TEACHING ENGLISH VOCABULARY THROUGH DIFFERENTIATION: AN

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AMONG THE TERTIARY LEARNERS IN KERALA

Dr.Krishna Praveen1

Assistant Professor

Department of English

MES Arts and Science College, Perinthalmanna

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of the degree of comprehension for each student in a classroom is a tough task for a

teacher. Much have been discussed to improve the effectiveness of the classroom teaching over

the ages and as a result of the suggestions put forward by the scholars around the globe,

differentiated teaching has received widespread acknowledgement both from the teachers and

student fraternity. The recognition of the differences among the learners is the root cause for the

discovery of such a new pedagogy. Even though it is highly effective and its results are far

reaching, the main task falls upon the shoulders of the teachers in the form of selecting the

criteria for differentiation. This paper describes the report of an experimental study on the

differentiated teaching drills conducted among the first year BA graduation students in Kerala.

The data were collected through pretest and posttest results and the data were analyzed using

statistical tools such as mean, median and standard deviation. 60 students from MES Arts and

Science College Perinthalmanna, Kerala were selected for the experimental study and 30 among

them were taken as the experimental group students and the other 30 as the control group

students. The experiment involves 40 hours of differentiated teaching drills conducted over a

time period of 3 months. The results show that there is a tremendous improvement in learning for

the entire 30 students in the experimental group as compared to that of the control group.

KEYWORDS: differentiation, learners, teaching, experimental study

INTRODUCTION

Differentiated education has been introduced to the teaching fraternity much before the twentieth

century but has become a vogue from the second half of twentieth century to the present. Before

describing the process, it is necessary to define the term Differentiated Education. Heacox (2012)

defines differentiation as “changing the pace, level or kind of instruction you provide in response

to individual learners’ needs, style or interests”. His definitions are often used as useful quotes to

propagate differentiated teaching. He says that “as a teacher who differentiates instruction, you

become both a facilitator and collaborator” (Heacox 2002). The role of a facilitator is fulfilled by

providing a range of learning experiences to the students and also by helping them to make use

of the allocated time to cover the syllabus in the best possible manner by rearranging the lessons

that suits the comprehension scheme of the students. As a collaborator a teacher almost becomes

the parent of a student who knows the strength and weakness of the student. Thus the teachers

share the responsibility of the development of the students along with their parents.

Differentiation is essentially a ‘student-oriented’ approach. There happens a complete shift from

the autonomy of the teacher in classroom instruction to the convenience of the learners to learn

the lessons in the ways best suit to them. Willis and Mann (2000) define differentiation in a

different view point. According to them, it is a teaching technique based on the idea that teachers

should acclimatize tutoring to the student discrepancies. According to Blaz (2006)

Differentiation is essentially a mode of thinking, teaching and learning which could be

manifested by a teacher in end number of ways. It could not be considered as a particular

method. Tomlinson (2014) is of the opinion which in a way substantiates Blaze’s opinion that

there is no single way in which differentiation could be defined. He says that responsible

teachers would amalgamate the process, product and content of the curriculum. The word

process signifies the academic activities in which the students get involved, the word product

refers to the students’ demonstration of the acquired knowledge and the word content refers to

lessons that the students are supposed to learn from the course. Tomlinson discussed extensively

about differentiation where he mentions about various manifestations of differentiated teaching

in a classroom. A few of the concepts that he introduced are ‘Stations’- which means different

spots in a class where the students work on numerous tasks concurrently, ‘Complex Instruction’-

which refers to the introduction of the intellectually challenging materials to all students

depending up on their unique mode of comprehension through small instructional assemblages,

