Technology for Differentiated Instruction in English Language Teaching

Hanan CHACHOUI & Abdeljabar Elmediouni
Laboratoire CEDUC
Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines
Université Mohamed1er Oujda
h.chachoui@ump.ac.ma

Abstract

This project studies differentiated instruction (DI) as a framework for effective teaching that involves providing all students within their diverse classroom community of learners a range of different paths for understanding new information and its implications for English as a foreign language in the Moroccan context at the secondary level. Our data was collected using ISALEM97 test and colannino 2007 self-assessment test. 29 first baccalaureate students (SM stream) completed the tow questionnaires. Our analysis validates the following hypotheses 1 Students benefit from teachers who tailor their instruction to meet their needs 2 DI enhanced students interaction using the target language. However, the analysis denies the third hypotheses technology enhances students ‘interaction.

Key words: Differentiated instruction, content, readiness, learning profile, product,environment, learning style, multiple intelligences.

Introduction

As teacher we are aware of the diversity in our classrooms and we all the time affirm that we need to address students ‘variances. However, our practices seem to be contradictory.

Most teachers teach every child the same material in the same way, and measure each child’s performance by the same standards. This approach seems fair somehow: no child is given special treatment or unfair advantage. Thus, teachers embrace the value of treating each child as a unique individual while instructing children as if they were virtually identical. [However,] many teachers would eagerly embrace a vision that would permit them to merge their practice with their values. (Mehlinger, 1995, p. 4)

The practice of differentiated instruction consists in organizing the classroom in such a way as to enable each student to learn in the conditions that best suit him or her. Our present study focuses on few factors and tries to answer the following research questions: How can technology enhance interaction and the use of the English language? Does differentiated instruction positively impact interaction by offering teachers to a range of students in today’s classrooms? We have broken these main questions into two secondary ones: 1 what are the differentiated instructions to boost interaction in secondary level? 2 how to use a platform to tailor the learners needs?

To answer these questions, we have adopted Carol Tomlinson’s Model of Differentiation (Fig. 1). Carol Ann Tomlinson model of differentiation is a framework for effective instruction which involves offering individual learners various ways to learn effectively, regardless of differences in ability.

1 Conceptual framework

Carol Ann Tomlinson is a famous educator and researcher who focus much of her time on discussing the potential benefits of differentiated instruction (DI) in today’s classroom. Tomlinson defines the terms and creates a sense of ease so educators can use DI to help close the achievement gap and reach all learners. She states,

“Differentiated instruction is a philosophy of teaching purporting that students learn best when their teachers effectively address variance in students’ readiness levels, interests, and learning profile references. A key goal of differentiated instruction is maximizing the learning potential of each student”
(Tomlinson, 2001, 2003, p. 263).

Differentiated instruction (DI) offers teachers a means to meet students’ varying needs, as it recognizes the spectrum of differences among students, and enables teachers to attend to the specific learning styles of each student, by adjusting what they teach, and how they teach it
(Tomlinson, 2003b).

Carol Ann Tomlinson advanced One of the most famous and appreciated models of differentiated instruction. In Tomlinson’s model, teachers accommodate the content, process and products of a given course to improve students’ engagement and achievement.
Teachers may also differentiate the way that students grasp and perceive
information, by designing tiered activities or diversion of products that fit the same learning goals, to allow students choose how to advertise their learning. Through differentiating how students pick up new information, each student accesses the curriculum and receives touchable support as they establish knowledge. Tomlinson (2003b) also defends that when planning differentiated lessons, teachers should be conscious of students’ readiness, interests and learning profiles. Moreover, when planning a differentiated lesson, teachers have to examine and react to students’
dynamic needs.

1.1 Key elements of differentiated instruction

1.1.1 Student readiness

Current theories support the idea that teachers should adjust their instructions according to student’s readiness. Vygotsky’s proximal development zone (PDZ) theory for example adheres to the belief that teachers should push the child into his/her zone of proximal development by giving him/her a task more difficult than what he can do alone and beyond his/her’ readiness levels, in order to facilitate academic growth. Then through collaborative learning and sharing their ideas with others and also through repetition he/she can find his/her own path in becoming an independent thinker and a problem solver. Vygotsky (1986) posits that instruction should be just.

Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) on the other hand claim that readiness is not a synonym for ability. For them readiness is rather a temporary condition that should change regularly as a result of high-quality teaching; whereas ability refers to a fixed state based on some form of innate or inborn trait. Tomlinson (2005a, 2005b) claims that the concept of student readiness includes student knowledge, understanding and skills in relation to the instruction a teacher is giving. And the goal of readiness differentiation is to ensure that all students are provided with appropriately challenging learning experiences, by ensuring that the materials provided in the classroom in challenging to students. (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009).

