You are on page 1of 15

Action Research- M. Barberos, A. Gozalo, E.

Padayogdog
THE EFFECT OF THE TEACHER'S TEACHING STYLE ON STUDENTS' MOTIVATION ACTION RESEARCHSUBMITTED
BY: MARIA THERESA BARBEROS, ARNOLD GOZALO, EUBERTA PADAYOGDOG SUBMITTED TO:LEE TZONGJIN,
Ed.D. CHAPTER I THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS' TEACHING STYLE ON STUDENTS' MOTIVATION

Introduction
The teachers, being the focal figure in education, must be competent and knowledgeable in order to impart the knowledge they could
give to their students. Good teaching is a very personal manner. Effective teaching is concerned with the student as a person and with
his general development. The teacher must recognize individual differences among his/her students and adjust instructions that best
suit to the learners. It is always a fact that as educators, we play varied and vital roles in the classroom. Teachers are considered the
light in the classroom. We are entrusted with so many responsibilities that range from the very simple to most complex and very
challenging jobs. Everyday we encounter them as part of the work or mission that we are in. It is very necessary that we need to
understand the need to be motivated in doing our work well, so as to have motivated learners in the classroom. When students are
motivated, then learning will easily take place. However, motivating students to learn requires a very challenging role on the part of the
teacher. It requires a variety of teaching styles or techniques just to capture students' interests. Above all, the teacher must himself
come into possession of adequate knowledge of the objectives and standards of the curriculum, skills in teaching, interests,
appreciation and ideals. He needs to exert effort to lead children or students into a life that is large, full, stimulating and satisfying.
Some students seem naturally enthusiastic about learning, but many need or expect their instructors or teachers to inspire, challenge or
stimulate them. "Effective learning in the classroom depends on the teacher's ability to maintain the interest that brought students to the
course in the first place (Erickson, 1978). Not all students are motivated by the same values, needs, desires and wants. Some students
are motivated by the approval of others or by overcoming challenges.
Teachers must recognize the diversity and complexity in the classroom, be it the ethnicity, gender, culture, language abilities and
interests. Getting students to work and learn in class is largely influenced in all these areas. Classroom diversity exists not only among
students and their peers but may be also exacerbated by language and cultural differences between teachers and students.
Since 2003, many foreign professional teachers, particularly from the Philippines, came to New York City to teach with little knowledge
of American school settings. Filipino teachers have distinct styles and expressions of teaching. They expect that: education is
interactive and spontaneous; teachers and students work together in the teaching-learning process; students learn through participation
and interaction; homework is only part of the process; teaching is an active process; students are not passive learners; factual
information is readily available; problem solving, creativity and critical thinking are more important; teachers should facilitate and model
problem solving; students learn by being actively engaged in the process; and teachers need to be questioned and challenged.
However, many Filipino teachers encountered many difficulties in teaching in NYC public schools. Some of these problems may be
attributed to: students' behavior such as attention deficiency, hyperactivity disorder, and disrespect among others; and language
barriers such as accent and poor understanding of languages other than English (e.g. Spanish).
As has been said, what happens in the classroom depends on the teacher's ability to maintain students' interests. Thus, teachers play a
vital role in effecting classroom changes.
As stressed in the Educator's Diary published in 1995, "teaching takes place only when learning does." Considering one's teaching
style and how it affects students' motivation greatly concerns the researchers. Although we might think of other factors, however,
emphasis has been geared towards the effect of teacher's teaching style and student motivation.

Hypothesis:
If teacher's teaching style would fit in a class and is used consistently, then students are motivated to learn.

Purpose of the Study


The main thrust of the study was to find out the effect of the teacher's teaching style on students' motivation.

Action Research Questions


This paper attempted to answer specific questions such as: 1. What is the effect of teacher's teaching style using English As A Second
Language Strategies on student's motivation? 2. How does teacher's teaching style affect students' motivation? 3. What could be some
categories that make one's teaching style effective in motivating students?

