EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTIONAL

APPROACH IN THE MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCES OF GRADE 7

STUDENTS WITH FRACTION DIFFICULTIES

GANGIS, KYLA C.

LAPATIS, RIA JEAN L.

LIQUIT, PAUL ROBERT T.

RIO, RANZ RAYMOND S.

AN ACTION RESEARCH PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF CENTRAL

MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE SUBJECT

EDUC71 FIELD STUDY 2 – PARTICIPATION & ASSISTANTSHIP FOR PRE-

SERVICE TEACHERS

DECEMBER 2022
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 3
II. ACTION RESEARCH QUESTION 4
III. PROPOSED INNOVATION, INTERVENTION, AND
5
STRATEGY
Scope and Delimitations 5
Specific Approach or Strategy 5
Respondents 7
Originality Value 8
IV. ACTION RESEARCH METHODS 8
Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information 8
Data Gathering Methods 8
Data Analysis Plan 9
V. REFERENCES 11

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Likert Scale Reference Table for the Level of Mathematics 9
Performance
 3

I. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

It is well documented that fractions are among the most complex
concepts that students encounter in their years of education. Many students in
the secondary and to some extent to higher education do not fully master the
conceptual and procedural underpinning of fraction. The lack of understanding
and proficiency in fractions can cause delay or deterioration of mathematical
maturation of the students such as difficulties in dealing with other mathematical
concepts that they will encounter as they progress to higher levels (Gagani and
Diano Jr., 2019). Recently, Philippines lagged behind other 58 countries in the
international assessment for mathematics whereas, only 19% of Filipino
students were on the low benchmark, which means that they had some basic
mathematical knowledge, while 81% did not even reach this level. To make it
worst, according to the memorandum released by DepEd (2019) in regards to
National Achievement Test (NAT) result of high school students in 2018, it
shows that the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in Mathematics is 35.34% which
is significantly low compared to the 50% MPS required by DepEd.
The students who are products of the pandemic era and are in a modular
learning setup are, more often than not, struggling to adjust to the face-to-face
setup especially in mathematics, since learning gaps are very visible and
reflective on their performances in school nowadays that the face-to-face
learning set-up is back after years of modular learning. According to Biason
(2022), the result of his study revealed that topics under fractions was in
“frustration” level and it was further found out that the least mastered
competency was in the topic related to fraction. Students’ poor performance in
mathematics continues to be a problem in education. Although a lot of factors
may have contributed to this (Brew et al., 2021), few have explored the
mathematics performances of the students after the pandemic during face-to-
face classes and there is little to no studies existing in Central Mindanao
University with regards to utilizing Differentiated Instructional Approach as an
intervention for high school students with difficulties in dealing with secondary
mathematics involving fractions.
The Differentiated Instructional (DI) approach is a very important
strategy to meet the diverse needs of the learner and improve the teaching and
learning process. From the study of Avcu & Yaman (2022), the differentiated
 4

instructional approach for education increased the value development of gifted

students and was effective in this context. Similarly, the study of Bal (2016),
proved that applying a differentiated teaching approach within the classroom
increased students’ mathematical thinking and mathematical achievement
positively. The researchers were encouraged to examine the effectiveness of
Differentiated Instructional Approach in the Mathematics Performances of
students with difficulty in dealing lessons involving fractions because
conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions is one of the mathematics
fundamentals and a pre-requisite that students must possess in order to
proceed successfully in higher levels of mathematics (Alustaoglu et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, the study aims to determine if there is a significant difference in
the mathematics performances of students exposed to DI Approach and those
exposed to non-DI Approach. Along the lines of determining its significance, the
results of the current study also seek to determine the effectiveness of utilizing
Differentiated Instructional Approach in teaching mathematics among students
with difficulties in dealing secondary mathematics that involves applying
fractions. The findings could also be used in lesson planning to determine the
methods, strategies, and approaches that would be appropriate for students
who have a cognitive difficulty, particularly with fractions.

II. ACTION RESEARCH QUESTION

This study aims to examine the effectiveness of Differentiated
Instructional Approach in the Mathematics Performances of Grade 7 students
with difficulty in dealing lessons involving fractions. It seeks to understand the
following questions:
1. What is the performance level of Grade 7 students exposed to DI
Approach and those exposed to non-DI Approach in terms of:
a. pre-test;
b. post-test; and,
c. retention test?
2. Is there a significant difference in the performance of Grade 7 students
exposed to DI Approach and those exposed to non-DI Approach in terms
of:
a. post-test; and,
 5

b. retention test?
3. How effective is differentiated instructional approach in improving the
mathematics performance of Grade 7 students with fraction difficulties?

III. PROPOSED INNOVATION, INTERVENTION, AND STRATEGY

A. Scope and Delimitations
The current study has some potential limitations. Primarily, the study
is limited to the selected two sections of Grade 7 in Musuan Integrated
School. Second, the study is highly dependent on the levels of validity and
reliability of the test questionnaire’s reliability coefficient using an item
analyzer software. Lastly, the data to be gathered will be limited to the result
taken from the pre-test, post-test, and retention test of the above-mentioned
students. Lastly, the findings and conclusions from this study can present
inferences about the general population.
Moreover, this study will deal mainly with implementing interventions
for the pressing problem among secondary students who have difficulties in
dealing secondary-level mathematics involving fractions. This study aims
examine the effectiveness of Differentiated Instructional Approach in the
Mathematics Performances of Grade 7 students with difficulty in dealing
lessons involving fractions. The data will be statistically analyzed through
descriptive statistics and ANCOVA.

