Differentiated Reading Instruction

Differentiated Reading Instruction • 133
Differentiated Reading Instruction:
What and How
Julie W. Ankrum, PhD, Assistant Professor
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Rita M. Bean, PhD, Professor
University of Pittsburgh
Abstract
Ms. Martin (a pseudonym) is preparing to teach her new group of
students this fall. This is her ninth year teaching second grade, so
she knows much about the complexities she faces. The professional
development focus in her district this year is differentiated reading
instruction and she knows from experience that the twenty-two
children who will enter her classroom have differing levels of abili-
ties in reading.
Ms. Martin has used a variety of assessment tools in the past, and has looked
at the records for her incoming group. Two of her students are just beginning to
read at the emergent level, five students are reading just below the beginning sec-
ond grade level at the end of first grade, and six students are reading fluently at
the beginning second grade level, but their comprehension scores are much lower.
Another six of Ms. Martin’s students are reading fluently at a mid-second grade
level for both reading and comprehension, while three of her new students are read-
ing and comprehending text at the fourth grade level or beyond. Ms. Martin has
long recognized these differences in her students, and knows that the instruction in
her classroom will have to be differentiated to support the strengths and meet the
needs of the learners. Where does she start with such a complex task?

134 • Reading Horizons • V48.1 • 2007
Ms. Martin, identified as an exemplary teacher by administrators in her dis-
trict, was the subject of a case study conducted by the first author. The purpose of
the study was to explore the nature of differentiated reading instruction (Ankrum,
2006). In the following article, we first provide a brief history of differentiated read-
ing instruction. Then focus on identifying practical ideas that may help teachers
in their attempts to meet the needs of students in their classrooms—many of these
ideas were seen in Ms. Martin’s classroom while others come from the research and
literature that support such differentiated instruction.
Different Instruction
Children have always come to school with a range of literacy experiences
and abilities and teachers have struggled for years to meet the needs of all of their
learners. Historically, teachers have grouped their students in attempts to tailor
instruction to meet the different needs of individuals. They have attempted various
types of grouping arrangements during the literacy block, including needs-based ho-
mogeneous groups, interest-based groups, or individualized instruction. However,
it has become clear that it is not the grouping arrangement that matters; it is what
the teacher does with each group of children that makes the difference (Taylor,
Peterson, Pearson, & Rodriguez, 2002). No simple formula exists that details what
to do with each group of children. According to the IRA’s position statement,
Making a Difference Means Making It Different (2000), differentiated instruction
can only truly occur if the teacher possesses a deep knowledge of the reading pro-
cess, an understanding of the strengths and needs of her students, and the ability
to teach responsively.
There is evidence that providing all students with the same reading instruc-
tion can be detrimental to student achievement. In classrooms comprised of stu-
dents with varied reading levels where the teachers did not engage in differentiated
instruction, student achievement for the average and low achieving students suf-
fered; high achieving students made merely modest gains (McGill-Franzen, Zmach,
Solic, & Zeig, 2006; Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000). Other studies support the
notion that differentiation in instruction is needed to narrow the achievement gap
found in today’s schools (Allington, 2005; O’Connor, Bell, Harty, Larkin, Sackor, &
Zigmond, 2002). Since teachers in non-differentiated classrooms often focus on the
average learners, students of high ability or low ability do not receive instruction to
adequately improve their reading ability. This can be increasingly difficult for teach-
ers given the current federal mandates outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act
(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Many districts require teachers to use a core