1.1.2 Student interest

When we tackle content differentiation we are mainly talking about curriculum topics, concepts, or themes which reflects state or national standards (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000) it provides the learner with choices via different resources that match their levels of understanding. Content is differentiated using
➢ Use pre-assessment to determine where students need to begin, and then
match students with appropriate activities such as;
❖ Student/Teacher Conference – as short as a 5 minute talk
❖ K-N-W Chart – What do I Know, Need to know & Want to know
❖ Journal – Write what you know about…
❖ List – If I say … What does it make you think of?
❖ Concept map…
❖ Pre-test
❖ Student reflection

➢ Use ‘hands on’ activities for some learners to help them understand a new idea.
➢ Use texts, computer programs, tape recordings and videos as a way of
conveying key concepts to varied learners
(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000)

1.1.5 Process differentiation

According to Anderson (2007), differentiating the process within a lesson refers to “how the learners come to understand and assimilate facts, concepts, or skills” (p.50).

Among Strategies to differentiate the process we find:
➢ Tiering activities to various levels of complexity to optimize every
student’s classroom experience.
➢ Providing directions at varied levels of specificity.
➢ Varying the pace of work.
➢ Offering multiple options of expression.
➢ Giving students alternative topics on which to focus.
➢ Creating activities that are harmonious with students’ preferred modalities
of learning
(Tomlinson 2005a, 2005b).

1.1.6 Product differentiation

Product differentiation offers students multiple ways to show proficiency and comprehension of the learning goals. The self-selection of their own product provides them with success which copes with their own learning profiles.
We will test the validity of three hypotheses deduced from Tomlinson model in our Moroccan context in the secondary level:
Hypothesis 1: Students benefit from teachers who tailor their instruction to meet their needs.
Hypothesis 2: Technology enhances students ‘interaction and use of the language.
Hypothesis 3: DI positively impact students ‘involvement.

2 Purpose of the study

Differentiated instruction has become a famous way to reach all students, some people accept the idea of differentiated instruction as a “great” because it is easy to comprehend, but some people claim they have a preferred unique method to learn. This study is important to a teacher of English in the secondary level. It helps teachers both to develop an effective instruction planning and to become reflective making necessary changes. The study is also important to me to improve my teaching quality, to determine how DI affects students’ achievement and to help students learn English more effectively.

3 Literature review

3.1 The Multiple Intelligences

The theory of multiple intelligence (MI) shows a pragmatic approach to our definition of intelligence in general and how we teachers help students learn. Students with learning problems are still smart and have different talents. Being smart is no longer determined by students score or grades on a given test. Being smart is determined by how students adopt different ways to pick up information.

We, as teachers tend to measure students understanding using standardized tests based on standardized textbooks which generate scores that capture all students potential and abilities.
It does not make sense in deed, yet many important educational decisions are shaped by single tests.

3.1.1 The Multiple Intelligences (MI) model

Howard Gardner was working at the Boston Veterans Administration Medical Center when he discovered that patients with brain-damaged lost different competences depending upon the brain injured area. Gardner defines intelligence as the “ability to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community” Gardner (1993b, p. 15) Gardner goes beyond the first definition and states that

“a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills ofproblem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for theacquisition of new knowledge” (1993a, p. 13).

The theory hypothesized that people possess eight or more relatively autonomous intelligences. Gilman, Lynn (2012) [2008].The eight presented
intelligences include:
o linguistic intelligence,
o logical-mathematical intelligence,
o spatial intelligence,
o musical intelligence,
o bodily-kinesthetic intelligence,
o naturalistic intelligence,
o interpersonal intelligence,
o and intrapersonal intelligence.

MI theory is a shift from traditional conceptions of intelligence first developed in the twentieth century, measured today by “intelligence quotient” (IQ) tests and studied by Piaget (2006) and other psychologists like ((Hawley, Jackson, & Kurnit, 1985). Oliver et al. (2008)). The conception that intelligence is multiple rather than singular is denied by Beth A. Visser, Michael C. Ashton and Philip A. Vernon who claim that, even though Gardner first made his theory public in 1983, the first empirical study to test the theory was not published until 23 years later (Visser, et al., 2006a) and the results were not supportive. Multiple intelligences theory can barely be characterized as scientifically generative.

After twenty five years of reflection on the theory, (Gardner, 1983) highlight two scientific claims of the theory built on a large number of empirical studies:
l) All individuals possess the full range of intelligence cognitively speaking.
2) No two individuals, not even identical twins, demonstrate the exact profile of intellectual strengths and weaknesses. (2011 article)
The theory captivated more attention in the field of educational researches than psychological experimentations.
In old days, the ‘one the one way’ to teach a topic was acceptable. Now, at a
time when computers can provide contents in numerous ways, when learners take increasing control of their own educational potentials, the need to developing, maintaining, and enhancing new practices to promise effective learning and teaching process, gain urgency.

3.2 Learning styles

‘An ability refers to how well someone can do something. A style refers to how someone likes to do something’. Sternberg (1997, p. 8)
Learning styles is based on the idea that different learners have different ways of learning. That is, what may explain their success or failure is not only a question of level of efficiency, but also the different ways in which they perceive, store, process and reproduce information.
The literature on learning styles is boundless and very heterogeneous, both in terms of the scientific quality of the “theories” presented and in terms of the number and nature of the dimensions taken into consideration. It seems that the researchers have gone, each in their own way, what would be likely to differentiate people in learning situations. It is not surprising that they brought back many ideas, but they did not manage to organize them in such a way as to provide a real theoretical model. For example, Édouard Claparède has published two books entitled Comment diagnostiquer les aptitudes chez les écoliers (1924) and L’école sur mesure (1920) where he is
surprised that we can consider the length of children’s feet to provide them with shoes when we are not concerned about their cognitive functioning to send them to school.