B. Specific Approach or Strategy

Despite the responses from educational systems globally to student
diversity by creating classes with various student ability levels (tracking or
streaming), large-scale data (e.g., PISA) unmistakably show that the
student population is significantly and steadily becoming more diverse.
Students vary substantially in terms of abilities, cultural background,
linguistic proficiency, gender-based learning preferences, learning styles,
drive, interest, self-control, learning acquisition, and other characteristics.
Dealing with student diversity, as stated here, includes the needs related to
inclusive instruction. Teachers must be able to effectively differentiate their
 6

education in order to meet the varying learning needs of students (Pozas et

al., 2020).
Differentiated Instructional (DI) approach is a widely used strategy
that has been successful in meeting the needs of a wide range of pupils.
Designed as a set of instructional strategies, this notion gives teachers the
tools they need to effectively meet each student's unique learning needs
while fostering a varied and inclusive classroom environment. To make the
conceptualization adopted for this study clearer, the next section will briefly
describe the current state of the DI literature. The assertion is supported by
Valiandes (2015) as cited in Pozas et al. (2020), for instance, children who
received DI from their teachers outperformed their peers in terms of
academic performance. The same goes for Reis, et al. (2011) as well as
Baumgartner et al. (2003), DI has a positive impact on students' academic
performance, particularly their reading fluency and comprehension.
Due to DI's good and efficient implementation which depends
primarily on teachers, research has concentrated on looking at how and how
often teachers differentiate their daily instruction. However, inconsistent
results from empirical study have been found regarding teachers' stated
usage of DI. For instance, Moon et al. (2002) had shown that teachers
hardly ever include DI techniques into their regular lessons. Similarly, Smit
et al. (2012) findings suggested that teachers occasionally employ DI
techniques. Additionally, their data suggest that teachers exhibit relatively
little variation in how they apply DI techniques, such they significantly differ
by engaging in tiering activities or putting in place flexible grouping. Further,
Prast et al. (2015) showed a greater adoption rate than Roy et al. (2013),
who found a modest usage of DI approaches.
The Differentiated Instructions Approach will be implemented
through the following process:
1. Determine what should be taught. Think about the anchor
standards, benchmarks, key inquiries, or expectations to be
taught throughout the curriculum areas. What the pupils should
understand, be able to do, or act like following the learning
experience should be obvious.
 7

2. Describe the subject matter, including any knowledge,

comprehension, and necessary skills.
3. Activate. Find out what the students already know and what they
still need to learn in their previous lessons in fractions in order to
determine if there are difficulties that could deteriorate the
learning process of the new lesson that involves the applications
of fractions. This makes use of previously stored information in
the long-term memory of the brain. To enable plenty of time for
preparing learning activities, grouping students, and generating
anticipation and excitement about the new topic, this formative
pre-assessment may be completed one to three weeks before to
the unit.
4. Acquire. Define the knowledge and abilities that kids must learn
today and how they will achieve understanding of them.
Additionally, choose whether the acquisition will be based on
readiness or interest and whether it will happen in a total-group or
small-group scenario.
5. Apply and Adjust. To understand and remember new information,
students must have the chance to put it into practice and become
actively involved. Always remember to include opportunities for
students to employ vocabulary that is both academic and domain-
specific as well as a range of thinking and complexity levels.
6. Assess. Ask the pupils to demonstrate their understanding. Give
people the option to choose how to do this. Use a high-quality
formative assessment tool to identify the knowledge that has
been learned, requires planned interventions, and needs to be
looped back through at a later time. Decide on the best
summative assessment to use and how it will be scored.

C. Respondents
The respondents of this study, a total of 80, are grade 7 students
enrolled in Musuan Integrated School for the year 2022-2023. The
respondents will be randomly selected and assigned to the control goup and
treatment group of the study.
 8

D. Originality Value
This study will help secondary students with difficulty in dealing
lessons involving fractions to fill the learning gaps without consuming time
outside the usual class schedule and without lagging behind the current
lessons. At the same time, it will also help them acquire conceptual and
procedural knowledge of fractions which is one of the mathematics
fundamentals and a pre-requisite that students must possess in order to
have a successful mathematical maturation. These can provide valuable
pointers for teachers looking to improve their teaching methods and find
techniques or methods to help secondary students improve their
mathematics performance despite having difficulties in fractions using
Differentiation Instructional Approach.

IV. ACTION RESEARCH METHODS

A. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information (Sampling)
The participants of this study will be exclusively drawn from the
Grade 7 level of Musuan Integrated School at Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon.
The researchers will use a probability sampling method which involves a
random selection from a certain population which can represent the whole
population. The sample size of 80 will be selected through simple random
sampling; it is a method where the sample will be selected from the
population randomly thus, providing every member of the population an
equal chance to be selected. The research sample will be randomly
assigned to two sections with 40 each section, one section will be the
treatment group who will be exposed to DI Approach while the other section
will be the control group who will be exposed to non-DI Approach.