and/or scripted reading program, many of which provide little support and time
for differentiated reading instruction (Block, Parris, Reed, Whiteley, & Cleveland,
2007; DeWitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2007). As a result, teachers may need more guidance
in how to group children and how to provide effective differentiated instruction in
reading (Moody & Vaughn, 1997; Schumm, et al., 2000).
Early Attempts at Differentiation: Ability Grouping
Reading programs designed for groups of differing abilities first appeared
in the 1950’s (Barr & Dreeben, 1991). Within-class “ability grouping” took hold
as a predominant practice for many teachers (Dreeben & Barr, 1988; Hallinan &
Sorensen, 1983; Hiebert, Wearne, & Taber, 1991). The term ability grouping seemed
to encompass all that was necessary to differentiate reading instruction for the
learner. In theory, students would be assessed and then homogeneously grouped
by reading ability. Next, the teacher would craft different lessons to suit the needs
of the students in each group. In reality, however, some teachers grouped their stu-
dents by structural variables, such as class size. Others found that within a specific
group, students differed in their strengths and needs, with some having problems
with fluency, others with decoding, and others with comprehension. Still, these
groups remained stable throughout the school year, rather than changing based
on the needs of the learners (Dreeben & Barr, 1988; Hallinan & Sorensen, 1983;
Hiebert, et al, 1991).
Barr (1973, 1975) and Allington (1983) described a differential, rather than
differentiated type of teaching that occurred within such grouping arrangements.
Some teachers spent more time on word level instruction with struggling readers;
in contrast, others spent more time instructing higher-level comprehension strate-
gies to the skilled readers. Further, the type of instructional materials used was
often consistent across groups as the grade-level basal reader was the material of
choice. It was the instructional pacing that differed (Barr, 1973, 1975). Therefore,
children placed in lower-achieving groups were exposed to less text, since basal
story reading occurred at a slower pace in these groups. In contrast, children in
the higher achieving groups were exposed to more text at a faster pace (Barr, 1973;
Pallas, Entwisle, Alexander, & Stluka, 1994). As Stanovich (1986) pointed out in his
discussion about the Matthew effects, the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer.
In other words successful readers continued to improve while the struggling read-
ers actually lost ground.
The efficacy of ability grouping came under debate in the 1980’s, and whole
group teaching began to take hold in many classrooms (Moody & Vaughn, 1997).

In an effort to avoid providing differential treatment to their students, teachers were
encouraged to use the same materials, lessons, and pacing for all of the children in
the classroom. In an attempt to provide equal access to the curriculum (and the
amount of text), one reading lesson was presented to the entire group of students.
Although this resulted in the simplification of classroom management for reading
instruction, it left little room for meeting the needs of individuals.
Does Differentiation Occur Today?
The answer is: sometimes. Evidence collected in studies of literacy instruc-
tion suggests that the predominant grouping arrangement currently used in reading
instruction is whole-class, mainly due to management issues. Even when teachers
expressed the belief that teaching small homogenous groups was the most effective
method for reading instruction, most found it easier to manage one lesson and one
group of students than to plan different activities for multiple groups (Moody &
Vaughn, 1997; Schumm et al., 2000).
Contrasting findings do exist, however. A number of studies have been
conducted to document the instructional practices of educators who have been
identified as exemplary teachers of literacy. These studies revealed that the best
teachers of literacy employed a variety of grouping formats, including whole group,
small group and individual lessons (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Allington, Block,
Morrow, Tracey, Baker, Brooks, Cronin, Nelson, & Woo, 2001; Taylor, Pearson,
Clark, & Walpole, 2000; Wharton-McDonald, Pressley & Hampston, 1998). In ad-
dition, these teachers instructed their students more often in small groups than in
the whole class setting (Taylor et al., 2000). The most effective teachers, those who
fostered the highest level of student achievement, “seemed to be able to monitor
student thought processes as they taught and interceded with just enough help to
facilitate learning but not so much that they lost the flow of the lesson” (Wharton-
McDonald, et al., 1998, p. 116). In other words, a great deal of individual coaching
during small group lessons was observed in these classrooms. In addition, Pressley,
et al. (2001) found that “teaching was very different in the most effective classrooms
from student to student and from occasion to occasion” (p. 46-47).
Differentiated reading instruction has been documented in the classrooms of
expert teachers; however in an effort to “leave no child behind” we need to see this
kind of instruction in all classrooms. Yet this seems difficult for teachers to achieve.
Perhaps the process of reading is so complex that instruction tailored to individual
needs is difficult for practitioners to attain. Another possible explanation is that the
management issues involved in differentiated instruction may be overwhelming as

