Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2018 | 18 | 2 | 93-114

Article title



Title variants

Languages of publication



The present study investigated the effectiveness of the Glogster and cooperative learning as differentiation models of English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) and Science projects. The study employed a mixed method study design whereby questionnaire and open-ended interview were incorporated to elicit the required data. Eighteen teachers along with eighteen intact classes (n=374) of grade 8 learners of English as a foreign language were randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions. The researchers collected open-ended data with the intent of understanding the meaning Science and English teachers have constructed and how they perceived differentiated instruction upon using the Glogster and cooperative learning in conducting and presenting projects. The findings proved that utilizing Glogster and cooperative learning as multifeatured model could improve students’ English and Science projects and enhance Science and English language teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction.








Physical description


  • American University of Beirut
  • American University of Beirut


  • Awada, G., & Diab, H. (2016). Lebanon’s 2011 ICT education reform strategy and action plan: Curriculum success or abeyance. Cogent Education, Taylor and Francis, 3(1), 1245086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1245086.
  • Bailey, J. P., & Williams-Black, T. H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Three teachers’ perspectives. College Reading Association Yearbook, 29, 133-151.
  • Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014319
  • Cutter, M. (2015). Using technology with English Language Learners in the classroom. Education Masters. Paper 313. https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education_ETD_masters/313.
  • Dean, C., Hubbell, E., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Pearson Teacher Education/Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA.: ASCD.
  • Gredler, M. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late? Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 113-131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-011-9183-6
  • Haberman, M. (1995). Selecting 'star' teachers for children and youth in urban poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(10), 777-781.
  • Jensen, J., & Tunon, J. (2012). Free and easy to use web based presentation and classroom tools. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 6(3-4), 323-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2012.705157
  • Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). Student-student interaction: Ignored but powerful. Journal of Teacher Eeducation, 36(4), 22-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248718503600406.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale & L. Heath (Eds.) Theory and Research on Small Groups (pp. 9-35). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47144-2_2
  • Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (pp. 67-96). New York: Plenum Press.
  • Martinez-Alba, G., Cruzado-Guerrero, J., & Pitcher, S. (2014). Glogsters and other motivating technology: A multiple case study of English Learners. Reading, 14(2). Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/files/11-k4o9m112.pdf
  • McCoy, L. P. (2014). Web 2.0 in the Mathematics Classroom. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(4), 237-242. DOI: 10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.4.0237
  • Opitz, M. F. (1999). Empowering the reader in every child. Instructor-Primary, 108 (5), 35-38.
  • Palinscar, A. (2012). Reciprocal teaching. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 369-371). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2012). Common sticking points about differentiation. School Administrator, 69(5), 18-22. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=23118
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The Differentiated School: Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241-271. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002241
  • Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger.
  • Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1994). Group investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (ed.), The Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods (pp. 97-114). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.3.429
  • Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
  • Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A
  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Woolley, C. M. (2008). Meeting the mixed methods: challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 3(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808325774

Document Type

Publication order reference


YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.