Summary In the article, "Differentiate Curriculum Enhancement in Inclusive Middle School Science", it compared differentiated and traditional (teacher-led) instruction. For twelve weeks, they tested thirteen classes of 213 students. Out of the 213, forty-four had learning difficulties. The experimental classes received differentiated instruction, such as, hands-on and peer-mediated. While the control group received teacher-led (traditional) instruction (Mastropieri et al., 2006). This was a four-fold investigation. First, it was "to determine whether differentiated curriculum enhancements relevant to the study of scientific methods could be developed for eighth-grade inclusive science classes" (Mastropieri et al., 2006, pg. 132). Secondly, using a peer-mediated format to incorporate materials. Thirdly, they wanted to see if test scores would improve if they used this randomized field trial. Finally, it was to determine whether the students had a good experience and enjoyed using these materials (Mastropieri et al., 2006). The method of data collection included four parts. Initially, the class was given a pre-test. Then they divided the classes up into two groups. For twelve weeks, 90 minutes four days a week and 45 minutes on the fifth day, the class was instructed either through the traditional way of teaching or by using differentiated instruction. The traditional classroom learned the material either through teacher-led discussion, taking notes, using the textbook or worksheets, or listening to recordings. On the other hand, the experimental classroom used materials, "including curriculum enhancements that taught 'Scientific Investigation' units of instruction, covering charts and graphs, measurement, independent and dependent variables, and qualitative and quantitative research methods" (Mastropieri et al., 2006, pg. 133). The students were put in groups to work on these activities. After the instruction was completed, the students participated in post testing and a high-stakes test. They also completed surveys asking questions about what their general feeling was about the way they learned the material. As far as statistical analysis goes, ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used. After complying all of the data, it was shown that the students in the experimental group (differentiated instruction) did much better in the post test and the end of the year high stakes test. Their attitude was also favorable in how they enjoyed the content taught.
Analysis
I feel like this is just scratching the surface when it comes to researching differentiated instruction. These studies should be given to a larger number of students and focus on other subjects, not just science. Also, on the survey, it only had eight questions. This could have been expanded; with more detail the students would have had a chance to answer more specifically on how they exactly felt about it instead of the general questions that were used. Finally, I feel that this research could have been given over a longer period of time. In science, there are many things that have to be learned over a good amount of time and by a great deal of practice. If they had prolonged this experiment for longer than twelve weeks, they would have been able to gain more information and have better results.

References:
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E., & Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated Curriculum Enhancement in Inclusive Middle School Science: Effects on Classroom and High-Stakes Tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 130-137.