teachers in the most effective classrooms were experts at managing different group-
ing arrangements within their classroom (Pressley et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2000;
Wharton-McDonald et al., 1998).
How Do Exemplary Teachers Differentiate?
The research base in this area is sparse. We do know that exemplary teach-
ers of literacy were observed teaching more often in small groups based on the
instructional reading level of the students (Taylor et al., 2000). We also know that
the most frequently observed teacher-student interaction style in these classrooms
was scaffolding/coaching, which “involved prompting children to use a variety of
strategies as they were engaged in reading during small-group instruction or one-on-
one reading time” (Taylor et al., 2000, p. 136). How do teachers do this? Exemplary
teachers indicated that they used systematic and on-going assessments in the forma-
tion of their groups in order to ensure accuracy of membership, as well as to avoid
inflexibility in grouping. Group membership shifted as needed, according to assess-
ment results (Pressley et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2000). The differential treatment of
groups discussed by Allington (1983) and Barr (1973, 1975) was not observed in
the exemplary classrooms studied. Instead, students in the low-instructional level
groups were exposed to as many higher-level teaching strategies as their classmates
in the high instructional-level groups (Taylor et al., 2000).
What is missing in the research literature is a detailed description of how dif-
ferentiated reading instruction occurs. What exactly happens within these lessons?
How is each lesson different from another? What exactly does the teacher differen-
tiate—level of materials, skills instruction, pacing, etc.? Also, methods for assessing
student needs are mentioned in the literature, but not fully described. Further
research in this area is required if teachers are to understand the nature of effective
differentiated reading instruction. Based on what we know about individual dif-
ferences and the achievement gap, it is critical that we begin to explore the areas
that exemplary teachers like Ms. Martin may consider when trying to tailor reading
instruction to the needs of their learners.
Decisions, Decisions!
Planning tailored reading lessons is not a simple task that can be described
in a lock-step formula. There are many points to consider when preparing for dif-
ferentiated reading instruction in the classroom (Figure 1). Each of these points is
discussed below.

Assessment
The primary consideration in reading instruction should be the needs and
strengths of each child (Clay, 2002). It is only through assessment that teaching de-
cisions can be made as assessment provides the data that informs good instruction
(Taylor et al., 2000). Once these data are collected, the teacher must be empowered
to analyze the information. This analysis, coupled with the teacher’s deep knowl-
edge of the reading process, will enable powerful instruction. Continuous informal
assessments lead to responsive teaching, which is often linked to exemplary teaching
(Pressley et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2000; Wharton-McDonald et al., 1998).
A common question that follows is “which assessments should I use?” There
is no simple answer. Many school districts require specific assessments, which may
provide teachers with the needed information. Specifically, assessment tools that
are used to inform instruction should be comprehensive, on-going, classroom-
based, and easy to administer and interpret. For assessments to be comprehensive,
a variety of tools should be used to provide teachers a window to all aspects of
the reading process. Both word-level skills and higher-level strategies should be
evaluated. In addition, comprehensive assessments should be matched to the devel-
opmental process of reading. For example, one would not assess letter identifica-
tion skills of fluent readers; alternately, one would not take a running record on a
child who demonstrates little if any knowledge of letter-sound correspondence. In
addition, assessment should be on-going, not a one-shot measure used at the be-
ginning, middle, and end of the year. It is equally important to include classroom-
based assessments. Teachers should observe students’ reading skills and strategies
in authentic situations, not just isolated drills (Holdaway, 1979). Finally, these
assessments should be easy to administer and interpret so it is more likely that
the busy classroom teacher will conduct the assessment and then use the results
in planning instruction.
• Assessment
• Grouping Formats
• Classroom Management
• Materials
• Length and Frequency of Instruction
• Lesson Focus
Figure 1. Differentiated Reading Instruction: Points to Consider

While formal assessments can provide teachers with a great deal of data,
careful notes and records can equally inform teachers’ decisions. Teachers can jot
down anecdotal records as they engage in observation or instruction. Ms. Martin
finds it useful to keep post-it notes readily available so that she can quickly record
what she has observed during instruction, e.g., Suzy -- multisyllabic words are a
problem (graceful, delicate, happiness). Upon reflection, such records can guide
the next teaching points. Close observations of students’ reading can also lead to
on-the-spot decisions, changing the direction of the instruction as needed (Clay,
2002). In addition, informal conferences allow teachers to converse with students
about their selection of texts, the strategies the children are using, and challenges in
their processing. Such conversations can offer great insight into a reader’s strengths,
needs, and interests. Ms. Martin holds an informal conference with each one of
her students at least once a month; during that time, she listens to them read, asks
them several questions about the selection that they have chosen, and talks to them
about their reading interests. The students look forward to their scheduled, personal
time with the teacher and Ms. Martin uses the valuable information collected from
these discussions to inform her instruction.
Grouping Formats
Teachers must carefully consider the types of grouping arrangements they
use during literacy instruction. It is best to employ a variety of grouping formats
throughout the instructional block, including whole-class, small group, and oppor-
tunities for individualized instruction. Curriculum-based, grade-level appropriate
skills, and strategies can be introduced to the whole class, ensuring that all children
gain the needed exposure to this material. Teachers may choose to use approaches
such as shared reading or interactive read aloud to provide explicit teaching through
modeling for all of the students in the class.
This whole group teaching will not meet the needs of all of the students
which is why small group instruction is a necessary component in the literacy
block. It is with homogeneous, needs-based groups that the teacher can create
lessons based on the evidence provided by assessments. Groups may change based
on skill or strategy need. When children demonstrate a need to switch groups,
teachers can do that, again based on the assessments. Individualized instruction can
be arranged to meet the needs of struggling or accelerated readers, in addition to
the whole class and small group opportunities provided.
Ms. Martin frequently refers to her assessment data throughout the year to
reconsider small group membership. In past years Ms. Martin found that three of
the four children who entered her class reading below grade level achieved acceler-
ated progress, two were placed with the average group by the end of the year, and