‘Orbital Studies’-that which signify the independent exploration of the elements of the syllabus

to be taught to the students and ‘Tired Activities’-which means working with the same concepts

continuously using the similar key skills. ‘Tired Activities’ are suggested for differently abled

students with unique patters of comprehension. The definitions and descriptions of the term

differentiation naturally pave way to the question that is it really necessary to teach complex

ideas in different way to each student? Or is it practical to cut short the complexity of the

syllabus and make it more convenient to all the students particularly for the intellectually weaker

students? These questions fail to achieve a critical analysis because watering down the syllabus

contents for the convenience of the least intellectually efficient student will only lead to the

deterioration of the academic process. It is not the syllabus that should be adjusted or cut short

rather it is the responsibility of the students to raise themselves up to that level where they

mentally prepare to assimilate any complicated knowledge that suits the academic dignity. It is

indeed observable from the above stated opinions that differentiation is a break up from the sense

of complacency that the academic fraternity retains. The sense of complacency arrives with the

wrong notion that a single syllabus and a mono-teaching method to all students in the class are

potent enough to evaluate the growth of every student in the class. The responsibility of the

teachers lie there where they have to negotiate with certain differences in the class in order to

match up with the level of curriculum content with the level of understanding of each student.

There are plenty of ways in which the idea of differentiation could be manifested. Since the

prime concern of a teacher in the classroom is the proper and clear comprehension of the lessons

for all the students in spite of their cognitive differences, it is mandatory that both the teacher and

the students should be able to work together in a convenient and conducive atmosphere (Ainslie,

1994). Differentiation works initially as an cerebral calculation of the teacher based on the

performances of each student in the classroom; the students’ perception and learning level, their

personal experiences, their memories to name a few, in the classroom. Having introduced the

topic and the concept of differentiation, it is indeed necessary to review a few literatures

associated with the topic.

Review of Literature

Differentiated learning attains significance in the conditions where the intellectually strong

students may fall apart in scoring good marks in certain academic subjects only because of a few

emotional reasons. More than a pedagogical tool which aims only at the intellectual development

of the students, differentiation works as an organized method which also addresses the emotional

needs and anxieties. It is a way of rearranging the prescribed classroom textbooks and students’

comprehension assessment tests in to different ways each particularly coping with the style and

skills of each student. Tomlinson (2000) defines differentiated learning as a collocation of varied

training methods and informal assessment methods to improve the academic and emotional skills

of each student in a single classroom that includes students of varied skills and perception

abilities. According to Gregory and Chapman (2013), those students who fail to perform well in

the subjects, in which they have greater skills require more encouragement and training. This is

made possible only through differentiation. Failing to impart such a methodology may even lead

to distress and disappointment for the children to engage themselves in the academic activities. It

is necessary indeed for the educational authorities to ensure the quality of teaching in academic

institutions. There are many ways and parameters to evaluate the quality and capability of the

teachers. It is also necessary from the part of the higher-ups to ensure ‘inclusiveness’ in the

classroom. Naka (2018) describes the idea of inclusiveness in the classroom teaching process in

her research article titled Differentiated instruction in English Foreign Language learning in

undergraduate studies. In Naka’s point of view a classroom contains students who come from

different streams of the society. Each student has a unique life style, living atmosphere, food

habit and learning technique. A common rule for all is an outdated and fruitless method. Hence

each student demands a unique method that’s suits only for him/her and adoption of such a

method requires greater skill and effort from the part of the teachers. In such situations the easy

and most effective method that a teacher can rely upon is nothing but differentiation. The

traditional classroom teaching method has made the students a passive listener to the extended

sermons of the teacher. They were neither given any motivation nor any drills to raise questions

in the classrooms. Differentiation technique annihilates this defect of the traditional teaching

system. The students will automatically start raising questions and doubts to the teacher. Adami

(2004) states that the moment a student start asking doubts about the textbook lessons in a

classroom, then it should be deduced that differentiation has started making its positive impacts

upon the students. The passivity of the students slowly gets transformed into activity. Another

important aspect of differentiated learning is that it cannot be imitated. A method that is

implemented in one classroom may not be possible in another classroom. Since the classroom

contains students of varied perception, the teachers may have to rely on the immediate feedback

system in order to satisfy the expectations of the quick learners. Tomlinson’s words are worth

quoting in this context. “Students are very resourceful. They can create problems or generate

solutions, depending on how you engage and maintain their attention” (Tomlinson 1999). Hence

the role of differentiation in effective classroom teaching is way beyond any kind of

interrogation.

