Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557 67

Differentiated instruction: productive skills development with high school and university students

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: PRODUCTIVE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT WITH HIGH

SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

INSTRUCCIÓN DIFERENCIADA: DESARROLLO DE HABILIDADES PRODUCTIVAS CON

ESTUDIANTES COLEGIALES Y UNIVERSITARIOS

Nelly Patricia Galora Moya / Universidad Técnica de Ambato / np.galora@uta.edu.ec;

Miryan Consuelo Salazar Tobar / Universidad Técnica de Ambato / mc.salazar@uta.edu.ec

ABSTRACT

he Differentiated Instruction (DI) approach addresses individual learner`s needs in a mixed ability class by focusing instruction on student

learning proﬁles. The purpose of this study was to describe the effects of the implementation of four DI strategies suggested by Herrera (2011)

in order to analyze their impact on students’ productive skills within two different educational settings: the high school and university. A total of

105 students and two English teachers participated in this study. An online survey assessed learners’ perceptions of the DI strategies. The results

conﬁrmed that the 4 DI strategies implemented in both settings had a positive effect on the development of students’ writing and speaking

skills. This study concluded that there is not a universal, one-size-ﬁts-all strategy for teaching that includes all students. In-depth knowledge of

students’ needs, and interests is a starting point for addressing instruction in a more effective way. Finally, the DI approach is starting to emerge

in Ecuadorian EFL classrooms, and teachers are showing interest in applying the corresponding strategies as an aid to student learning.

Keywords:

content, differentiated instruction, learning strategies, process, student-

centered teaching.

RESUMEN

l enfoque de instrucción diferenciada (ID) aborda las necesidades individuales de los alumnos en una clase de habilidades mixtas enfocando

la instrucción en los perﬁles de aprendizaje de los estudiantes. El propósito de este estudio fue de describir el efecto de la implementación de

las cuatro estrategias ID sugeridas por Herrera (2011) para analizar su impacto en las habilidades productivas de los estudiantes en dos entornos

educativos diferentes: el colegio y la universidad. Un total de 105 estudiantes y dos profesores de inglés participaron en este estudio. Una encuesta

en línea evaluó las percepciones de los alumnos sobre las estrategias. Los resultados conﬁrmaron que las 4 estrategias implementadas en los

dos contextos tuvieron un efecto positivo en el desarrollo de las habilidades de escritura y expresión oral de los estudiantes. El estudio concluyó

que no existe una sola estrategia universal para la enseñanza que incluya a todos los estudiantes. El conocimiento profundo de las necesidades

e intereses de los estudiantes es un punto de partida para abordar la instrucción de una manera más efectiva. Finalmente, el enfoque de ID está

comenzando a surgir en las aulas de Enseñanza de Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (EFL) y los maestros están mostrando interés en aplicar las

estrategias correspondientes, con el ﬁn de apoyar el aprendizaje de los estudiantes.

Palabras clave:

contenido, estrategias de aprendizaje, instrucción diferenciada, proceso,

enseñanza centrada en el estudiante.

ARTÍCULO RECIBIDO: 14/07/17

ARTÍCULO ACEPTADO: 03/02/18

Investigación y Desarrollo • Revista de Divulgación Científica y Cultural • Volumen 11

Diciembre 2016 • PP 67 - 73 • Dirección de Investigación y Desarrollo • U.T.A. • Ambato - Ecuador

ISSN: 1390 - 5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557

Nelly Patricia Galora-Moya; Miryan Consuelo Salazar-Tobar

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557

INTRODUCTION

nglish has been taught in Ecuador as a foreign language (EFL)

in all educational levels for almost three decades, such as

pre-school, primary, secondary and higher education. However,

effective learning has been impeded by traditional language

teaching methodologies, inappropriate language assessment

and low level of command of the language on the part of the

teachers. A study, carried out in Loja (Ecuador) by León (2013),

based on classroom observations, concluded that most English

classes used the grammar translation method with virtually no

class participation because teachers were largely unfamiliar with

different teaching methods and terminology: an issue situation

that has characterized EFL classrooms in Ecuador for many

years.

Since 1992, efforts have been made to reform the English

Curriculum with varying degrees of success. These have

included a developmental reform on language skills teaching.