one of the struggling readers was moved into the highest reading group by spring!
Ms. Martin is planning on similar movement for her two struggling readers this
year. It is also likely that members of other groups will switch due to ability or
interest differences.
Classroom Management
Management issues create the largest barrier to this model of teaching
(Moody & Vaughn, 1997; Schumm et al., 2000). It is imperative that teachers find
methods to keep all children actively engaged in meaningful literacy learning, while
meeting with small groups or individual learners. There are a variety of approaches
that teachers employ; it is important that teachers select a management technique
that is comfortable and matches their teaching style.
Literacy Centers. This popular spin-off of learning centers requires children
to work independently or in small groups on literacy related activities. Teachers
generally organize a number of stations around the room with literacy-related mate-
rials, and present the curriculum-based activities to the children on a weekly basis.
A variety of rotations may be employed, ranging from teacher or student selected
groups and pacing. With careful planning, the activities within the literacy centers
can be tiered to provide differentiated practice of reading skills and strategies and/
or reinforcement of skills taught in whole class or small groups. Figure 2 provides
a list of sample literacy center ideas.
Independent Reading. Some teachers require their students to read indepen-
dently as they work with small groups of students. Independent reading provides
opportunities for developing fluency as well as practice with comprehension strate-
gies and decoding skills (Clay, 1991; Fielding, Wilson, & Anderson, 1986). At times,
students read orally, perhaps with one or two partners, or with an audiotape. In
order for this to be effective, teachers must ensure that students read texts at the
appropriate reading level. At the same time, there should be some opportunity for
student choice since students can often read materials above their instructional
reading level if they are interested and excited about a specific topic. There should
also be times when students read silently, although Shanahan (2006) does caution
teachers in their use of sustained silent reading, stating that there is not enough
conclusive evidence to support SSR in place of explicit instruction. What is impor-
tant is that students receive guided explicit instruction in addition to independent
practice through silent reading.
Independent Response. It is not uncommon for teachers to require students
to practice reading skills or strategies independently through written responses
to reading. Keeping these activities open-ended and creative can increase student

engagement. Such activities enrich and extend the instructional strategies presented
to students in whole or small group lessons. Students enjoy having the chance to
write a reaction to the selection, perhaps from the perspective of a particular char-
acter, or to write three questions that they can ask their fellow students. Ms. Martin
asks students to keep journals in which they respond to one or two questions that
she poses about a specific selection. These responses often call for a personal con-
nection with the text. Students then bring their journals to the next reading lesson
and share what they have written with others.
• Writing Center: All that is needed is a table, some chairs, and supplies to write with
and write on. For example, markers, crayons, colored pencils, and paper of all sizes.
Dry erase boards and chalkboards are great for practice as well.
• Overhead Projector: Place it on the floor, with some blank transparencies and over-
head markers, and let your students write or put some familiar poems on overheads
for the children to read.
• Book Nook: Find a comfortable corner; add some pillows, chairs, or even a love-
seat. Fill some bookshelves with books of all genres and levels. Allow students a
chance to browse and relax.
• Big Books: Hang your big books on a coat rack near the Book Nook. Invite stu-
dents to read with a partner or independently. Students can look for known words
or letters in the Big Book.
• Book Buddies: Students can read known or easy books to or with a partner to
practice fluency.
• ABC Center: Preschool and kindergarten children can practice letter identification
with a variety of materials. Stock shelves with magnetic letters, ABC cards, alphabet
puzzles, and games.
• Word Building: Students can use letter tiles, magnets, and cards to build words.
• Poetry Box: Write all of your favorite poems or nursery rhymes on poster board.
Keep the poems in a box for students to read and read; this is a great way to build
fluency.
• Listening Center: This is an old classic! Provide a small table with a tape or CD
player, headset, and books recorded on tape or CD. Students can read along with
assigned or self-selected books.
• Computers: Students can practice both reading and writing on computers. Software
is designed to help build reading skills and strategies. Simple word-processing soft-
ware allows students to compose and publish stories independently.
• Researcher’s Lab: This space can change with the current science unit. Carve out
a space at a table, provide some clipboards and a variety of materials to observe
or explore. Students can record observations and write about what they discover.
Try placing this area near a window so students can observe and record seasonal
changes in nature.
Figure 2. Literacy Center Ideas

