EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING

MATHEMATICS IN GRADE TWO CLASS

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

Eric Glenn V. Calinga
Dalin Dapanas
Mary Joy sacay
2021
 APPROVAL SHEET

This action research entitles “Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction in

Teaching Mathematics in Grade Three Classes” prepared and submitted by Ms.

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

Internship, is hereby recommended for approval and acceptance.

ELIEDA APOR
Research Adviser

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the EL 101 Teaching

Internship of Teacher Education Program by the oral examination panel.

ANNE PAULINE C. PANORIL WAREN S. ABAYABAY

Member Member

ELIEDA L. APOR, MAEEd

Chairman

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the EL 101 Teaching

Internship of Teacher Education Program.

KEVIN CLIENT B. MATUTES

Research Coordinator

ABSTRACT
i
 This study was conducted to determine if differentiated instruction effective

in teaching mathematics. The overall effectiveness was studied the aptitude of

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.

Sample of 14 students in Grade 2 at Kaluknayan Elementary School were taken. This

study concluded that differentiated instruction do have an overall effectiveness at a

significant level in teaching Mathematics.

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

1.1 Background of the study

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. The K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum aims to help learners

understand that Mathematics 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 pupil 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.

According to Robinson, Maldonado, & Whaley (2014) differentiated

instruction is based on the concept that the teacher is a facilitator of

1
information, while students take the primary role of expanding their knowledge

by making sense of their ability to learn differently.

It was argued by Wilson (2009) 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. 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

meeting the individual needs of each child.

Tomlinson (2009) stated that 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. In Subban, 2006 he said that the

responsibility of what happens in the classroom is first to teacher, but also to the

learner. Additionally, DI presents an effective means to address learner’s

variance which avoids the pitfalls of the one-size-fits-all curriculum. claimed

that addressing student differences and interest enhance their motivation to

learn and make them to remain committed and to stay positive as well, (Stronge

et al. 2004).

In Stravroula (2011) 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

2
 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.

Differentiation occurs concurrently with assessment and grouping. The way

assessment is used to create groupings is unlike using it to create stagnant

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

brain compatibility, learning styles, and cooperative learning strategies.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

This study will determine the effectiveness of conducting Differentiated

Instruction to Grade Three class. Specifically, it will answer 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 two groups of respondents in the posttest?

1.1 Control Group

1.2 Experimental Group

3. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of

the control and experimental group?

3
1.3 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.

1.4 Theoretical Framework

Multiple theories can be related to differentiated instruction. These are not

limited to but include Howard Gardner‘s Multiple Intelligence, brain-compatible

learning, learning styles, and cooperative learning. Two dominant theories are Lev

Vygotsky‘s theory of zone of proximal development (ZPD) and Robert Sternberg‘s

three cognitive styles of learning.

Vygotsky was very concerned with the role of socialization in development.

(Parker, 1979) In an explanation of the ZPD, Vygostsky wrote in 1978:

Learning and development are interrelated from the child ‘s very first

day of life. A well-known and empirically established fact is that learning

should be matched in some manner with the child‘s developmental level

(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.

The learning is meaningful because it appropriately meets the child ‘s readiness

level (Hall, 2002). Vygotsky claims the ZPD furnishes psychologists and educators

with a tool through which the internal course of development can be understood

(Vygotsky, 1978). He continues to say that an essential feature of learning is that it

creates the zone of proximal development. Learning stimulates various internal

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

become automatic, they become part of the child ‘s independent developmental

achievement. It is important to remember the notion that developmental processes

do not coincide with learning processes. Instead, the developmental process falls

behind the learning process; this sequence then results in zones of proximal

development (Vygotsky, 1978).

Sternberg, along with research associate, Elena Grigorenko, looked at three

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

conducted in 1997 of 199 high school students at a Yale University Summer

Psychology Program, Sternberg and Grigorenko found consistent positive relations

5
between preferred style and performance. When these abilities were used to predict

school achievement, and then styles were added in through a hierarchical

regression, styles made a significant incremental contribution to the prediction

equation (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1997).

1.5 Conceptual Framework

CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

Dependent
Variable Dependent
Variable

Teaching
Mathematics Teaching
Mathematics

Independent Independent
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the study.
Variable Variable

Single Differentiated
Instruction Instruction

1.6 Significance of the Study

Students are being taught in a “one size fits all” approach classroom. This

type of approach has been proven to be an ineffective means of instruction since

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

empirical validation to support this method. According to Hall (2004),

differentiation is recognized to be a compilation of many theories and practices.

Based on this review of 15 the literature of differentiated instruction, the “package”

itself is lacking empirical validation.

Research is needed to determine if differentiated instruction increases

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

effects of differentiation. If achievement data are statistically different between the

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.

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

Grade two students with classroom size of approximately 14 students each

participated in the study which potentially help with the collaboration and fidelity of

the instructional strategies employed. While a control and experimental design

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

study might have a different result with a larger sample of students.

