Victoria Reyes Elementary SchoolDasmariñas City

An Action Research on the Effectiveness of Differentiated InstructionIn Teaching English for Grade Four Classes

By

Mary Joy V. OliciaResearcher

I. Introduction

Like Science and Math, English is a difficult but an important subject because the

curriculum considers it as a tool subject needed to understand the different content

subjects. Basically, it is concerned with developing competencies in listening, speaking,

reading, writing, and viewing. Speaking includes skills in using the language

expressions and grammatical structures correctly in oral communication while writing

skill includes readiness skills, mechanics in guided writing, functional and creative

writing (K to 12 Curriculum Guide for Grade 4).

The K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum aims to help learners understand that

English language is involved in the dynamic social process which responds to and

reflects changing social conditions. It is also inextricably involved with values, beliefs

and ways of thinking about the person and the world people dwell. The curriculum aims

that pupils are given an opportunity to build upon their prior knowledge while utilizing

their own skills, interests, styles, and talents.

However, teachers find difficulties in teaching different kinds of pupils with

different intellectual capacities, talent or skills, interest, and learning styles especially in

heterogeneous groupings of pupils. This situation calls for teachers to create lessons for

1

all pupils based upon their readiness, interests, and background knowledge. Anderson

(2007) noted that it is imperative not to exclude any child in a classroom, so a

differentiated learning environment must be provided by a teacher.

Differentiated instruction is based on the concept that the teacher is a facilitator

of information, while students take the primary role of expanding their knowledge by

making sense of their ability to learn differently (Robinson, Maldonado, & Whaley,

2014).

Wilson (2009) argued that differentiated instruction is the development of the

simple to the complex tasks, and a difference between individuals that are otherwise

similar in certain respects such as age or grade are given consideration. Additionally,

Butt and Kusar (2010) stated that it is an approach to planning, so that one lesson may

be taught to the entire class while meeting the individual needs of each child.

According to Tomlinson (2009), DI as a philosophy of teaching is based on the

premise that students learn best when their teachers accommodate the differences in

their readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles. It sees the learning experience as

social and collaborative. The responsibility of what happens in the classroom is first to

teacher, but also to the learner (Subban, 2006). Additionally, DI presents an effective

means to address learner’s variance which avoids the pitfalls of the one-size-fits-all

curriculum. Stronge (2004) and Tomlinson (2004b) claimed that addressing student

differences and interest enhance their motivation to learn and make them to remain

committed and to stay positive as well.

Stravroula (2011) conducted a study in investigating the impact of DI in mixed

ability classrooms and found out that the implementation of differentiation had made a

2

big step in facing the negative effects of socio-economic factors on students’

achievement by managing diversity effectively, providing learning opportunities for all

students. The positive change in students’ achievement had shown that differentiation

can be considered as an effective teaching approach in mixed ability classrooms.

Furthermore, Servilio (cited by Robinson, 2014) studied the effectiveness of

using DI to motivate students to read and found out that an average of 83.4% of the

students’ grades improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and 41% of the

grades decreased.

As educator, the teacher-researcher was motivated to conduct this action

research on the effectiveness of DI in teaching English on Grade Four pupils for a

week-long lesson. She also she wanted to know the effect of this method on the

academic performance of the pupils from results of the diagnostic and achievement test.

II. Statement of the Problem

This study determined the effectiveness of conducting DI to Grade Four English

class. Specifically, it answered the following.

1. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the pretest?

1.1. Control group

1.2. Experimental group

2. What is the performance of the two groups of respondents in the posttest?

1.1. Control group

1.2. Experimental group

3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest scores of the control and

experimental group?

3

4. Is there a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and

experimental group?

5. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the

control and experimental group?

III. Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

1. There is no significant difference between the pretest result of the experimental

and control group.

2. There is no significant difference between the posttest result of the experimental

and control group.

3. There is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest result of the

experimental and control group.

IV. Methodology

This action research utilized the experimental design since its main purpose was

to determine the effectiveness of DI and its possible effect to the mean gain scores on

achievement of pupils on a one-week lesson in Grade 4 English.