Materials
The materials used in a reading lesson should be based on the instructional
reading level of the students in the group (Allington, 2005, 2006; O’Connor et al.,
2002) as well as the interests of the group members. Once again, this requires the
teacher to use a variety of assessments for decision-making. The book selected for
the small group lesson should support the development of reading skills and strat-
egies needed by that particular group. Therefore, there cannot be one sequential
formula outlining the order of books or stories read for all students. The materials
that are used are differentiated to meet the needs of the learners. Teachers should
use a variety of genres at the instructional level of each group as well.
What about a state or district mandated core reading program? The core
program, if chosen wisely, provides some assurance that there will be systematic
instruction within and across the grades. At the same time, the core is just that—the
core! Most teachers are not required to use only the core program provided by their
district. Therefore, they may and should select appropriate materials to use when
differentiating instruction. A colleague of Ms. Martin’s decided to spend additional
time on expository text with a small group of readers who seemed to struggle with
that type of material used in the core curriculum. Based on informal conversations
with students in their individual conferences, she chose the book Iditarod: Dogsled
Across Alaska (Fuerst, 2000) as the teacher knew that her small group of students
would be motivated to read and learn from this text.
Length and Frequency of Instruction
Teachers often ask how long a differentiated reading lesson should last and
how often these lessons should occur. These are decisions that only a well-prepared
teacher can make, using formal assessments and anecdotal records as a guide. The
answer to the question will change from one grade level and classroom to the next,
based on the needs of the learners. All students should receive daily instruction
in the whole-class lesson. However, struggling students may need to be instructed
more frequently than other students in a small group in order to make accelerated
progress. Students reading above grade level may benefit from opportunities for
independent practice, so they may not meet with the teacher as frequently. On the
other hand, students experiencing difficulties may require additional time and the
teacher may need to work in very small two to three person groups or one-on-one
with them. Attention level, text length, and depth of lesson focus will all be used to
determine the length of time for the meeting. The frequency of these instructional
meetings should change over the course of the year as responsive teaching changes
over time, as do the needs and strengths of the students.

Lesson Focus
There is much to consider when planning a reading lesson. Teachers must
attend to the state standards for their grade level, which inform their district’s cur-
riculum. Teachers must also weave the required curricular components into their
whole group, small group, and individual lessons. In some school districts this
includes the constraints of a mandated reading program and/or concerns regarding
standardized test preparation. At the same time, the knowledge base of the children
must be considered.
Teachers must be able to accelerate struggling readers, increase the ability of
average readers, and continue to challenge the students who read above grade level
in their classroom. This cannot be accomplished by simply following a mandated
reading program as it is a huge undertaking that requires the teacher to possess a
deep knowledge of the reading process and student learning. It is only with this
deep knowledge that a teacher can make informed decisions about what to teach in
the small group lesson. Before and during each lesson teachers must consider the
needs of the learners in order to decide which comprehension strategies to stress,
how to build and maintain fluency, and which word-level skills and strategies to
teach. Ultimately, if children are taught how to successfully comprehend all types
of text, they may perform well on standardized measures.
Summary
What should the teacher differentiate? Past research demonstrates that differ-
ential pacing of the same material and/or lesson does not work (Barr, 1973, 1975;
Allington, 1983). The recurring message from research is that it is the teacher, not
the programs or materials that makes the difference; therefore, only a well-prepared
teacher can effectively differentiate reading instruction for students (IRA, 2000;
Taylor et al., 2002). Ms. Martin exemplifies such a teacher. She is aware that a one-
size-fits-all model of teaching will not meet the needs of her diverse learners. She
possesses a deep understanding of the reading process and the needs of the students
in her classroom.
Ms. Martin knows that research tells us that in order to accelerate the learn-
ing of struggling readers, the text level is important (Allington, 2005, 2006; McGill-
Franzen et al., 2006). Therefore, materials used in small group reading lessons must
be differentiated. In Ms. Martin’s classroom each reading group is matched to an
interesting text at the instructional level of the members and the amount of time
spent in small group instruction is differentiated across the groups as well. Ms.
Martin bases the decision about lesson length and frequency on the needs of the

