Victoria Reyes Elementary School

Dasmarias City

An Action Research on the Effectiveness of

Differentiated Instruction In Teaching English for
Grade Four Classes
By

Mary Joy V. Olicia

Researcher

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 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 learners 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 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?

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.

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.

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 pupils grouping are mixed as to their abilities.

Tomlinson (2009) claimed that pupils 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 3.53

Experimental Group 51 16.45 2.34

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 Stravroulas (2011) study on DI where was able to prove
that DI is effective as it positively effects the diverse pupils characteristics. Stronges
(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

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

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.

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

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 (2006),
and Stronge (2004). With the DI, the teachers 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

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.

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

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 6

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

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: Its 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.

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)