“Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.”

This quote is often attributed to Albert Einstein, but further research credits it to Amos E. Dolbear ("The Quote Investigator", 2019). Dolbear wrote an essay for the Journal of Education in 1898 entitled “The Education Allegory” in which he described the preposterousness of a one-size-fits-all education among animals ("The Quote Investigator", 2019). The allegory has been reprinted many times and in many ways since 1898, and the quest of the animals in all of the allegories is success. But, what is success?

Clearly, success is not a uniformed lesson plan and uniformed outcome according to the allegory. Yet, in American schools, success is defined by uniform outcomes- test scores, graduation from secondary school. Though, I think the American public might define a successful education as developing people who can independently support themselves and contribute to society. All of this begs the question, “How?” How can we help our students to be successful?

I think that we can begin by honoring students' strengths and respecting and developing their weaknesses. Tomlinson (2019) defines differentiation as tailoring instruction to meet individual needs. In my fourth grade classroom, my students' reading levels range from first to sixth grade, some students are great climbers, some are great swimmers.

It is important for students to know where they are and where they need to go. No student wants to be told that they are not meeting expectations, and usually, they don't have to be told. These students already know. In a differentiated learning environment, it is equally, if not more important to focus on individual student growth. Allegorically, we need students to understand that if a fin on the branch of the tree is progress for them, then it is to be celebrated. The nine and ten year olds in my class support this: 90% of them feel that students should be given hard, medium, or easier work depending on their learning level in any given subject area.

                                                          (Farquhar, 2019)

Reading comprehension is only one metric by which students can be measured. In some cases, it could be likened to teaching a fish to climb a tree, but perhaps not quite as extreme since I do believe that all of my students have the capability to grow and develop their literacy skills. In this paper, I will explore how teachers can differentiate instruction in reading through a blended learning approach, which in turn has a positive effect on motivation.

Differentiation works. Logan's review of the literature (2011), cites several examples of success with differentiated instruction. She cites gains in engagement, motivation, and statistical gains in learning (Logan, 2011). The issue then is, how can we differentiate blended learning in reading in order to create a more successful learning environment for students?

Differentiation can generally be broken down into three categories: content, process, and product. Nancy Atwell, the original designer of reader’s workshop, held that students develop their reading by reading (Lause, 2004). She allowed students to differentiate the content by self-selecting books to read. Readersworkshop.org defines a reader’s workshop structure as including a mini-lesson on the relevant reading skills, independent reading time, sharing time, teacher conferencing, and guided reading instruction ("Reader's Workshop.org", 2019). Since the development of reader’s workshop in the early 1980s, the structure has evolved. Teachers design structures that work for them and their classes. Many incorporate skill development into their workshops through mini-lessons, conferencing and guided reading.

                                                           (Edutopia, 2017)

Flash forward to the present, and teachers are implementing reader’s workshops with blended learning components. Szymanska and Kaczmarek (2011) define blended learning as, “A learning system that combines face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction.” Kim (2014) cites increased comprehension through ubiquitous learning related to English language instruction. The students in her study continued the discussion of their reading outside of the classroom through text conversations (Kim, 2014). Other teachers use learning management systems (LMS) such as Lexia, Freckle, and Read Naturally as part of reader’s workshop. Teachers utilizing these programs in primary school typically implement a style of reader’s workshop where students move from station to station as is seen in the video above (Edutopia, 2017). For the purposes of this literature review, I will focus on the differentiation of content and process, and how blended instruction can be used for both.