Two groups were taught the same lessons for one week. The control group was

taught using the single teaching with similar activities approach while the experimental

group was taught using DI with three sets of activities and three sets of evaluation and

facilitation for the three groupings of pupils for the one-week duration. Two regular

sections were included in the study out of the five Grade 4 sections that the school

have.

4

Both groups were given the diagnostic test on Friday, September 25, 2015 to

identify the classification of pupils whether they belong to the above average group,

average group, and below average group. The achievement test was administered on

Monday, October 5, 2015 the following week using parallel teacher-made tests. The

number of pupils was again identified to know whether there was change in their

classification. The results of the pretest and the posttest were compared to determine

whether using DI is effective or not.

Data Gathering

After seeking the approval from the principal, the teacher-researcher started the

experiment for a week.

The scores of both the pretest and the posttest were taken and these data were

coded, tallied, and were statistically treated using the mean, standard deviation, and t-

test of significant difference.

The mean and the standard deviation were used to determine the level of

performance of control and experimental groups and the classification of pupils, while

the t-test was employed to determine the significant difference of the mean scores on

pretest and posttest of both groups.

V. Results and Discussions

The following are the results and the analysis done from the data.

A. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Diagnostic Test (Pretest)

The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in Table 1.

5

Diagnostic scores reveal that the control group has a mean of 11.76 (Sd=4.06)

while the experimental group reported a mean score of 12.07 (sd=3.56) which is a little

higher.

Table 1

Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental Groups Prior to the Experiment

Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 11.76 4.06

Experimental Group 51 12.07 3.56

The variance results of 4.06 and 3.56 are not that big which signify that both

classes are heterogeneous; meaning the pupils were of differing level of intelligence.

This is indeed a good baseline since the results suggest that the two sections included

in the study are almost the same in the manner that the scores are scattered. This

means that the pupil’s grouping are mixed as to their abilities.

Tomlinson (2009) claimed that pupil’s differences should be addressed and the

two groups became an ideal grouping for which the experiment was conducted

concerning DI.

B. Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Achievement Test (Posttest)

Table 2

Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental Groups Prior to the Experiment

Groups N Mean Standard Deviation

Control Group 49 13.82 3.53Experimental Group 51 16.45 2.34

6

The level of performance of the two groups in the posttest is presented in Table

2.

The experimental group of pupils who were exposed to DI obtains a mean score

of 16.45 (Sd=2.34) while the control group who were taught using the traditional method

obtain a mean score of 13.82 (Sd=3.53).

The result showed that the posttest scores of the experimental groups taught

with DI is remarkably better as compared to those which were taught the traditional

approach. Looking at the standard deviation scores, it signifies that the variance of the

experimental group was smaller than that of the control group which suggest that the

pupils’ intellectual ability were not scattered unlike in the pretest result.

The finding is supported by Stravroula’s (2011) study on DI where was able to

prove that DI is effective as it positively effects the diverse pupils characteristics.

Stronge’s (2004) contention that DI can enhance motivation and performance also

supports the result.

C. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based on the Pretest and Posttest Scores Results

Table 3

Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Score Range Classification

DiagnosticControl

(X=11.76)Score Range

Experimental(X= 12.07)

f % f %17 Above (+1 Sd)

Above Average

11 22.45 16 Above (+1 Sd)

12 23.53

8-16 Average 35 71.43 9-15 37 72.557.69 below

(-1 Sd) Below

Average 3 6.128.51

Below 2 3.92

7

(-1 Sd)Total 49 100 51 100

Table 3 presents the grouping of the pupils both in the control and in the

experimental group As per classification of students based on the mean and standard

deviation results, a majority of the pupils were on the average group for the control and

experimental group prior to the treatment. However, after the experiment, there was a

big increase in number of pupils for the average group for the control group and a larger

number now belongs to the above average group. There were no pupils reported to be

in the below average group for both the control and the experimental group.

Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but

remarkable increase was noted in the group taught with DI.

D. Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based on the Pretest and Posttest Scores Results

Table 3.1

Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction

Score Range Classification

DiagnosticControl

(X=13.82)Score

RangeExperimental

(X=16.45)f % f %

17.35 Above(+1 Sd)

Above Average

11 22.45 18.79 Above(+1 Sd)

12 23.53

11-16 Average 35 71.43 15-17 37 72.5510.29 Below

(-1 Sd)Below

Average3 6.12 14.11 Below

(-1 Sd)2 3.92

Total 49 100 51 100

Table 3.1 shows that as per classification of students based on the mean and

standard deviation results, a majority of the pupils were on the average group for the

control and experimental group prior to the treatment of using DI to the experimental

group.

8

It could be noticed that the percentages of classification are not far from each

other. The idea presented by Tomlinson (2009) that differences of pupils should be

addressed by the teacher in the classroom is good and according to Robinson, et.al, the

teachers are the best facilitators of learning for pupils of diverse background and

abilities.

Table 3.2

Classification of Pupils After the Differentiated Instruction

ClassificationAchievement

Control Experimentalf % f %

Above Average

15 30.6 35 68.63

Average 34 69.39 16 31.37Below

Average0 0 0 0

Total 49 100 51 100

Table 3.2 presents that after the experiment, there was a big increase in number

of pupils for the average group for the control group and a larger number now belongs

to the above average group. There were no pupils reported to be in the below average

group for both the control and the experimental group.

Data suggest that both approach in teaching increased the achievement but

remarkable increase was noted in the group taught with DI. This improvement in the

classification or grouping of pupils in both groups assumes the principle that both

groups who are taught by the same teacher with the same lesson could normally have a

change in aptitude especially if the teacher has addressed the differences as averred by

Anderson (2007). However, the notable changes in the experimental group is surely

brought about by the DI exposed to them as supported by Stravroula (2011), Subban

9

(2006), and Stronge (2004). With the DI, the teacher’s approach to the teaching and the

activities may have affected very well the acquisition of the learning competencies as

was mentioned by Wilson (2009). Specifically however, in English, the contentions of

Sevillano (cited by Robinson et al, 2014) directly supports the result.

E. Results of Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

Table 4

Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control Group and Experimental Group

Groups Mean Standard Deviation

Computed t Tabular Value at

0.05 Level of Significa

nce

Decision

Control 11.76 3.36 3.429 1.9845 Accept HoExperimental 12.07 2.34df=98

Table 4 presents the significant difference in the pretest scores of the two

groups.

The computed t-ratio of 0.8109 is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98 degrees

of freedom. Hence the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted. There is no

significant difference in the pretest scores of the class groups.

This result is good since the baseline data prior to the use of DI suggest that the

pupils have similar intellectual abilities which will be very crucial for trying out the

experiment in the teaching approach. The data suggest that the groups are very ideal

for the experiment since they possess similarities prior to the experiment.

10

F. Significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

Table 5 presents the significant difference of the posttest scores between the

control and the experimental group.

Table 5

Results of Post-test the Control and Experimental Group

Groups Mean Standard Deviation

Computed t

Tabular Value at 0.05 Level

of Significance

Decision

Control 13.82 3.53 3.423 1.9845 Reject HoExperimental 16.45 2.34df=98

From the data, it is very clear that the difference in scores in the achievement

favor the experimental group which was taught using DI. Hence, it is safe to say that DI

is effective based on the data generated.

G. Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Control and Experimental Group

Table 6Significant Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest Scores\

of the Control and Experimental Group

Groups Mean Standard Deviation

Computed t Tabular Value at 0.05 Level

of Significance

Decision

Pretest vs Posttest (df=96)

0.09 1.9850 Accept HoControl 11.76 4.06

Control 13.62 3.53Pretest vs Posttest (df=100)

1.02 1.9840 Reject HoExperimental 12.07 3.56Experimental 16.45 2.34

11

Table 6 presents the comparison of the pretest and post test scores of the control

and the control groups.