Research Design/Methods of Collecting Data


The descriptive-survey method was used in this study, and descriptive means that surveys are made in order to discover some aspects
of teacher's teaching style and the word survey denotes an investigation of a field to ascertain the typical condition is obtaining. The

researchers used questionnaires, observations, interviews, students' class work and other student outputs for this study. The
questionnaires were administered before and after ESL strategies were applied. Observation refers to what he/she sees taking place in
the classroom based on student's daily participation. Student interviews were done informally before, during, and after classes. Several
categories affecting motivation were being presented in the questionnaire.
Research Environment and Respondents
The research was conducted at IS 164 and IS 143 where three teachers conducting this research were the subjects and the students of
these teachers selected randomly specifically in the eighth and sixth grade. The student respondents were the researchers' own
students, where 6 to 7 students from each teacher were selected. Twenty students were used as samples.
To measure students' motivation, researchers used questionnaires which covered important categories, namely: attitudes, student's
participation, homework, and grades. Open-ended questions were also given for students' opinion, ideas and feelings towards the
teacher and the subject. The teacher's teaching style covers the various scaffolding strategies. The data that were collected from this
research helped the teachers to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses so as to improve instruction. The results of this study could
benefit both teachers and students.

Research Procedure
Data Gathering
The researchers personally distributed the questionnaires. Each item in each category ranges from a scale of 5-1 where 5 rated as
Strongly Agree while 1 as Strongly Disagree. The questionnaires were collected and data obtained were tabulated in tables and
interpreted using the simple percentage. While the open ended questions, answers that were given by the students with the most
frequency were noted.

Review of Related Literature


Helping students understand better in the classroom is one of the primary concerns of every teacher. Teachers need to motivate
students how to learn. According to Phil Schlecty (1994), students who understand the lesson tend to be more engaged and show
different characteristics such as they are attracted to do work, persist in the work despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible
delight in accomplishing their work. In developing students' understanding to learn important concepts, teacher may use a variety of
teaching strategies that would work best for her/his students. According to Raymond Wlodkowski and Margery Ginsberg (1995),
research has shown no teaching strategy that will consistently engage all learners. The key is helping students relate lesson content to
their own backgrounds which would include students' prior knowledge in understanding new concepts. Due recognition should be given
to the fact that interest, according to Saucier (1989:167) directly or indirectly contributes to all learning. Yet, it appears that many
teachers apparently still need to accept this fundamental principle. Teachers should mind the chief component of interest in the
classroom. It is a means of forming lasting effort in attaining the skills needed for life. Furthermore teachers need to vary teaching styles
and techniques so as not to cause boredom to the students in the classroom. Seeking greater insight into how children learn from the
way teachers discuss and handle the lesson in the classroom and teach students the life skills they need, could be one of the greatest
achievements in the teaching process.
Furthermore, researchers have begun to identify some aspects of the teaching situation that help enhance students' motivation.
Research made by Lucas (1990), Weinert and Kluwe (1987) show that several styles could be employed by the teachers to encourage
students to become self motivated independent learners. As identified, teachers must give frequent positive feedback that supports
students' beliefs that they can do well; ensure opportunities for students' success by assigning tasks that are either too easy nor too
difficult; help students find personal meaning and value in the material; and help students feel that they are valued members of a
learning community. According to Brock (1976), Cashin (1979) and Lucas (1990), it is necessary for teachers to work from students'
strengths and interests by finding out why students are in your class and what are their expectations. Therefore it is important to take
into consideration students' needs and interests so as to focus instruction that is applicable to different groups of students with different
levels.
CHAPTER II PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents and analyzes data that answer the subsidiary problems of the study. Table I showed that out of the 20 student
respondents, 50% were males and 50% females. Of the male students respondents, only 2 males belong to the high group while 8
males from the low group. For the females, each of the group had 5 respondents. It also showed that there were 7 respondents from
the high group and 13 came from the low group.

Table 1:Respondents by Gender


Gender Group

Male

Female

Total

High

Low

13

Total

10

10

20

Table 2 showed that out of the 20 students respondents, 80% of students were of Hispanic origin; 10% of respondents were White (not
of Hispanic origin); and 10% were Black (not of Hispanic origin); while 0% were of American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander ethnicity.
The results also showed that among the Hispanic, 40% came from the low and 40% came from the high group. There were only 10%
White respondents from both groups. There were 10% respondents who were Black from both groups.