group members. True differentiation means that the lesson focus will be different
for each group. Within one classroom some students may need help with beginning
phonics skills, while others need to strengthen their ability to summarize informa-
tion from text. Ms. Martin, and other expert teachers, crafts each lesson based on
the developmental needs of the learner. Finally, the level of teacher support/scaf-
folding varies across groups in the differentiated classroom. The struggling readers
in classrooms like Ms. Martin’s receive more teacher support than the average
readers. Students reading above grade level spend more time applying newly taught
strategies independently. There is no simple solution to differentiated reading in-
struction. The answer to the question, “what do I differentiate?” is simply complex:
it depends on the students.
References
Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing abilities.
The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.
Allington, R. L. (2005). The other five “pillars” of effective reading instruction.
Reading Today, 22, 3.
Allington, R. L. (2006). Research and the three tier model. Reading Today, 23, 20.
Ankrum, J. W. (2006). Differentiated reading instruction in one exemplary teacher’s
classroom: A case study. UMI Number 3250978. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest
Information and Learning Company.
Barr, R. (1973/1974). Instructional paces and their effect on reading acquisition.
Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 526-554.
Barr, R. (1975). How children are taught to read: Grouping and pacing. The School
Review, 83, 479-498.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R.
Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.). Handbook of Reading
Research Vol. 2, (pp. 885-910). New York: Longman.
Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whitteley, C. S., Cleveland, M. D. (2007).
Instructional approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension.
Paper presented at the 57th National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey: Of early literacy achievement (2nd ed).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2007). The research base of comprehension
instruction in five basal reading programs. Paper presented at the 57th
National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Dreeben, R., & Barr, R., (1988). The formation and instruction of ability groups.
American Journal of Education, 97, 34-61.
Feurst, J. B. (2000). Iditarod: Dogsled race across Alaska. Bellingham, WA: Wright
Group.
Fielding, L., Wilson, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1986). A focus on free reading: The role
of trade books in reading instruction. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.). Contexts of
school based literacy (pp. 149-160). New York: Random House.
Hallinan, M. T. & Sorensen, A. B. (1983). The formation and stability of instructional
groups. American Sociological Review, 48, 838-851.
Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., & Taber, S. (1991). Fourth graders’ gradual construction of
decimal fractions during instruction using different physical representations.
Holdaway, D. (1979). Foundations of literacy. Gosford, NSW: Ashton Scholastic.
International Reading Association (2000). Making a difference means making it
different: Honoring children’s rights to excellent reading instruction. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
McGill-Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The confluence of
two policy mandates: Core reading programs and third grade retention in
Florida. Elementary School Journal, 107, 67-91.
Moody, S. W. & Vaughn, S. (1997). Instructional grouping for reading. Remedial &
Special Education, 18, 347-356.
O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S. M., & Zigmond,
N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades:
A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
474-485.
Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Stluka, F. (1994). Ability-group
effects: Instructional, social, or institutional. Sociology of Education,
67, 27-46.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C., Morrow, L., Tracey,
D., Baker, K., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., & Woo, D. (2001). Strategy
instruction for elementary students searching informational text. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5, 35-59.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction:
Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 477-488.
Shanahan, T. (June 2006). Does he really think kids shouldn’t read? Reading Today,
23, 12.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of indi
vidual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly
21, 360-347.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools
and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction
in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-164.
Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking
inside classrooms: Reflecting on the ‘how’ as well as the ‘what’ in effective
instruction. Reading Teacher 56, 270-280.
U.S. Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind Act: Executive
summary. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/
overview/intro/execsumm.html
Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., Hampston, J. (1998). Literacy instruction in
nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement.
About the Authors:
Julie Ankrum is a former elementary school teacher and a trained Reading Recovery
teacher. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education and Literacy at
the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Her primary research interests include ex-
emplary practices in literacy instruction and effective teacher preparation methods.
Rita M Bean has been an elementary classroom teacher, reading specialist, and
coach. Her research interests are focused on professional development, effective read-
ing instruction in elementary grades, and the struggling reader. She currently serves
as Co-Director of the external evaluation team for Reading First in Pennsylvania.

Differentiated Reading Instruction

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Differentiated Reading Instruction (20)

More from dianakamaruddin (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Differentiated Reading Instruction