An Action Research on the Effectiveness of

Differentiated Instruction In Teaching English for Grade

Four Classes

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
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 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 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 3.53

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 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

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 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.

READ: Research Paper Writing Service

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 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.

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