Table 2: Respondents by Ethnicity


Ethnicity Group American Hispanic White (not of Hispanic origin)

Black (not of Hispanic origin)

Asian or Pacific Islander Others Total

High

10

Low

10

Total

16

20

Table 3 showed that 15% of the respondents had grades between 96-100 in Science, 0% between 91-95, while 15% scored between
86-90, the same as the range between 81-85. However, on the low group 25% of the respondents had grades between 71-75, 5% each
had a range between 66-70 and 61-65; while 15% of the respondents did not have Science last year.

Table 3: Grades in Science


Grades
Group

100-96

95-91

90-86

85-81

80-76

75-71

70-66

65-61

Below 60

No Science last year

Total

High

10

Low

10

Total

20

Table 4 revealed that for students' motivation-attitude, more than half of the respondents agreed that they are always excited to attend
classes this school year. 75% of the students believed that Science is fun and interesting. Similarly, 80% of the respondents agreed that
Science is important for them and 60% said that they love Science.
For student motivation-participation, it showed that more than half of the respondents affirm that they are always prepared in their
Science classes. 75% of the students participated in Science activities; 50% did their Science assignments consistently.
For student motivation-homework, it could be noted that 60% of the students completed their homework on time and 50% found
homework useful and important. 85% of the students said that they got enough support to do homework at home and 90% said that the
teachers checked their homework.
For student motivation-grades, 65% got good grades in Science. 65% of the respondents said that they study their lessons before a
test or a quiz. More than half of the respondents disagreed that the terms or words used in the test were difficult to understand. Less
than half of the respondents agreed tests measure their understanding of Science concepts and knowledge, while 80% thought that
grading is fair. On the other hand, the data under teaching style as noted on table 4 showed that 65% of the students strongly agreed
that they have a good relationship with their Science teacher and no one disagreed. 75% noted that their Science teachers used
materials that were easy to understand. 60% said that their teachers presented the lessons in many ways. More than half of the
students said that they understood the way their Science teachers explained the lesson while 25% were not sure of their answer. 75%
said that they got feedback from their Science teacher.

Table 4: Data on the Five Categories


CATEGORIES

5 Strongly
Agree

4
3 Not
Agree Sure

2
1 Strongly
Disagree Disagree

1. I am always excited to attend my science class this school year.

10

45

30

10

2. Science is fun and interesting.

15

60

15

3. I hate Science. It is not important for me.

15

20

60

4. I don't like Science at all. It is difficult to learn.

10

30

55

5. I love Science. It gives me opportunities to experiment, discover and explore the


things around me.

15

45

30

20

35

30

A. ATTITUDE

B. PARTICIPATION
1. I'm always prepared in my Science class.

2. I participate actively in Science activities by asking questions.

35

40

15

10

3. I do my Science assignments consistently.

25

25

45

4. Science activities do not help me understand concepts easily.

10

40

40

5. I feel bored in my Science class.

15

25

20

40

1. I complete my Science homework on time.

15

45

20

20

2. I find homework very useful and important.

25

25

30

10

10

3. Science homework is difficult to do.

15

25

40

20

4. I don't get enough support to do my homework at home.

10

40

45

5. My teacher does not check my homework at all.

10

30

60

1. I got good grades in Science.

25

40

30

2. I study my lessons before a test or quiz.

20

45

25

3. The terms/words used in the test are difficult to understand.

15

30

45

10

4. The test always measures my understanding of Science concepts and knowledge


10
learned.

30

20

20

20

5. The grading is not fair.

10

10

35

45

1. I have a good relationship with my Science teacher.

65

20

15

2. My Science teacher uses materials that are easy to understand.

45

30

15

3. My Science teacher presents the lesson in a variety of ways.

30

30

15

20

4. I don't understand the way my Science teacher explains the lesson.

10

10

25

40

15

5. I don't get any feedback about my understanding of the lesson from my Science
teacher.

15

C.HOMEWORK

D. GRADES

E. TEACHING STYLE

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/tfat/research/motivation

This is my promised Action Research by one of the teachers at Victoria Reyes Elementary School.
Notice that it was conducted only for a week and the Statistics used are very simple yet the
interpretation is meaty.

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

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

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 tcoefficient 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 tratio 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)