In 2012, a new National English Curriculum was based on a

more communicative-functional language approach, aligned to

the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR). In addition, there was a focus on teacher development,

part of which involved initiating The Go Teacher Scholarship

Program. In this program, Ecuadorian teachers were sent to

American universities, where they were ﬁrst exposed to the

Differentiated Instruction (DI) through Tomlinson´s work. During

the program, teachers were challenged to reﬂect on the one-

size-ﬁts-all teaching approach that had characterized EFL

in Ecuador, and to move towards more meaningfully tailored-

learning activities suggested by Herrera (2011) and applied at

Kansas State University.

Differentiated Instruction

n the late 1990s, Tomlinson, (1999) deﬁned DI as a process of

tailoring instruction to meet individual needs by using ongoing

assessment and ﬂexible grouping where students support each

other and share responsibility. Additionally, Tomlinson stated that

DI is not a matter of creating more individualized lessons, but

rather of paying attention to students’ learning styles, needs and

learning preferences (Tomlinson, 2000).

Heacox (2002) deﬁned DI as the instruction which meets

students’ level, needs, learning styles and interests, while

Willis (2000) argued it is a pedagogy in which teachers adapt

instruction to students’ differences. Furthermore, Dixon (2014)

stated the importance of teacher training on DI strategies in

order to implement educators effectively and to address their

students’ needs and support their learning difﬁculties. Once they

know how to meet their learners’ needs through the use of DI,

teachers are better prepared to manage mixed ability classes

(Weiner, 2003). Similarly, Gieh-hwa (2014) contended that

having teaching experience with DI strategies engages learners

and encourages language development. Meanwhile, one caveat

raised by Hogan (2014) was that implementing DI in the class

may be challenging because it involves radical changes to

teachers’ teaching routines and methodology.

How to Differentiate Instruction?

oberts (2012) suggested three simple ways to differentiate

instruction in the classroom: differentiation by outcome,

by teaching method and by task. Bearing in mind these three

aspects in everyday planning, teachers would be considering

students’ needs. Tomlinson (2013) and Weselby (2014), on the

other hand, recommend four ways to differentiate instruction:

based on content, process, product, and affect/environment.

A further consideration is that of implementing DI with ﬂexible

grouping. Here, teachers organize the class in groups, in which

learners interact in pairs, in small groups or work as a whole

class. Long & Porter (1985) stated that working in groups is an

effective interaction pattern, students learn and support each

other and a positive work environment for teachers is created,

where students pay full attention during the learning process

(Gieh-hwa, 2014) and Oxford (1997) argued that working

in groups promotes cooperation rather than competition.

Additionally, teachers may encourage peer feedback on errors

made by group members. While by working in pairs or small

groups student frustration at not being able to act or participate

spontaneously may be mitigated. These views were supported by

Tomlinson (2003) and Crandall & Arnold (1999) who stated that

by having ﬂexible grouping in the EFL classroom, teachers meet

their students’ different learning styles, different personalities,

while allowing high achievers to consolidate their knowledge by

helping low achievers to succeed in learning.

Another way to differentiate instruction is by using Blooms’

Taxonomy model. Blaz (2013) contended that this allows the

teacher to examine and differentiate the level of challenge in

learning tasks. When teachers assign tasks, it is required to

employ several strategies to support differentiated teaching and

learning. These tools contribute to effective differentiation in

distinct ways. For example, Armstrom (2016) and Skehan (1998)

categorize tasks in the classroom as open-ended, structured or

teacher fronted, and delivered as small groups or pair-work. At

all times, tasks are designed according to students’ proﬁciency

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557 69

Differentiated instruction: productive skills development with high school and university students

levels and learning styles.

A third way to differentiate classes is by process. In this regard,

Borja, Soto & Sanchez (2015), stated that choosing materials

which meet students’ readiness level and interests guarantee

that learners perform speaking and writing tasks. For instance,

during the speaking task, the researchers provided visuals

such as pictures, posters and videos to evaluate students’

oral performance with a checklist. Furthermore, they gathered

student proﬁles to learn about students’ interests, learning styles

and language skills. Students performed role-plays, debates,

discussions and interviews based on different topics they felt

interested in.

METHODOLOGY

his study aimed to determine the effects of the implementation

of DI strategies on students’ speaking and writing skills within

two different educational settings: high school and university.

Speciﬁcally, it sought to address the following research question.

¿To what extend do the four DI strategies impact students’ writing

and speaking skills?

