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.

There is no significant difference between the pretest result of the experimental and control group.

There is no significant difference between the posttest result of the experimental and control group.

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

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

Classification of Pupils Before and After the Differentiated Instruction 1

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

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

Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the

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

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

Significant Difference Between the Pretest and Posttest Scores 21

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.

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.

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.

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%).

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.

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

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

No significant difference exists in the pretest and posttest scores of the control group, but significant
difference is noted for the experimental group.

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.

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.

DI should be used in teaching pupils in English especially in heterogeneous classes because it improved
their classroom performance.

Teachers should be given in-service trainings on DI for them to gain more knowledge and clear
understanding of the approach.

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.

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.

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)