Learning a new language requires time and dedication. This objective is challenging for English as foreign language (EFL) learners, especially in the domain of writing, which is a tool of communication that provides information carrying emotions and thoughts. Since it has cognitive and physical aspects, writing is the hardest and the last language skill to be acquired. However, to help EFL learners overcome these difficulties, various strategies are being developed. Diversifying learning strategies is considered a successful technique in improving the language skills of EFL students. A good teacher understands and values academic diversity and uses differentiated instruction to address it.
Today’s students arrive at school with a variety of experiences, abilities, skills, and interests. The fact that students learn at various rates and in various ways has also gained attention. Many educators still approach teaching and learning in a one-size-fits-all style. They do so because they have objectives that must be reached, as well as content standards that must be attained. All of their students follow the same curriculum, learning the same material, and the teachers produce the same assignments and tests.
Teachers can assist the learning process by matching student characteristics to instruction and assessment through differentiated instruction, often known as ‘differentiation’. Writing lessons can be diversified to give students different amounts of time to do assignments, offer them alternative options for writing products, and teach them writing process skills.
This thesis will present differentiated instruction as a way to structure a lesson so that each student is provided with an opportunity to work at a moderately challenging level appropriate to his/her needs. Hence, it describes a one-year implementation process in which 80 elementary school students (Year 7, 12-13 years old) were taught writing processes using differentiated instruction strategies.
Forty students were assigned to each of the experimental and control groups. The experimental group received instruction through the use of differentiated instruction strategies, including flexible grouping, tiered instruction, and tiered assignments. These strategies were employed to address different aspects of learning, such as content, process, product, and environmental preferences.
In contrast, students of the control groups received conventional instruction (i.e., whole class instruction) without differentiation.
Pre-test and post-test (students’ essays and writing pieces) and a motivational questionnaire were used to collect data, which were statistically analysed. Two teachers independently evaluated the tests, and their results were compared for interobserver differences. SPSS version 23.0 was used for all statistical analyses.
In the beginning, we checked if the data were normally distributed or not. This conclusion was made based on the visual analysis of histograms, Q-Q plots, skewness and kurtosis in conjunction with normal distribution tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Shapiro Wilk’s test. Through these analyses, we came to the conclusion that data were not normally distributed. Hence, non-parametric tests were used to compare pre- and post-test as well as control and experimental groups results. First, we needed to confirm that there was no significant difference between the control and the experimental group prior to initiating the intervention began. Therefore, we ran a Mann-Whitney U test to determine the answer, and there was no significant difference (p=0.644). At the end of the study, both groups (control and experimental) improved significantly (p<0.0001 for both groups). Since we had to compare two related samples, the Wilcoxon test was run to obtain the p-value. The post-test score for the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group score (p = 0.014).
There was an excellent correlation between two teachers’ results for the pre and post-test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value was above 0.9, with a very narrow confidence interval, in most of the items.
The learning style of the experimental group students was tested. Most of the students had an auditory learning style (70%), followed by a tactile learning style (17.5%) and a visual learning style (12.5%). However, no significant differences were found between different learning styles and test scores. This might be a result of a good match between students and their learning styles; all of them improved.
The study’s findings revealed that implementing differentiated instruction is not easy since it needs time, careful planning, and continual reflection, but it makes learning more interesting and valuable and leads to more effective writing instruction and improved outcomes for students.
The study contributes to the scientific field of teaching English as a foreign language by providing examples of how differentiated instruction can be used within the classroom context. Hence, a scientifically verified framework for differentiating instruction in developing learners’ FL writing skills has been developed and empirically tested.
|