Two public institutions were used for the study. From the

Technical University of Ambato (UTA), 105 students were chosen

as participants: 64.76% were male and 35.24% were female

and all were between 15-23 years old. Their level of English

language proﬁciency ranged from beginner A1 (69%) to upper

intermediate B2 (29%) and advanced C1 (2%). The students

who attend English courses in this Center are from both private

and public high schools. It is important to mention that all English

courses are aligned to the Common European Framework

of Reference for Languages. According to these standards,

students must acquire a C1+ level to be awarded a certiﬁcate of

proﬁciency or expertise in English.

The second setting was Neptalí Sancho high school, from

which 90 students were chosen as participants: 75.5% were

male and 25.5% were female, with a large number of students

coming from indigenous ethnic groups. The age range varied

between 12 -18 years, all of beginner level A1 English language

proﬁciency. The majority came from poor families and they had

few opportunities to interact in English language. In fact, 85% of

the students assessed were not motivated to learn English.

In order to provide accurate differentiation, information on

student´s needs, cognitive abilities, socioeconomic background

and learning styles was of vital importance. Roberts (2012)

contended that this is a crucial step if the teacher is to know the

students’ learning proﬁles and therefore to be able to meet their

needs and foster their learning. To this end a survey was carried

out to gather signiﬁcant information on all of these areas that

would support the implementation of DI strategies.

The instructors’ sample included 2 English teachers who work

at Language Center. Both teachers taught A1 English level

(beginner) at the UTA, while one of the teachers worked at the

high school as well. Both were assessed as highly experienced

(more than 15 years of teaching), and highly qualiﬁed (trained to

master’s degree level).

In order to determine the effectiveness of the implementation

of DI strategies in improving students’ speaking and writing

skills within the two different educational settings, all students

completed an end-course questionnaire to assess their

perceptions of the implementation of DI strategies in productive-

skills development.

The questionnaire was delivered in Spanish to ensure full

comprehension of all the items. Question 1 was related to the

students’ acceptance level and preference about DI strategies

for developing their writing skills. Question 2 ranked on a Likert

scale the effectiveness of the foldables technique to develop

speaking skills. Question 3 ranked the effectiveness of the magic

book strategy for improving the quality of writing skills. Question

4 rated student acceptance of the U-C-ME strategy for improving

writing skills. Question 5 evaluated the effectiveness of the

pictures and words strategy for fostering student interaction in

pairs or in groups. Finally, Question 6 rated student acceptance

level and preferences on DI strategies for develop speaking skills.

Nelly Patricia Galora-Moya; Miryan Consuelo Salazar-Tobar

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557

RESULTS

DI Strategies for the development of Productive

skills

he four strategies were taken and adapted from Herrera,

Kavimandan & Holmes (2011), and were implemented

in the English classes in both educational settings. Prior to

implementation, students from both the high school and

university were given instruction on how to use each DI strategy,

including clear examples to follow.

The ﬁrst, referred to as foldables, is a visual, auditory, kinesthetic

and interpersonal strategy in which Learners develop their

writing or speaking skills. This note-taking aid promotes

collaborative and independent learning and fosters of students’

both thinking and writings skills and the ability to store and

remember information. However, it is important that teachers

know their students’ learning styles in order to plan their lessons

effectively and provide the most meaningful activities and tasks

(Zhou, 2011).

Title: Foldable strategy used in the study

Source: Photo 1 taken by the author based on student´s ﬁnal product

Strategy number two was to uncover ideas, concentrate on the

topic, monitor understanding and evaluate learning (U-C-ME).

This strategy is designed for visual and interpersonal learners and

encourages communication between peers. Learners analyze and

synthesize information from a written text by taking notes in a

non-standard way. This strategy encourages student engagement

and creativity, as well as facilitating the monitoring of their

learning. The need for the successful learning of communicative

skills is the goal of all English language instruction, and this may

be achieved by using strategies that allow learners to develop

their language and critical skills at the same time (Jabeen, 2014).

Title: The U-C-ME strategy used in this study

Source: Photo 2 taken by the author based on student´s ﬁnal product

The third, referred to as The Magic book, is a strategy best

suited to visual, kinesthetic and interpersonal learners. Learners’

attention and retention of information increased. Therefore it

may be considered a tool for learning, applying and recycling

vocabulary from previous lessons.

Title: The Magic book strategy used in this study

Source: Photo 3 taken by the author based on student´s ﬁnal product

Strategy number four was referred to as The Topic in Pictures

and Words. This strategy caters to visual, auditory, interpersonal

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557 71

Differentiated instruction: productive skills development with high school and university students

and kinesthetic learning styles. It develops the skills of retelling,

synthesizing and summarizing information through interaction

with a text. Additionally, it promotes discussion about the text

content using pictures made by students. This strategy is

effective for learners because it aids speaking and writing through

pictures. This follows Hammer’s (2010) recommendation that

teachers design activities to promote speaking and writing skills.