Digital media allows teachers to differentiate content in many ways in the reading classroom. LMS begin by leveling students in order to target instruction. Some LMS used for reading comprehension include Freckle and Lexia. Read Naturally. Digital libraries, such as Epic! ("Instantly access 35,000 high-quality books for kids", 2019) and Newsela ("Newsela | Instructional Content Platform", 2019) also offer differentiated content from which students can select reading material. More intense instruction (process) does not necessarily mean more time or more practice. The nice thing about the platforms of most LMS is that they allow for targeted, and therefore, typically more effective, practice (Schecter, Macaruso, Kazakoff, & Brooke, 2015). Szymanska and Kaczmarek’s research (2011), sought to find out whether students reading recall and comprehension was better or worse with reading on text or on a screen. They discovered that while recall was essentially the same for both, students demonstrated slightly better comprehension when the text was presented in an electronic format (Syzmanska & Kaczmarek, 2011). This could be used as evidence to support a blended learning environment where students utilize technologies such as a tablet, Chromebook, or a computer to enhance engagement with the text.

Studies show that when teachers actively engage with their students and the blended component of reader’s workshop, students make greater gains (Schechter, Kazakoff, Bundschuh, Prescott & Macaruso, 2017). For example, when students are given immediate feedback about what they are doing with the digital component of instruction, they make more progress than students who work without support. Furthermore, this study asserts that blended learning supports face-to-face instruction and allows teachers to receive immediate feedback on student progress, thus leading to immediate differentiated instruction (Schechter, et al. 2017).

Teachers can also differentiate the process by which students learn. Some students may do better with digital learning, whether it is because the content itself is individualized or because the process is different from more typical face-to-face interactions. Digital formats often offer a gamified format. Gamification is defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, 2011). The Pew Research Center found in a study that 59% of teenage girls and 84% of teenage boys play video games (Carson, 2019). The use of gamification is motivating to students, and its freedom to fail construct encourages students to try again and again (Dicheva et al., 2015). In regards to a gamified, differentiated LMS, a fourth-grader in my class stated, "I want to share that I think it's very fun and your learning so that's a win-win." 

Differentiation in this matter is also supported by theorists B.F. Skinner and Jerome Bruner. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning can relate to the reward aspect of gamification ("B. F. Skinner", 2019). Students are motivated to repeat the positive behavior of getting questions correct, completing learning levels, etceteras for the reward of earning virtual coins or moving to the next level. Furthermore, differentiated learning platforms are scaffolded such that students students begin work in their zone of proximal development, and advance to more challenging levels as their skill level grows. This scaffolding is equal to Bruner's theory of "spiral curriculum" or "degrees of freedom," (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019).

Outside of gamification, students in a study done by Behjat, Yamini, and Bagheri (2012) demonstrated higher levels of engagement while taking advantage of the use of technology in addition to classroom instruction. They cite the fact that more ubiquitous learning took place, because while online students were able to follow their curiosities by clicking on various hyperlinks, thereby taking in more language (Behjat, Yamini, & Bagheri, 2012).

Research on motivation in blended learning environments varies, but much of it points to older students being less motivated by online learning environments (Clayton, Blumberg, Auld, 2010) However, the effect of differentiated learning on students is highly motivating. Vygotsky identified the zone of proximal development as the difference between what they can do on their own, and what they can do with assistance (Shabani, Khatib, & Ebadi, 2010). He goes on to suggest that students who work with guidance at their “with assistance” level, will go on to achieve mastery independently (Shabani, Khatib, & Ebadi, 2010). This can be linked to motivation and blended learning because students are leveled by LMS and work at their “what I can do with help” level. Both the LMS and teacher can serve as the helper which guides the student toward mastery.

 

So, how does one practical teach a fish to climb? Bring the tree to them, in their own environment.

Students today are digital natives. Digital natives are indigenous to a technology-saturated world, unlike most middle-aged adults or older people who grew alongside the development of technology. With the development of one-to-one technology, approximately 85% of elementary-aged students own a smart device (Versal, 2018), by high school that number increases to 94% (Cavanaugh, 2018). David Nagel of THE Journal (2019) reports that 73% of teachers proclaim that their students use tablets or laptops daily, and of students using devices in school, 66% use school-provided devices, while 25% of students provide their own device. In a station model of reader’s workshop, even a small number of devices can allow students access to blended learning. Access to wi-fi is also necessary for students to actively interface with other students, the teacher, or an LMS. Nagel (2019) identifies that 86% of teachers report access to wi-fi in their classrooms. Access to technology is the number one practical pathway or barrier to blended learning.