3.2.1 The cognitive style

Chevrier et al. (2000-a) and Chevrier et al. (2000-b) explain that the notion of
cognitive style has derived from that of learning style, without this distinction being of very clear use. In fact, the notion of cognitive style, derived from laboratory work, was considered to be poorly adapted to understand the orientation of actions in daily life.

3.2.2 Experiential learning

Kolb’s theory goes back to the principles of experiential learning. According to John Dewey, the founding father of experiential learning. Learning is a continuous and recurring activity that accompanies human beings throughout their lives and is deeply rooted in their experience. (Dewey, 1938),
By developing the ideas of J. Dewey, but also those of Kurt Lewin and Jean
Piaget, David Kolb advances his model of the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1976;Kolb, 1984). The strategy places learners in situations that reflect reality as accurately as possible so that they can carry out their learning. These learners are fully involved in their learning process and feel responsible for their actions. (Kolb, 1976; Kolb, 1984).

3.2.3 Les 4 phases du cycle d’apprentissage complet par Kolb (1984)

According to Kolb, there are four modes of adaptation. They are rooted in the following cognitive functions: perceive, think, act and feel. The learning cycle proposed by Kolb (1984) then consists of four phases:
o concrete experimentation,
o reflective observation,
o Abstract Conceptualization
o Active Experimentation.
Each of these phases corresponds to a different way of using one’s experience. Kolb (1984) considers that learning is complete only when these four phases are experienced. The instructional designer creates learning activities and writes teacher guides so that learners can experience the four stages of the learning cycle suggested by Kolb:

3.2.4 The 4 types of learners: the 4 learning styles

Although the use of these four learning processes allows the student to complete the acquisition of knowledge, Kolb observed that each student has a preference for the use of two processes in the cycle. He deduced four learning styles from this: (Kolb,1984)
o Divergent: the student who prefers experimentation and reflection on this experimentation (gripping by perception and transformation by intention). He enjoys learning from experience, is interested in people and tends to be imaginative and follow his intuitions.
o Assimilator: the student who prefers the thoughtful observation of the
experience and its conceptualization (transformation by intension and gripping by understanding). He likes to create theoretical models and is more interested in abstract ideas and concepts than in people.
o Convergent: the student who prefers conceptualization and hypothesis making (gripping by understanding and transformation by extension). He appreciates problem solving and practical applications of ideas and prefers technical tasks to interpersonal relationships.
o Accomodator: the student who prefers the emission of hypotheses and the experimentation of this hypothesis (transformation by extension and gripping by perception). He uses the “trial and error” method to solve a problem rather than follow a plan. He is comfortable with others.

3.2.5 The influence of Kolb’s theory

Kolb’s theory has been popularized and popularized in a number of works with the main aim of making it available to teachers and practicing trainers or adapting it to a specific work environment. Honey and Mumford (1986) adapt Kolb’s model to the management experience by changing the original names of learning styles to the following: Activist, Reflector, Theorist, and Pragmatist. McCarthy (1981), the author of the 4MAT strategy, develops Colombian ideas in the spirit of the theory of functional asymmetry of cerebral hemispheres.

3.2.6 Type of learner grouping

A single student can experience all four phases of Kolb’s learning, but this
learning will be richer if the experience is lived by a small group of participants (2 to 8) who can share their previous knowledge and vision of solving problems. They can also work together to develop concepts and hypotheses or even create their own vision. In a pedagogical environment that is as close as possible to a real situation that is significant for the student.

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-53.

Claparéde, Edouard (1920) L’école sur mesure, Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1920.

Claparéde, Edouard (1924) Comment diagnostiquer les aptitudes chez les écoliers, Paris : Flammarion. 1924.

Chevrier, Jacques, FORTIN, Gilles, LEBLANC, Raymond, THÉBERGE, Mariette
(2000-a) Problématique de la nature du style d’apprentissage. Dans Éducation et francophonie, Volume XXVIII (1), Québec: ACELF

Chevrier, Jacques, FORTIN, Gilles, THÉBERGE, Mariette, LEBLANC, Raymond
(2000-b) Le style d’apprentissage: une perspective historique. Dans Éducation et francophonie, Volume XXVIII (1), Québec: ACELF.

Dewey, J. (1938), (1997 edition) Experience and Education, New York: Touchstone.

Jean Piaget, La Psychologie de l’intelligence Ed.: Armand Colin, 2006, (ISBN 978-2-200-32214-4)

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey.

Kolb, D. (1976) Learning Styles Inventory, Boston, MA: McBer Co.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning, Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

McCarthy, B. (1981, 1987). The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques. Barrington, Ill.: Excel, Inc.

Mehlinger, H. (1995). School reform in the information age. Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Excellence in Education

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C., (2003). Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom:
Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades K-5. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005a). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability
STERNBERG, Robert, J. (1997) Thinking styles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005b). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in post-secondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 307-323.