Title: The Topic in Pictures and Words strategy used in this study

Source: Photo 4 taken by the author based on student´s ﬁnal product

DISCUSSION

he data from the questionnaire revealed that in general

the implementation of the foldable strategy developed the

students´ writing skill. In high school: 37 out of 90 students

used the foldables to write in English which means 41.1%.

Additionally, foldables allowed them to draw, connect their ideas

and write their paragraphs with accuracy and ﬂuency. At the

same time, by using the foldables, students became actively

involved when interacting in pairs and small groups. There was

a signiﬁcant acceptance of the foldables at the university: 35

out of 105 students which is 33.3% chose the foldables as

their favorite strategy for writing. This strategy offered students

from both educational settings opportunities to practice writing

using words or phrases they were learning (Harmer, 2010). In

the implementation of the Magic books for developing students’

speaking skills, at the university: 28 out of 105 students chose

the magic books to develop their ﬂuency which is 26.6%.

Students found that talking about their last vacation, families,

daily routines, and favorite hobbies was facilitated by using the

clues on the magic book to talk about each topic. Furthermore,

the magic books encouraged shy learners to perform their

speaking tasks with more conﬁdence and supported their

interaction with classmates. Furthermore, in high school: 21

out of 90 students found the magic books a useful strategy for

developing their speaking skills. This group represents 23.5% of

the total population.

The U-C-Me strategy developed students´ analysis and synthesis

as well as encouraged their creativity by asking and answering

question. In the high school: 17 out of 90 students used this

strategy as an aid to perform speaking activities in small groups

which is 18.8%. However, at the university: 25 out of 105

students, which is 23.8%, enjoyed using this strategy because

Nelly Patricia Galora-Moya; Miryan Consuelo Salazar-Tobar

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557

this strategy allowed them to develop authentic communication

in pairs and in groups. In addition, using It allowed learners to

develop their background knowledge and understanding of the

content -area topic.

The fourth strategy implemented was the topic in pictures and

words. It stimulated students’ mental imagine representing their

understanding of the topic with a drawing. It developed learner´s

language skills to articulate personal connections when sharing

the information. In the high school: 15 out of 90 students selected

this strategy to develop writing and speaking skills. This is 16.6%

of the total population whereas at the university context: 17 out of

105 students, which is 16.3% of the total population, found this

strategy useful because they were provided with opportunities

to interact with the text at a personal level, they discussed their

understanding with their peers.

The data obtained relating to the use of foldable strategy in the

high school showed that 37 of ninety respondents (41.10%)

found it more appealing. It is assumed that hands on activities

provided learners more opportunities to exploit their learning

styles as well as to foster their communicative skills.

Figure 1 Results of DI strategies implementation in the High School

Source: elaborated by the authors based on students’ questionnaire

his paper intended to answer the following research question:

¿To what extend do the four DI strategies impact students’

writing and speaking skills? The results of this study show that

the implementation of the four DI strategies had a positive impact

on the development of the productive skills in high school and

at university. Speciﬁcally, the tools facilitate students learning by

increasing their motivation and class interaction. At the same

time, the analysis of the strategies focused on the study lead

to the conclusion that there is not a universal, one-size-ﬁts-all

strategy for teaching, capable of including all students equally.

However, a variety of strategies is required to meet the range of

needs and learning styles typically present in the classroom. In-

depth knowledge of student needs and interests is the basis for

designing the package of strategies to be implemented.

It is important to remember that implementation of DI requires

major changes in teaching practices and curriculum design.

This is especially true in the aforementioned contexts, since

such approaches have not featured in the traditional teaching

methods of the wider educational system here. Awareness of DI

100.00 %

Percentage

41.00 % 18.80 % 16.60 %23.50 %

100.00 % 33.30 % 26.60 % 23.80 % 16.30 %

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Centro de Idiomas,

Universidad Técnica de Ambato, for giving me the opportunity

of presenting this paper. It is a great honor that this work may

contribute to current and future research at this institution.