Depending on how teachers choose to employ blended learning in their classrooms, monetary factors also become a large implication. The G Suite for Education is a free group of applications available to schools, including Classroom, Forms, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Drive, Keep, Calendar, Gmail, and Hangout ("G Suite for Education | Google for Education", 2019). These free applications allow teachers to manage classrooms and for teachers and students to collaborate ubiquitously.

Cost often depends on the level of instruction embedded into an LMS as well as the ability for students and teachers to have access to and store information. Frequently there are free “lite” versions of LMS that can be used in blended learning environments. A lite version of a software or LMS is a limited version or a version that might contain advertisements ("Encyclopedia", 2019). LMS software prices are broken down in different ways, such as by pay-per-learner, pay-per-use, license fee, and unlimited user flat fee (Ingwersen, 2019). In addition to the cost of actual LMS, the cost for teacher training must also be considered.

Effectiveness can outweigh costs, so districts or teachers looking to implement a blending learning environment where some or all differentiated differentiation takes place during the technology component of the program must consider the LMS's efficacy. While there are numerous LMS that focus on different areas of literacy development, the following are a select few of the research-based programs that can be used for instruction or intervention.

                                                             (IXL, 2017)

IXL Math and English Language Arts (ELA) is an interactive website that allows teachers to develop and personalize learning opportunities for their students ("IXL - Our story", 2019). The company originated as Quia Web, which offered early gamification for various subject areas ("IXL - Our story", 2019). Later, in 2018, the company acquired ABCya, which was known as a worldwide leader in web-based educational gamification ("IXL - Our story", 2019).

According to research available on their website, users of IXL in nine states demonstrated higher rates of growth in ELA on state testing in grades three through eight ("IXL - Why IXL", 2019). The average growth on state tests for users of IXL for one to two years prior to state testing was 9%. Texas was able to boast a 17 percentile points gain in ELA on the Texas STAAR Exam over schools not utilizing the IXL programs ("IXL - Why IXL", 2019). Many additional states reported substantial subgroup growth with IXL.  The efficacy appears high according to the research, possibly making the investment $11 price tag for one subject, per student in a group of 150 students, worth it.

                                                   (Freckle, 2019)

Freckle by Renaissance, which also specializes in differentiated instruction, comes with a similar price tag. In May of 2019, Freckle which was founded in 2013, was acquired by Renaissance Learning that they might increase their differentiated instruction offerings (Millward, 2019). Freckle functions independently withing Renaissance. Freckle focuses on differentiating the process by which students learn, offering reading material from pre-kindergarten to grade 12.

Research gathered by Freckle used the Northwest Evaluation Association's (NWEA) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP). This tests students in five areas of ELA including two literature categories, two informational text categories, and vocabulary.  Students regularly using the Freckle program grew 11.3% beyond the mean ("Freckle Is Research-Backed", 2019).

                                                        (Lexia Learning, 2018)

A final for-profit program that this paper will explore is Lexia- A Rosetta Stone Company. Lexia offers two learning and intervention programs for ELA which include Lexia Core5 Reading for elementary grades and Lexia PowerUp Literacy middle school ("Company Overview", 2019).  The company also offers an assessment program for which teachers and administrators can use to monitor growth. Lexia Core5 and Lexia PowerUp differ from the other two programs because they offer both the digital learning component and resources for face to face instruction that align ("Lexia Learning", 2019).

In their national progress report, Lexia cites research based on the use its Lexia Reading Core 5 with fidelity with 712,158 students. They report that 52% of students working one grade level and 53% of students working two more grade levels reached their grade level or end of grade level within one school year ("Lexia Learning", 2019). It is further reported that 89% of 101,812 students identified as being at least one grade level below reached grade level within two years("Lexia Learning", 2019).

