Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Action Research
Presented to
the Faculty of the Teacher Education Program
Initao College
In partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the EL 101
Teaching Internship
Estelle May B. Augusto, Mr. Eric Glenn V. Calinga, Ms. Dalin Dapanas and Ms. Mary
Joy Sacay in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the EL 101 Teaching
ELIEDA APOR
Research Adviser
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
i
This study was conducted to determine if differentiated instruction effective
below average, average, and above average students. The study was that of a quasi-
experimental design using student subject in the classroom of second grade. The
school in the study was in one of the hinterland schools in Lugait, Misamis Oriental.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………… IV
CHAPTER 1
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………... 1
(20 spaces) 1.1 Background of the Study …………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem …………………………………………... 3
1.3 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………... 4
1.4 Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………... 4
1.5 Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………... 6
1.6Significance of the Study ……………………………………………. 7
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study ……………………………… 8
1.8 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………... 8
CHAPTER 2
Research Methodology ………………………………………………………………………. 10
2.1 Research Design ………………………………………………………... 10
2.2 Participants of the Study ……………………………………………. 10
2.3 Research Instrument …………………………………………………. 10
2.4 Data Collection Procedure …………………………………………. 11
2.5 Statistical Analysis …………………………………………………….. 11
CHAPTER 3
Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………………. 14
3.1 Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the 14
Pretest……………………………………………………………………
…
3.2 Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the 15
Posttest
3.3 Classification of Students in the Control and 16
Experimental Group based on the Pretest and Posttest
Score Result………………………………………………………………..
3.4 Result of Significant Difference Between the Pretest 18
Scores of the Control and Experimental Group……………...
3.5 Result of Significant Difference Between the Posttest 19
Scores of the Control and Experimental Group……………...
3.6 Significant Difference of Pretest and Posttest of Control 20
and Experimental Group……………………………………………..
CHAPTER 4
Conclusion and Recommendation ………………………………………………………. 21
4.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 21
4.2 Recommendation ……………………………………………………….. 21
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………………... 24
Appendix A. Pretest and Posttest Questionnaire……………… 25
iii
Appendix B. Documentation…………………………………………… 26
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Classification of Scores…………………………………………………………... 11
Table 2. Pretest Result of the Control and Experimental Group Prior to 14
the experiment…………………………………………………………………………………..
Table 3. Posttest Result of the Control and Experimental Group Prior to 15
the experiment…………………………………………………………………………………..
Table 4. Classification of Students Score before Differentiated 16
Instruction…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Table 5. Classification of Students Score after Differentiated 17
Instruction…………………………………………………………………………………………
…
Table 6. Significant Difference of Pretest Scores of Control and 18
Experimental Group……………………………………………………………………………..
Table 7. Significant Difference of Posttest Scores of Control and 19
Experimental Group……………………………………………………………………………..
Table 8. Significant Difference between Pretest and Posttest Scores of 20
Control and Experimental Group…………………………………………………………..
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1. Pretest and Posttest Questionnaire………………………………… 25
Appendix 2. Documentation………………………………………………………………. 26
iv
v
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Like Science and Math, English is a difficult but an important subject because
involved with values, beliefs, and ways of thinking about the person and the
world people dwell. The curriculum aims that pupil are given an opportunity to
build upon their prior knowledge while utilizing their own skills, interests,
to create lessons for all pupils based upon their readiness, interests, and
be provided by a teacher.
1
information, while students take the primary role of expanding their knowledge
individuals that are otherwise similar in certain respects such as age or grade
are given consideration. Also, Butt and Kusar (2010) stated that it is an
approach to planning, so that one lesson may be taught to the entire class while
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. In Subban, 2006 he said that the
responsibility of what happens in the classroom is first to teacher, but also to the
learn and make them to remain committed and to stay positive as well, (Stronge
et al. 2004).
classrooms and found out that the implementation of differentiation had made a
2
for all students. The positive change in students’ achievement had shown that
ability classrooms.
ability groups. While assessment helps to determine which students need more
challenge, which ones are performing at grade level, and which ones need
scaffolding to meet the expectations, the teacher must decide as to how to make
the lesson engaging and focused. This would consider such approaches such as
3
1.3 Hypotheses
learning, learning styles, and cooperative learning. Two dominant theories are Lev
Learning and development are interrelated from the child ‘s very first
(Vygotsky, p. 82).