Finally, in addition, I wish to refer to the current circumstances of

Japanese teaching in Ecuador. Japanese language education in

and has started to plat a role. The Japan Foundation of São

Paulo (2017) informs, however, that in Ecuador there are just six

universities and one private school that have Japanese classes

and almost 150 learners in total, so expansion is needed and

the provision of greater opportunities of learning. The demand

for Japanese may be not as great as for other languages, but it

Percentage

41.1%

33.3%

26.7%

18.9%

23.8%

16.7%

16.2%

23.3%

Figure 2 Results of DI strategies implementation at University

Source: elaborated by the authors based on students’ questionnaire

Figure 3 Comparative Results of DI strategies implementation

Source: elaborated by the authors based on students’ questionnaire

CONCLUSION

Investigación y Desarrollo • Volumen 11 • 2016 • Diciembre • Nº 1 • ISSN: 1390-5546 / e-ISSN: 2361-2557 73

Differentiated instruction: productive skills development with high school and university students

REFERENCES

Armstrom, P. (2016) Bloom´s Taxonomy. Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

Blaz, D. (2013) Differentiated Instruction A guide for Foreign Language Teachers . New York: Routledge.

Borja, L., Soto, S. & Sanchez, T. (2015) Differentiating Instruction for EFL Learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science.

Brown, D. (2001) Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education Company.

Crandall, J. & Arnold J. (1999) Cooperative language learning and affective factors In Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, F. A., Felicia A., Yssel, N. & McConnell, J. (2014) Differentiated Instruction, professional development and teacher efﬁcacy. Journal for Education of the Gifted.

Frey, N. (2001) Differentiating Instruction in Responsive Middle and High School Classrooms. School of teacher Education, 7-8.

Gieh-hwa, L. (2014) The Keys to sucess for Novice teachers to Differentiate Instruction inTaiwaneseHighSchools. Retrieved from https://english.tyhs.edu.tw/xoops/

html/tyhs/teach_source102/02.pdf

Harmer, J. (2010) How to teach English. England: Pearson.

Heacox, D. (2002) Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit .

Herrera, S.;Kavimandan, S.

Holmes, M. (2011) Crossing The Vocabulary Bridge Differentiated Strategies For Diverse Secondary Classrooms. New Year: Teachers

College Columbia University.

Hogan, M. (2014) Differentiated Instruction in a Standards-Based Middle School Science Classroom. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies.

Jabeen, S.(2014) Implementation of Communicative Approach . English Language Teaching, 68.

Leon, M. ( 2013) Repositorio Institucional UTPL.Factors that affect the English language teaching-learning process in Ecuadorean public high schools.

Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition 19.

McCarty, W.; Sherry, R.; Mims, Grace, A.; Dennis E. & Jennifer, S. (2016) Renewing Teaching Differentiated Instruction in the College Classroom. “Journal of

Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education.

Oxford, R. (1997) Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in hte language classroom. Modern Language Journal

81, 443-56.

Roberts, R. (2012) Simple ways to differentiate materials for mixed level classes. Retrieved from https://elt-resourceful.com/2012/02/17/ideas-for-providing-

differentiation-that-dont-involve-writing-different-materials-and-a-different-plan-for-each-student-in-the-class-2/

Skehan, P. (1998) Task- based instruction, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, C. (1999) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.( 1st, ed) Alexandria:USA.

Tomlinson, C. (2000) Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/sept00/vol58/num01/Reconcilable_

Differences%C2%A2_Standards-Based_Teaching_and_Differentiation.aspx

Tomlinson, C. (2001) How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2003) Fullﬁlling the promise of differentiated classroom. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.(2013) Differentiation and classroom assessment. Los Angeles: USA: In J. H. McMillan.

Van, B. (2014) How to create a positive classroom environment.TEACH.Crabtree Publishing Company.

Weiner, H. (2003) Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children.

Weselby, C. (2014) What is Differentiated Instruction? Retrieved from http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/teachingstrategies/examples-of-differentiated-

instruction/

Willis, S. (2000) Differentiated Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org

Zhou, M. (2011) Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in College English Teaching . International Education Studies, 73.

approach and practical techniques are required as part of initial

teacher training as well as continuous professional development

programs whether the strategies are to have any impact on

English language instruction in Ecuador. The strategies analyzed

in this study are distinctive of teaching and learning throughout

the Ecuadorian public education system. Future analysis of

other DI strategies, applied to a wider range of age groups and

proﬁciency levels, may allow a more detailed understanding of

the relation between speciﬁc approaches and different learner

proﬁles. This would include a study of the quantiﬁable effects on

achievement of each strategy.