Choosing which digital programs to differentiate with in a blended learning classroom is a difficult decision. Typically these decisions are made at the district level where finances are available to investigate the integrity and efficacy of these programs for their schools. Both IXL and Freckle offer free or ¨light¨ versions that teachers can use without financial penalty.

 

Longitudinal and quantitative research is lacking in research related to technology in the classroom (Schechter, Kazakoff, Bundschuh, Prescott & Macaruso, 2017; Kim, 2014)). Because of the rate at which technology is growing, it is a matter of time before longitudinal research comes to light. It is important to note that we now have a whole generation of digital natives. We must allow this generation to be the basis for our research while noting that technology has undergone dramatic developments even in their lifetimes.

Even digital natives require exposure and instruction on how to use technology in the classroom and with various LMS. Students in the early grades may find it difficult to interface with the technology, whether it is because of typing, following the directions on the screen, or even just the ability to read (Pytash & O'Byrne, 2019). Furthermore, outside of blended learning, teachers must consider students’ learning styles, and this should remain important with blended learning. Interpersonal communication is key in many blended learning situations, and teachers must remember that this is not a primary strength for all students (Heinze & Procter, 2004).

Additionally, research is available on the pedagogy related to online instruction, but not enough is available about the quality of instruction and growth results of students in blended learning environments (Pytash & O'Byrne, 2019). While this paper’s focus is on the differentiated development of reading in a blended learning classroom, it is important to note that students are learning to read and write in multimodal formats including, but not limited to images, video, and audio (Pytash & O'Byrne, 2019). Furthermore, the earliest research available on blended learning is at the tertiary level, and research in primary grades is lacking.

Also, in order for teachers to create blended learning environments, the teachers require training in what and how to implement such learning, as well as how to use the LMS that districts may be providing (Pytash & O'Byrne, 2019). Loewus (2019) cites that in 2017 the mean age for teachers in the United States was 42, reminding us that the majority of teachers do not fall into the category of digital natives. When teachers are trained and engaged, students grow more (Schechter, Kazakoff, Bundschuh, Prescott & Macaruso, 2017).

It is suggested that further research be done on numerous topics mentioned in this paper. Longitudinal research is needed to identify the positive and negative effects of blended learning on students at various stages of their education. Research that analyzes the effectiveness of various blended learning applications would also be useful in the development of an ideal blended learning environment. Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative research on the professional development of teachers in regards to blended learning would be beneficial to the development of the pedagogy.

Critics of differentiated learning and blended learning make some good point which should be considered when implementing one or the other or a combination of the two. It can be easy for the majority to fall into what is considered and hyped as best practice in education at any given time.

Jim Delisle's (2015) article published in Education Week entitled, "Differentiation Doesn't Work" received both supportive and unsupportive commentary, mostly unsupporting. The controversial article reports that differentiation is not realistic because it is difficult to implement with integrity (Delisle, 2015). While many teachers in the commentary concurred that true differentiation is difficult, they further state that it is the duty of the educator. Deslisle's tone is problematic as well, as he can be quoted as writing, "There's only one problem: Differentiation is a failure, a farce, and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students" (Delisle, 2015). He asserts that the heterogeneous designs of classrooms, ie. the combination of regular, gifted, English language learners, and students with special education needs which creates the need for differentiated learning is the greater problem. The necessary time committment for dedicated differentiated instruction can mediated by the use of educational technology that supports or completely provides differentiated learning opportunities.

                                               (Applied Education Systems, 2019)

In the YouTube video above (Applied Education Systems, 2019), which can also be found on Applied Education Systems' website, identifies a primary disadvantage of differentiated instruction being the teacher workload. They too, suggest that a "digital curriculum system" which is described identically to a LMS, can be a solution this problem.

