009). The effect of learning styles on education and the teaching process. Journal of

Social Sciences, 5(2), 85-94.

Kelly, S. (2008). What types of students’ effort are rewarded with high marks? Sociology of

Education, 81, 32-52.

P a g e | 59

Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self regulated

earning of early adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33,

20-30.

Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). (2012). State Report Card: retrieved from

www.maryland public schools.org

Murphy, P. & Benton S. (2010). The new frontier of educational neuropsychology: Unknown

opportunities and unfulfilled hopes. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 35, 154-155.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). 1992-2009 Reading Assessments,

retrieved from http://NAEP Data Explorer.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). A First Look 2013 Mathematics and Reading,

retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math 2013.

Nie, Y. & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to

students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 411-

423.

No Child Left Behind Act. , Public Law PL 107-110, (2001). Retrieved from http://www. ed.gov.

Ortiz, S. O. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 1321-1336). Bethesda, MD:

National Association of School Psychologists.

Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Dynda, A. M. (2008). Best practices in working with culturally

diverse children and families. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
P a g e | 60

psychology (5th ed., pp. 1721-1738). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists

Phan, H. P. (2010, May). Student’s academic performance and various cognitive processes of

learning: An integrative framework and empirical analysis. Educational Psychology,

30(3), 297-322.

Program for International Student Assessment (2009). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance

of U.S. 15 year old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an

international context. US department of education, retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov.

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires,

School Psychology, 8(3), 179-193.

Ryan, A. M. (2006). The role of social foundations in preparing teachers for culturally relevant

practice. Multicultural Education, Vol., 10-13.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Coteaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research.Exceptional Children, 73, 393–416.

Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2), 137-

149.

Smith, S. (2007). Using action research to evaluate the use of brain based teaching strategies in

the classroom. International Journal of Learning, 13(9), 121-126.

Solheim. O. J. (2011). The impact of reading self-efficacy and task value on reading

comprehension scores in different item formats. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 1-27.

P a g e | 61

Sousa, D. & Tomlinson, C. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the

learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Sousa, D. A. (2009). How the brain influences behavior: Management strategies for every

classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change?

Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 110- 131

U.S. Department of Education, Individuals with Disabilities Act (2004). 20 U.S.C. ̒§ 1400 et

seq., retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/ (2004).

Vallerand, R.J., & Lalande, D.R. (2011). The MPIC model: The perspective of the hierarchical

model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Psychological Inquiry, 22, 45-51.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental process.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Continuous Improvement.

Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36.

Walsh, J. M., & Conner, T. N. (2004). Increasing participation by students with disabilities in

standards-based reform through teacher observation. Journal of Special Education

Leadership, 17, 103–110.

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of

ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective

P a g e | 62

teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence.

Child Development , 73(2), 287-301.

Wormelli, (2006). Fair isn’t always equal . Portland Maine: Stenhouse publishers.

Wormelli, R. (2007). Differentiation: From planning to practice grades 6-12 . Portland, MA:

Stenhouse Publishers.

Zurbriggen, E. L., & Sturman, T. S. (2002). Linking motives and emotions: A test of

McClelland’s hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(521), 521-534.