Abstracts

Comparison of language arts scores between computerized and teacher differentiation of instruction

by Carrie Anne Cannon




Institution: Capella University
Department:
Year: 2017
Keywords: Instructional design; Curriculum development
Posted: 02/01/2018
Record ID: 2154044
Full text PDF: http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10267616


Abstract

Scholars have focused the majority of differentiated instruction research on the effect that differentiation has on student achievement, but have overlooked whether or not the delivery method makes a difference on student achievement. Research questions: Is there a significant difference in Language Arts fluency total mean scores between first grade students who received software computerized differentiated instruction and first grade students who received differentiated instruction provided by the teacher without software? Is there a significant difference in Language Arts in comprehension total mean scores between first grade students who received software computerized differentiated instruction and first grade students who received differentiated instruction provided by the teacher without software? Archival records (128) were examined from a (BOY) and (MOY) mClass Dibels Next and mClass Dibels TRC assessments. There was a statistically significant difference between the students who utilized the Lexia program when compared to their counterparts that received traditional instruction for growth focusing on fluency and it was determined through an independent samples t-test. There was not a statistically significant difference between the students who utilized the Lexia program when compared to their counterparts that receive traditional instruction for growth focusing on comprehension. The results of the inferential tests determined that the students that received their differentiation from the software program had significantly higher growth results than their counterparts that received the differentiation from their classroom teachers in the area of fluency. For the area of comprehension, there was not a significant difference between the two groups.