Clearly, for the control, there is no significant difference as signified by the

computed t coefficient of 0.09 which is lesser than the tabular value of 1.9850 using 96

degrees of freedom. However, for the control group, it is very obvious that the

calculated t-ratio of 1.02 is greater than the tabular value of 1.9840. Hence, the

hypothesis of no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores for the

control group is accepted but is rejected for the experimental group.

The results are very significant since the group exposed without DI did not report

difference in score unlike in the group taught using DI which showed significant

difference. This then makes it safe to conclude that DI is effective in teaching English.

VI. Findings

The following are the findings of this action research.

1. The mean scores of both control (11.76, Sd=4.06) and the experimental (12.07,

Sd=3.56) groups do not significantly differ based on the t-coefficient result of

0.8109 which is lesser than the tabular of 1.9845 at 98 degrees of freedom.

2. The mean scores of the control (16.45, Sd=2.34) and the experimental (13.82,

Sd=3.53) significantly differ which favor the use of DI from the t-ratio of 3.423 is

greater than the tabular value of 1.9845 at 0.05 level of significance using 98

degrees of freedom.

3. During the pretest, majority of the pupils are average (control group, 35 or

71.43% and 37 or 72.55%). After the treatment, however, majority of the pupils

12

in the control group became average (34 or 69.39%) and above average (35 or

68.63%).

4. There is no significant difference between the control group’s pretest and

posttest scores based on the computed t coefficient of 0.09 which is lesser than

the tabular value of 1.9850 using 96 degrees of freedom but significant

difference exists for the experimental group as signified by the calculated t-ratio

of 1.02 is greater than the tabular value of 1.9840 using 98 degrees of freedom.

VII. Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions.

1. The pretest scores of the control and the experimental group do not differ

significantly.

2. The posttest scores of the groups significantly differ resulting to higher scores for

the experimental group.

3. No significant difference exists in the pretest and posttest scores of the control

group, but significant difference is noted for the experimental group.

4. There is an improvement in the groupings of pupils both in the control and

experimental group but significant improvement was shown for the pupils taught

using DI.

5. Use of DI is effective considering the higher scores of the experimental group

compared to the control group.

VIII. Recommendation

Based on the above findings and conclusions, the following recommendations

are suggested.

13

1. DI should be used in teaching pupils in English especially in heterogeneous

classes because it improved their classroom performance.

2. Teachers should be given in-service trainings on DI for them to gain more

knowledge and clear understanding of the approach.

3. Although tedious on the part of the teachers, they should be encouraged to

prepare and use DI to motivate pupils to participate in class discussions.

4. This action research should be continued.

IX. References:

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), pp. 49-54. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. (Accession No. 24944365)

Butt, M. & Kausar, S. (2010). A comparative study using differentiated instructions of public and private school teachers. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), pp. 105-124. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. (Accession No. 78221508)

K to 12 Curriculum Guide, www.deped.gov.ph

Robinson, L., Maldonado, N., & Whaley, J. (2014). Perceptions about implementation of differentiated instruction: Retrieved October 2015 http://mrseberhartsepicclass.weebly.com/

Stravroula, V. A, Leonidas., & Mary, K. (2011). investigating the impact of differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms: It’s impact on the quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Retrieved October 2015 http://www.icsei.net/icsei2011/Full%20Papers/0155.pdf

Stronge, J. (2004). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement : What do good teachers do? Paper presented at the American Association of School Administrators Annual Conference and Exposition, San Francisco, California.

Subban, P.(2006). Differentiated Instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), pp. 935-947.

14

Tomlinson, C. A., (2009) Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction: Shared principles worth sharing. The NERA Journal, 45(1), 28-33.Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. (Accession No. 44765141)

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004a). Differentiation in diverse settings. School Administrator, 61(7), 28-33

Wilson, S. (2009). Differentiated instruction: How are design, essential questions in learning, assessment, and instruction part of it? New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), pp. 68-75. Retrieved from Education Source database. (Accession No. 508028374)

15