4
A child ‘s ZPD is that point in a learning experience that is slightly more
challenging than what he or she can do alone. By students working within their
zone, they are not interacting with work that is too easy or too difficult for them.
level (Hall, 2002). Vygotsky claims the ZPD furnishes psychologists and educators
with a tool through which the internal course of development can be understood
developmental processes that can operate only when the child is interacting with
people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes
do not coincide with learning processes. Instead, the developmental process falls
behind the learning process; this sequence then results in zones of proximal
major thinking styles. These are analytical, creative, and practical. In two studies,
one conducted in 1995 and one in 1997, thinking styles were shown to impact how
much a student learned. The 1995 study found that students were more positively
evaluated by and received better grades from teachers who matched their styles
than those who did not (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1997). In another study
5
between preferred style and performance. When these abilities were used to predict
Teaching
Mathematics Teaching
Mathematics
Independent Independent
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the study.
Variable Variable
Single Differentiated
Instruction Instruction
Students are being taught in a “one size fits all” approach classroom. This
two extremes of students, the high and the low, are not appropriately challenged.
6
Differentiation is based upon the best practices in teaching; however, there is no
student achievement. While some educators feel it is a necessity for their students,
others do not feel like the extra work and preparation is worth the time. The
findings of this study will be a foundation for future studies as to the achievement
classrooms that are showing evidence of differentiation and those that are not, this
may change the way teachers teach and the way universities prepare students to
become educators.
participated in the study which potentially help with the collaboration and fidelity of
7
would have been preferred, the quasi- experimental design was chosen. The smaller
number of participants was also a factor to validate the results more accurately. The
The subject school is a public school from the one of the hinterland
the results, especially if they are positive, to other schools of more diverse
demographics due to the perceived notion that differentiated instruction will only
work in this certain group. For this study, the convenient population will limit this
research setting and population purposeful, the findings will apply to the Grade 2
individual needs and learning styles before designing a lesson plan. Instructors who
shared interests, assess students’ learning via formative assessment, and continually
8
Participants refers to the students involved in the study.
study.
CHAPTER 2
Research Methodology
purpose was to determine the effectiveness of DI and its possible effect to the mean
9
gain scores on achievement of students on a one-week lesson in Grade 2
Mathematics.
Elementary School in the academic year 2021- 2022. It has only one section which
were made up of 7 female and 7 male learners, with a total population of 14 Grade 2
learners. The choice of the participant was due to proximity of the researcher to the
area of study, and it also stem from the fact that they should be able to supply
information needed.
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 Friday, April 29, 2022 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. The classification of students’ scores in pre- test and post- test
Scores Classification
5-7 Average
10
0-4 Below average
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
pupils, while the t-test was employed to determine the significant difference of the
mean scores on pretest and posttest of both groups. The following statistical
Mean
Formula:
Wherein:
X̄ = population mean
11
ΣX = sum of each value in the population
Standard Deviation
Formula:
Wherein:
∑ = sum of…
X = each value
μ = population mean
2. T-test was used to find out the significant difference on the pre-test and
Formula:
t= M1 - M2
sM 1-M2
Wherein:
M1= mean of the first set of values
students in the Control and Experimental Group between pre- test and
posttest.
12
The following statistical components was used were as follows:
Formula:
CHAPTER 3
Results and Discussion
This chapter discussed the data analysis and findings from the pre- test and
post- test completed by the students of Grade two who were officially enrolled in
The following are the results and the analysis done from the data.
13
3.1 Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Pretest
The result of the pretest of the two class groups is presented in Table 2.
Diagnostic scores reveal that the control group has a mean of 2.75 (Sd=1.49) which
is a little higher of the experimental group that has a reported mean score of 2.66
(Sd=1.21).