Blended learning is not without its critics as well. The most common complaint of blended or technology-based learning as that it removes the teacher from the learning equation. According to Recco (2018) poorly implemented blended learning environments seek to replace substandard instruction with digital instruction. She further sights the needs for quality resources and for ongoing professional development to support teacher as they endeavor to implement blended learning (Recco, 2018). With high caliber reconnaissance of LMS and properly planned for professional development, blended learning can be a successful pedagogy.

                                                              (Edutopia, 2014)

Utilizing technology to replace teachers or instruction is a mistake. The above video (Edutopia, 2019), identifies a variety of blended learning experiences. Most importantly, at 3:12, a teacher by the name of Weller describes her ongoing growth in technology-based on her students' needs (Edutopia, 2019). Her students expressed a need to hear their teacher's voice, her instruction, and not that of an outside source. Weston Kieschnick (2019) discusses a "culture of and" in his Youtube video below. He contends that the blended learning must include a combination of both teacher and technology-based instruction (Kieschnick, 2019). Kieschnick's summarizes his point of view with this statement, "Learning is king, growth is queen, and cool is the court jester, and the jester is technology...but, don't put the jester in charge of the kingdom," (Kieschnick, 2019).

While there are critiques of differentiated and blended instruction, it seems that both can be highly successful if they are implemented with integrity. Teachers need to be responsibly trained in the implementation both, and teachers must be provided with quality resources with which to implement either.

Creating an ideal reading learning environment for students is a result of differentiating the content and process and keeping students engaged in the process. Blending a learning environment can allow teachers to more easily differentiate learning and create a more engaging process by which students learn.

Studies on blended learning are numerous, but lack longitudinal, and often the sample sizes used are too small to generate a general understanding. Overwhelmingly though, studies demonstrate an increase in motivation when technology is used in the classroom. Much research demonstrates greater levels of reading comprehension, while others demonstrate similar levels of comprehension between paper and digital learning, but with greater motivation. Teacher engagement can also be directly tied to student success in blended learning as well.

If we want fish to climb literacy learning trees, it is possible. However, teachers will have to differentiate the content and process, and maybe even the product, and meet students where they are at with technology. By bringing the tree to the fish’s environment, and allowing the fish to do what it does best, the fish can rise to the challenge with certainty.

Applied Education Systems. (August 19, 2019). Pros and Cons of Differentiated Instruction [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJk8Tlvc_LM

Behjat, F., Yamini, M., Bagheri, M. (2012) Blended Learning: A ubiquitous learning environment for reading comprehension. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 97-106. Doi: 10.5539/ijel.v2n1p97

Carson, C. (2019). Study shows 72 percent of teenagers play video games - KTAR.com. Retrieved 21 September 2019, from https://ktar.com/story/602773/study-shows-79-of-teenagers-play-video-games/

Cavanagh, S. (2018, January 18). Snapshot of K-12 Tech Landscape: More Districts Reach 1-to-1, But Equity Gaps Persist. Retrieved from https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/snapshot-k-12-tech-landscape-districts-reach-1-1-equity-gaps-persist/

Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., Auld, D. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. The British Journal of Education Technology, 41(3), 349-364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00993.x

Clker-Free-Vector-Images. (2019). [cartoon]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/vectors/fish-funny-cartoon-odd-surprised-33712/

Company Overview. (2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.lexialearning.com/about

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek 11. doi: 10.1145/2181037.2181040

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educational Techonology & Society, 18(3). Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39683102/Gamification_in_Education_A_Systematic_M20151104-8546-1cs0c99.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Gamification_in_Education_A_Systematic_M.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A/20190908/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190908T235108Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=3494e1a28030393d78c66e71d92d51de6a76886d56dad53c77ef059f5634f4c8

Edutopia. (September 11, 2014). Blended Learning: Making it Work in Your Classroom [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzwH1mK2TY

Edutopia (2017, October 3). Station Rotation: Differentiating Instruction to Reach All Students [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg38A1ggYiE

Encyclopedia. (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/46182/lite-version

Farquhar, N. (2019). [graph].