The subject school is a public school from the one of the hinterland

elementary schools in Lugait, Misamis Oriental. It could be challenging to generalize

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

study to the effectiveness of DI in teaching Mathematics. The selection of the

research setting and population purposeful, the findings will apply to the Grade 2

learners who will be involved in this study.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Differentiated Instruction is a mode of teaching that accounts for students’

individual needs and learning styles before designing a lesson plan. Instructors who

incorporate differentiated instruction into their classroom may group students by

shared interests, assess students’ learning via formative assessment, and continually

assess and adapt lessons to serve students’ best interest.

Control group refers to students taught using single instruction.

Experimental group refers to the students taught using differentiated instruction.

8
Participants refers to the students involved in the study.

Post-test is an assessment tool that is administered at the end of a course.

Pre-test is a preliminary test administered to determine a student’s baseline

knowledge or preparedness for an educational experience or course of

study.

CHAPTER 2
Research Methodology

2.1 Research Design

This action research utilized the quasi- experimental design since its main

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.

2.2 Participants of the study

The subject of the study were the Grade 2 students in Kaluknayan

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.

2.3 Research Instrument

Both groups were given the diagnostic test on Monday, April 25, 2022 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 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

can be seen in the following table:

Table 1. Classification of Scores

Scores Classification

8-10 Above average

5-7 Average

10
 0-4 Below average

2.4 Data Collection Procedure

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.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

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. The following statistical

techniques and tests were used in data analysis:

1. Mean and Standard Deviation to describe the performance of the two

groups of respondents in the Pre-test and Post-test.

Mean

Formula:

Wherein:

X̄ = population mean

11
 ΣX = sum of each value in the population

N = number of values in the population

Standard Deviation

Formula:

Wherein:

σ = population standard deviation

∑ = sum of…

X = each value

μ = population mean

N = number of values in the population

2. T-test was used to find out the significant difference on the pre-test and

post- test scores of two groups.

Formula:

t= M1 - M2
sM 1-M2
Wherein:
M1= mean of the first set of values

M2= mean of the second set of values

sM1-M2= standard error of difference between means

3. Frequencies and percentages to describe the score classification of

students in the Control and Experimental Group between pre- test and

posttest.

12
 The following statistical components was used were as follows:

Formula:

a. P= F/N x 100 where:

P = stands for percentage (%)

F = number of respondents that completed the test

N = total number of respondents

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

Kaluknayan Elementary School S.Y. 2021-2022.

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

Experimental Group 6 2.66 1.21

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.

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.

3.2 Performance of the Two Groups of Respondents in the Post test.

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

Experimental Group 6 8.5 1.05

The experimental group of pupils who were exposed to DI obtains a mean

score of 8.5 (Sd=1.05) while the control group who were taught using the traditional

method obtain a mean score of 5.25 (Sd=1.03).

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.

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 students’

characteristics. Stronge’s (2004) contention that DI can enhance motivation and

performance also supports the result.

3.3 Classification of Pupils in the Control and Experimental Group Based on

the Pretest and Posttest Scores Results
Classification Achievement
Control Group Experimental Group
f % f %
Above average 0 0% 0 0%

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

the experimental group as seen in the table 5 below.

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

differences as stated by Anderson (2007). However, the notable change 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).

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

of freedom. Hence the hypothesis of no significant difference was 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 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

Experimenta 8.5 1.05 5.70 2.179 Rejected

l
df=12

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

DI is effective based on the data generated and the hypothesis of no significant

difference was rejected.

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

control and the experimental groups.

Clearly, for the control, there is no significant difference as signified by the

computed t coefficient of 0.12 which is lesser than the tabular value of 2.179 using

12 degrees of freedom. 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.

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

significant difference. This then makes it safe to conclude that DI is effective in

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,

the following conclusions were stipulated below:

20
 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 students 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.

4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the researcher hereby presents the

following recommendations:

1. DI should be used in teaching students in Mathematics 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.

21
 REFERENCES

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all

students. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285702453_
Differentiating_instruction_to_include_all_students

Butt, M. & Kausar, S. (2010). A comparative study using differentiated instructions

of public and private school teachers. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265124939_A_
Comparative_Study_of_Using_Differentiated_Instructions_of_Public_and_Private_Sch
ool_Teachers

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on

Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.

K to 12 Curriculum Guide. Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph

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

Robinson, L., Maldonado, N., & Whaley, J. (2014). Perceptions about

implementation of differentiated instruction: Retrieved from
http://mrseberhartsepicclass.weebly.com/

Stenberg, R. (1997). Theory of Mental Self-Government: Thinking Styles. Retrieved

from http://www.robertjsternberg.com/thinking-styles

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 from
http://www.icsei.net/icsei2011/Full%20Papers/0155.pdf

Stronge, J. (2004). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: What do good

teachers do? Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177
/0022487111404241

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International

Education Journal. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Eric

Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/digests/2000/tomlin00.
html

Tomlinson, C. A., (2009) Intersections between differentiation and literacy

instruction: Shared principles worth sharing. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/openview/5b91322b832fdd945af70e74ab63a3a8/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=34991

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: ___________________________________________________

I. Unsa nga numero ang idugang sa unang numero aron

makuha ang sakto nga tubag?
(What number should be added to the first number to
make the answer?)

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

Pretest and Posttest Questionnaire

APPENDIX B
(Documentation)

Class Discussion
Prior to the

Experiment

25
During Posttest

26