PLANNING FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dabgoudw

This study examines how middle-school administrators and teachers perceive instructional leadership practices related to implementing differentiated instruction. Survey data were collected from 34 administrators and 171 teachers in a major metropolitan district in the southeastern United States. Findings show teachers disagreed with administrators across four of six subsets, particularly around supervision and evaluation, protecting instructional time, incentivizing teachers, and providing professional development. The results indicate possible misconceptions and misalignment of stakeholders’ beliefs.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages17

Reading Time43 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Background of the Study

Statement of the Problem

PLANNING FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES PERCEIVED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS MARK L. LANG Cobb County School District, Georgia ABSTRACT This study was designed to generate an awareness of the differences between school administrators’and teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership practices towards implementation of differentiated instruction. Data were collected from 34 middle school administrators and 171 teachers from a major metropolitan school district in the southeast United States using a researcherdesigned survey. The study found that teachers were not in complete agreement with administrators in 4 of 6 subsets including the total average of all subsets. Teachers perceived survey statements about supervision and evaluation of instruction, protection of instructional time, providing incentives for teachers, and providing professional development as not being experienced to the same extent as believed by administrators to be in practice. A high degree of disagreement between administrators and teachers for the statements ofthe survey raised the concern that misconceptionsexist. The findings suggest that school administrators may not be as attuned to the teachers’perceptions oftheir support for the practice of differentiated instruction. The study has implications for instructional leadership in that a misalignment of beliefs and attitudes held for innovations by school administrators and teachers can contribute to unintentionally creating barriers for implementation. Consequently, planning for differentiated instruction should be purposely informed by the perceptions ofall stakeholders. INTRODUCTION Differentiated instruction is accepted by scholars as being effective in improving student learning outcomes (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickerson, 1999; Koeze, 2006; Tomlinson, 2007). The importance of differentiated instructional approaches towards student learning and outcomes is prevalent in the literature (Hall, 2002; McCoy & Ketterlin-Geller, 2004; Subban, 2006; and Tomlinson, 2004a) . Among these works, Rock, Gregg, Ellis and Gable (2008) purported differentiated instruction as a means of addressing the changing demographics of the classroom and its relative impact on instructional practices. Differentiation requires teachers to change the teaching process based on instructional strategies aligned to the large span of students’ learning needs represented in today’s contemporary classrooms (Tomlinson, 1999a, 2001a; Valiande, Kyriakides, & Koutselini, 2011) . Consequently, implementation of differentiated instruction places new requirements on teachers’skills involved in the process of adapting content to meet the academically diverse learning needs of individual students (Holloway, 2000) . Research into school effectiveness has produced a variety of studies that supported the idea that principals’ instructional leadership can influence change in the instructional practices of teachers (Blasé & Blasé, 1998; Goddard, Neumerski, Goddard, & Salloum, 2010) . Goddard et al. (2010) purported that school leaders’ instructional support was a significant predicator in motivating teachers to incorporate challenging teaching approaches, such as differentiated instruction, into everyday practices in their classroom setting. Educational Planning 29 Vol. 26, No. 2 Accountability legislation of the past decade, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002), has brought about are-examination of the role of the principal asthe primary instructional leader. Along with the changing conception of principal leadership, Clifford (2012) and Lee, Walker and Chui (2012) envisioned a typeof instructional leadership that encourages teachers to problem solve, revise practice through self-reflection, collaborate in professional learning, monitor progress, and define teachers’ roles in the process of improving instruction. Noonanand Hellsten (2013) maintained that as a result o

FAQs

What was the purpose of the study?

The study aimed to identify differences between administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership practices regarding differentiated instruction implementation.

How were data collected?

Researchers used a researcher-designed survey administered to 34 middle school administrators and 171 teachers in a metropolitan district in the southeastern United States.

Which areas showed the greatest disagreement?

Teachers were not in complete agreement with administrators in four of six subsets, including supervision and evaluation, protection of instructional time, incentives for teachers, and professional development.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dabgoudw