Freckle Education. (March 13, 2019). Freckle Overview [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIchzOkq2ck

Freckle Is Research-Backed. (2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.freckle.com/research/

G Suite for Education | Google for Education. (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://edu.google.com/products/gsuite-for-education/?modal_active=none

Heinze, A., & Procter, C. T. (2004). Discussions and Conclusions. In Reflections on the use of blended learning. Manchester, UK: University of Salford.

Ingwersen, H. (2019). What Learning Management Software Costs. Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://blog.capterra.com/learning-management-software-costs/

Instantly access 35,000 high-quality books for kids. (2019). Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://www.getepic.com

IXL. (April 5, 2017). Using IXL to Support Literacy [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq_YXWmakXw

IXL - Our story. (2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.ixl.com/company/story

IXL - Why IXL. (2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.ixl.com/membership/teachers/research

Kaczmarek, A.W., & Szymanska, A. (2011). Reading efficiency in blended learning context. The Journal of Teaching English with Technology, 11 (2), 29-42. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reading+efficiency+in+blended+learning+context&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Kim, Hea-Suk. (2014) Effects of using mobile devices in blended learning for English reading comprehension, Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17 (2), 54-85.

Lause, J. (2004). Using reading workshop to inspire lifelong readers. English Journal, 93 (5), 24-30. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4128931?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Lexia Learning. (September 17, 2018). Lexia Core 5 Reading Overview [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_u7PpfApM

Lexia Learning. (2019). Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.lexialearning.com/

Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: teachers respond. Research in Higher Education Journal, 13.

Loewus, L. (2019). The Nation's Teaching Force Is Still Mostly White and Female. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the-nations-teaching-force-is-still-mostly.html

McCarthy, J. (2017, March 23). 3 Ways to Plan for Diverse Learners: What Teachers Do. Retrieved from https://nhoetnews.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/3-ways-to-plan-for-diverse-learners-what-teachers-do/

Millward, W. (2019). Renaissance Learning Buys Freckle Education to Expand Math Offerings - EdSurge News. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-05-20-renaissance-learning-buys-freckle-education-to-expand-math-offerings

Nagel, D. (2019). Study: most teaching and learning uses technology nowadays -- THE Journal. Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://thejournal.com/articles/2018/07/10/study-most-teaching-and-learning-uses-technology-nowadays.aspx

Newsela | Instructional Content Platform. (2019). Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://newsela.com/

Pytash, K., & O'Byrne, W. (2019). Research on Literacy Instruction and Learning in Virtual, Blended, and Hybrid Environments. In K. Kennedy & R. Ferdig, Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning (2nd ed., pp. 179-200). Pittsburgh,: Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press.

Reader's Workshop.org. (2019). Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://www.readersworkshop.org/

Recco, R. (2018). What Separates a Good Blended Learning Program From a Bad One? - EdSurge News. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-02-20-what-separates-a-good-blended-learning-program-from-a-bad-one

Schechter, R., Kazakoff, E., Bundschuh, K., Prescott, J., & Macaruso, P. (2017). Exploring the Impact of Engaged Teachers on Implementation Fidelity and Reading Skill Gains in a Blended Learning Reading Program. Reading Psychology, 38(6), 553-579. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2017.1306602

Schechter, R.,,Macaruso, E., Macaruso, P., Kazakoff, E, & , P.Brooke. (2015) Exploration of a Blended Learning Approach to Reading Instruction for Low SES Students in Early Elementary Grades. Computers in the Schools, 32:3-4, 183-200, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2015.1100652

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers' Professional Development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019, September 27). Jerome Bruner. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jerome-Bruner.

The Quote Investigator. (2019). Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/06/fish-climb/

Tomlinson, C. (2019). What Is Differentiated Instruction?. Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction

Versel, L. (2018, February 8). As Cell Phones Proliferate in K-12, Schools Search for Smart Policies. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2018/02/smartphones_student_learning_classrooms_K12_education.html