Custom essays on Articles Review: “Peer Coaching to Improve Classroom Differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE Peer Coaching Program” by Amanda O. Latz et al.

The third article is “Peer Coaching to Improve Classroom Differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE Peer Coaching Program” by Amanda O. Latz et al.
1) The problem statement as the following: “Despite the importance of differentiation, teachers are still not implementing it on a regular basis. (Latz et al, 2009)”
2) The research question is the following: “to understand how a peer coach for teachers may influence teachers’ understandings and abilities to facilitate differentiated lessons for high-ability students. (Latz et al, 2009)”
3) The literary review is the derailed, comprehensive and made according the scholar standards. It presents the balanced picture of the research problem, which was divided on two parts: “Differentiated Instruction and Teacher Issues” and “Peer Coaching and Mentoring”. The review of the latest works in both parts was provided. “In order for a peer coaching initiative to be successful, teachers need ongoing support and follow-up meetings (Matthews & Foster, 2005a; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Swafford, 1998).(via Latz et al, 2009)”
4) The methods section was also developed according the traditional academic standards. It included the description of project CLUE, the methods used in this project and the results.
5) “A total of 46 IPS teachers were mentored for 1 to 3 years by nine mentors. (Latz et al, 2009)” Mostly they were Caucasian women with at least one year of teaching experience. The selection of mentors was stricter: “Mentors were recruited and selected based on affiliation with IPS schools, GT consulting experience, BSU affiliations, and geographic proximity. All mentors had at least 15 years of teaching experience, ranging from 15 to 33 years. (Latz et al, 2009)”
6) “During the spring terms of 2004, 2005, and 2006, mentors conducted three in-class observations per term with each of their assigned teachers. (Latz et al, 2009)” Then the teachers were surveyed and the results of the survey were evaluated.
7) It wasn’t a survey or causal comparative/ex post facto study.
8) The basic timeline of the study involves the spring terms of 2004, 2005 and 2006 years.
9) The analysis was provided by the combination of different methods: qualitative, quantitative, statistical method and the descriptive method. The results were provided in the form of text description, statistical data, and the table of the results.
10) The major finding of the study was that working in pair improves the knowledge and the practical experience of the teachers.
11) As was stated, “The current study has limitations in terms of participant survey response rate and participant mortality. Additionally, the study used a relatively small group of mentors and only third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers in the IPS system. (Latz et al, 2009)”
12) The authors suggest “Further research is necessary and should be conducted in other urban areas and at other grade levels. (Latz et al, 2009)”
13) The article is indirectly related to the third problem statement “It is hard to implement differentiated instruction due to class size, lack of resources, and professional staff.” It provides the recommendations on professional staff improvement that are necessary for differentiated instruction implementation.

References
Amanda O. Latz, Kristie L. Speirs Neumeister, Cheryll M. Adams, and Rebecca L. Pierce. 2009. “Peer Coaching to Improve Classroom Differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE Peer Coaching Program.”
Nancy Padak; Cheryl Potenza-Radis. “Motivating struggling readers: Three keys to success.”
New England Reading Association Journal; 2010; 45, 2; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 1
Holly Hansen-Thomas. “Sheltered Instruction: Best Practices for ELLs in the Mainstream.”
Kappa delta pi record. Summer 2008.