B. Data Gathering Methods

Upon the approval of the panel members, the researcher will be
undergoing the following steps and procedures in gathering data for the
study. The researchers will submit an approved letter of communication to
the principal head of Musuan Integrated School, which were sought to
accommodate the researchers to implement the proposed intervention to
the respondents. After the approval, the researchers will administer a pre-
 9

test before implementing the intervention. Then, the two groups of students
will be taught with the same lessons for 4 weeks. The Differentiated
Instructional Approach will then be implemented in teaching the
experimental group during the fourth grading period while the traditional
method of teaching will be utilized in the control group. The implementation
of the proposed intervention will be conducted during the entire 3rd Grading
Period as indicated in the course outline and classes were held 5 hours per
week.
After the 3rd Grading Period, students will take the same test which
will serve as the post-test. These tests will be employed to determine the
extent of learning of the students and whether there was a change in the
mathematics performance. One week after the post-test, the same test will
also be conducted to verify the retention of the students. Furthermore, the
data gathered from the control and treatment group will then be tallied and
tabulated, subject to statistical analysis using statistical tests such as,
descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

C. Data Analysis Plan

The researcher will develop a 50-item mathematics performance test
on the topics that involves applying fractions. The test will be undergoing a
validity test to determine its reliability coefficient using the item analysis
software developed by Bermundo and Ballester (2004). The test’s table of
specifications (TOS) will be based on the Department of Education’s
Curriculum Guide for K to 12 Curriculum Grade 7 Mathematics. Pre-test,
post-test, and retention test will be conducted before and after the first
grading period to measure the mathematics performance of the students.
The scale used to interpret the score is as follows:
Table 1. Likert Scale Reference Table for the Level of Mathematics Performance
Descriptive
Range Interpretation
Equivalent
This means that the level of
90% - 100% Very High mathematics performance of the
student is excellent.
This means that the level of
86% - 89% High mathematics performance of the
student is good.
 10

This means that the level of

80% - 85% Moderate mathematics performance of the
student is average.
This means that the level of
75% - 79% Low mathematics performance of the
student is below average.
This means that the level of
65% - 74% Very Low mathematics performance of the
student is poor.

Descriptive Statistics such as frequency counts, percentage, mean

and standard deviation will be used to describe the performance level of
students in Mathematics that involves application of fractions (e.g.,
Algebra). Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) will be used to determine the
performance level of Grade 7 students exposed to Differentiated
Instructional Approach and those exposed to non-Differentiation
Instructional Approach in terms of (a) pre-test, (b) post-test, and (c) retention
test; and, to determine if there is a significant difference in the performance
of students exposed to Differentiated Instructional Approach and those
exposed to non-Differentiation Instructional Approach in terms of (a)
posttest, and (b) retention test.
 11

REFERENCES
Aliustaoglu, F., Tuna, A., & Biber, A. C. (2018). Misconceptions of Sixth Grade
Secondary School Students on Fractions. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education (10(5), pp.591-599). Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018541308

Avcu, Y. E., & Yaman, Y. (2022). Effectiveness of the differentiated instructional

design for value education of gifted: A mixed study. Journal of Gifted Education and
Creativity, 9(1), 1-23.

Bal, A. P. (2016). The effect of the differentiated teaching approach in the algebraic
learning field on students’ academic achievements. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 63, 185-204.

Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M. B. & Rush, C. (2003). “Increasing reading achievement

of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction (Master
thesis).” Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University & SkyLight.

Brew, E.A., Nketiah, B. and Koranteng, R. (2021). A Literature Review of Academic

Performance, an Insight into Factors and their Influences on Academic Outcomes of
Students at Senior High Schools. Open Access Library Journal, 8, 1-14. doi:
10.4236/oalib.1107423.

Gagani, R. F. & Diano Jr., F. (2019). Characterizing the Difficulty in Fraction Operation.
International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications 3(6), pp. 168-174.

Moon, T., Callahan, C., Tomlinson, C. A., & Miller, E. (2002). “Middle School
Classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and student perceptions.” Storrs, CT: The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction:
exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs V. 20 (3), pp. 217-230.
https://nasenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/1471-3802.12481

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergena, E. H., & Van Luit, J. (2015).
“Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: expert
recommendations and teacher self-assessment.” Frontline Learning Research, 3 (2),
pp. 90–116. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i2.163.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). “The
effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement
in five elementary schools.” American Educational Research Journal, 48 (2), pp. 462–
501.

Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). “Teaching to address diverse learning needs:
development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale.” International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17 (11), pp. 1186–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012. 743604.
 12

Smit, R. & Humpert, W. (2012). “Differentiated instruction in small schools.” Teaching

and Teacher Education, 28 (8), pp. 1152–62. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2012.07.003.

Valiandes, S. (2015). “Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy

and reading in mixed ability classrooms: quality and equity dimensions of education
effectiveness.” Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, pp. 17–26. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.005.