Table 2. Pretest Results of the Control and the Experimental Groups Prior to the
Experiment
Groups N Mean Standard
Deviation
Control Group 8 2.75 1.49
The Standard deviation results of 1.49 and 1.21 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 students’ grouping is mixed as to their abilities.
the two groups became an ideal grouping for which the experiment was conducted
concerning DI.
Table 3. Post test Results of the Control and the Experimental Groups after the
Experiment
Groups N Mean Standard
Deviation
14
Control Group 8 5.25 1.03
score of 8.5 (Sd=1.05) while the control group who were taught using the traditional
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.
Average 1 12.5% 0 0%
Below average 7 87.5% 6 100%
Total 8 100% 6 100%
Table 4. Classification of students before Differentiated Instruction.
15
Table 4 presents the grouping of the students both in the control and in the
experimental group as per classification of students based on the score results, most
of the students were on the below 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 and above average group for the
control group. There were only two students reported to be in the below average
group for the control group and there were no students belong to below average in
Classification Achievement
Control Group Experimental Group
f % f %
Above average 3 37.5% 6 100%
Average 3 37.5% 0 0%
Below average 2 25% 0 0%
Total 8 100% 6 100%
Table 5. Classification of students after Differentiated Instruction.
16
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 students 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
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
3.4 Results of Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control
and Experimental Group
Table 6. Significant Difference Between the Pretest Scores of the Control Group and
Experimental Group
Groups Mean Standard Computed t Tabular Decision
Deviation Value at
0.05 Level
of
Significance
Control 2.75 1.49
0.12 Accepted
17
Experimenta 2.66 1.21
l 2.179
df=12
Table 6 presents the significant difference in the pretest scores of the two
groups.
The computed t-ratio of 0.12 is lesser than the tabular of 2.179 at 12 degrees
This result is good since the baseline data prior to the use of DI suggest that
the students 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.
3.5 Results of Significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Control
and Experimental Group
Table 7. Significant Difference Between the Posttest Scores of the Control Group
and Experimental Group
Groups Mean Standard Computed t Tabular Decision
Deviation Value at
0.05 Level
of
Significance
Control 5.25 1.03
18
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
3.6 Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the
Control and Experimental Group
Table 8. Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the
Control and Experimental Group
Groups Mean Standard Computed t Tabular Decision
Deviation Value at
0.05 Level
of
Significanc
e
Pretest Scores (df=12)
Control 2.75 1.49 0.12 2.179 Accepted
Experimental 2.66 1.21
Posttest Scores (df=12)
Control 5.25 1.03 5.70 2.179 Rejected
Experimental 8.5 1.05
Table 6 presents the comparison of the pretest and post test scores of the
computed t coefficient of 0.12 which is lesser than the tabular value of 2.179 using
the pretest and posttest scores for the control group is accepted but is rejected for
19
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
teaching Mathematics.
CHAPTER 4
Conclusion and Recommendation
4.1 Conclusions
The study is conducted to determine the effectiveness of Differentiated
Instruction in teaching Mathematics. Based on the analysis and findings of the study,
20
1. The pretest scores of the control and the experimental group do not differ
significantly.
control group, but significant difference is noted for the experimental group.
experimental group, but significant improvement was shown for the pupils
4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the researcher hereby presents the
following recommendations:
21
REFERENCES
22
Parker, S. T. (1979). [untitled]. American Anthropologist, 956-957. Retrieved from
https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/195872/
ScottB_2012-2_BODY.pdf;sequence=1
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved
from https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1
&article=1030&context=theses
23
APPENDIX A
Pangalan: ___________________________________________________
1. 4 + _______= 14
2. 2 + _______= 4
3. 3 + _______= 4
24
4. 3 + _______= 10
5. 5 + _______= 10
6. 4 + _______= 18
7. 2 + _______= 12
8. 6 + _______= 13
9. 8 + _______=19
10. 7 + _______= 14
APPENDIX B
(Documentation)
Class Discussion
Prior to the
Experiment
25
During Posttest
26