Come and Learn How To Differentiate Instruction and Assessment
Location
Room 3151
Start Date
27-2-2026 12:25 PM
End Date
27-2-2026 1:00 PM
First Presenter's Brief Biography
John Hobe University of San Francisco, 1990, Ed.D Curriculum and Instruction Elementary and Special Education Teacher full-time 1968-1991 Faculty member Armstorng Atlantic State Univeristy & Georgia Southern Univeristy, 1991-Present, Professor
Second Presenter's Brief Biography
N/A
Third Presenter's Brief Biography
N/A
Fourth Presenter's Brief Biography
N/A
Fifth Presenter's Brief Biography
N/A
yes
Presentation Type
Concurrent Session
Panel Session
Abstract
Come and learn how to differentiate instruction and assessment. We aim to teach
students what they do not know and provide them with the time and practice they
need at their respective levels, while offering assistance as needed. Participants
will discussand receive materials to differentiate instruction and assessment.
Conference Strands
Evidence-Based Practices
Description
The Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) had developed a
differentiated instruction and assessment schedule for the language arts with the
following evidence.
Overall, the studies involved 2,274 students in 11 public schools in grades 1-10 in
regular education, special education, remedial education, bilingual education, and
Chapter I classes from coast to coast. Regular education students (n=1,733)
gained an average of over 8 normal curve equivalents (NCEs) in total reading
scores. Children with special needs (bilingual, Chapter I and remedial) showed an
average gain of 14NCEs. Special education students showed an average gain
exceeding 19 NCEs. All of these gains were statistically significant when compared
with control and normative expectations. Another series of evaluations conducted
from 1990 to 1996covered grades 1-11 in 6 sites, in five states, involving 1,986
children. In one of thesites, a Chapter I school served as a comparison for two
ECRI schools. At all six sites,ECRI students demonstrated significant gains on
reading subtests of variousstandardized achievement tests. Average gains per
class across all schools and groupsranged from 5.4 NCEs to over 26 NCEs.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (2006). Archived: Catalog of school
reform models, reading/language arts Models. (para. 2-3).
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/
Author’s note. NCEs can approximate percentile gains.
Hobe, Cossa, & Hinchman (2025) published a study evaluating learning gains
using this differentiated instruction and assessment schedule over one school year
with statistically significant results and an effect size of 0.63. Hobe, Cossa,
Hinchman & Unal will submit evidence gathered with this schedule over a school
year in 2026 with statistically significant results and an effect size of 0.82. Two
meta-analyses conducted by Hemphill (2003) explained an effect size of .30 and
above to be large.
Cited by 1,741.
Hobe, J., Cossa, N., & Hinchman, T. (2025). Evaluating learning gains using
mastery learning. Journal of Childhood Literacy and Societal Issues, 4(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.71085/jocsli.04.01.58
Hobe, J., Cossa, N., Hinchman, T., & Unal, A. (2026). Evaluating Learning Gains
Using Mastery Learning & Alignment. Evidence to be submitted for publication in
2026.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation
coefficients. American Psychologist, 58(1), 78–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Come and Learn How To Differentiate Instruction and Assessment
Room 3151
Come and learn how to differentiate instruction and assessment. We aim to teach
students what they do not know and provide them with the time and practice they
need at their respective levels, while offering assistance as needed. Participants
will discussand receive materials to differentiate instruction and assessment.
Comments
N/A