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 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.