Having discussed the literatures associated with the concept of differentiation, the theoretical

framework for the study has to be described.

Theoretical Framework

The idea of differentiation adheres directly to the concept of Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD) by Lev Vygotsky (1978). According to Vygotsky, ZPD is the gap between what a child

can perform by their own and what a child could acquire with the help of an adult mentor.

Vygotsky realized the potential of the children to acquire the knowledge and also the possibilities

of being directed in the wrong way without the help of an abled mentor. He realized that children

develop logical reasoning through stages. Vygotsky gave prominence to verbal thinking. He

believed that cognitive and conceptual development is not possible for the children if they fail to

develop verbal thinking. Even though the faculty of thought and language get shaped

independently at the initial stages, they both mingle at a certain stage of growth in order to

develop verbal thinking. A glimpse of the stages of cognitive development of the children, as

described by Vygotsky is described in table 1.

Stage Features

Thinking in unstructured oodles Pre-school level of advancement

Initial stages of conceptual believes

Children employ trial and error

Children develop problem solving

skills

Three sub-levels

Thinking in complex phase Children start creating connections

between substances, but not in a steady

way

Five sub-levels

Thinking in concepts phase Children are capable of thinking more

nonfigurative ideas and make

connections

Cannot see two relations at once

Thinking in accurate concepts phase Advanced thinking

Children can deploy a number of

nonconcrete ideas

Table 1- Different stages of conceptual development according Vygotsky. (Nixon and

Aldwinckle, 2003)

Piaget, the counterpart of Vygotsky also focused on the cognitive development of the children

and their individual ability to assimilate the knowledge by themselves. Piaget advocated that

providing any learning aids or materials to the children that are beyond their cognitive stage is

functionally useless. But it was Vygotsky who propagated the idea of Scaffolding which signifies

the aid provided to the children by an adult mentor usually the parents of the children. Through

scaffolding the ZPD could be easily observed. Differentiation demands a the active role of an

adult mentor presumably the teacher in order to divide the students into different constructive

groups and provide academic drills and observe and note the developmental sings in the students.

Hence of all the theories associated to cognitive development, the Zone of Proximal

Development theory of Lev Vygotsky remains closer.

Research Method

The research was carried out among 60 students from MES Arts and Science College

Perinthalmanna, Kerala. The researcher understood from the initial sessions with the students

that majority of the students have difficulty in understanding the certain English terms in the

prescribed textbook. The researcher divided the total students into experimental and control

group before conducting the pretest. Those students who are comparatively week in

remembering the technical terms were included in the experimental group and those students

who showed slight improvement were put in the control group. For the pretest the researcher

asked questions associated with remembering the technical terms associated with the subject.

The responses were noted and converted it into numerical data where marks were given out of

40. The data collected were later taken for statistical analysis to get the mean, mode and standard

deviation. After the pretest the researcher conducted the experiment where the students in the

experimental group were given training individually depending on their mode of assimilation.

Some students showed more improvement when they were shown the images of the words along

with the introduction of the words. The image along with the vocabulary of the technical items

related to the subject which were used for the experimental group students is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1-

Apart from showing the images, some students were shown the videos which include the

pronunciation of the word, its meaning and its different usages along with attractive motion

pictures. No particular coaching or drills were given to the control group students during the

experiment. After the differentiated treatment a posttest was conducted to both the control and

experimental group students. The same questions asked for the pretest were asked for the posttest

and the results were much beyond the expectations. The experimental group students showed

tremendous progress in their vocabulary learning.

Research Questions

Based on the focus of the study the researcher formulated a research question which were

analysed and described based on the posttest results. The research question is-

Will there be a significant improvement in the technical vocabulary learning of the tertiary

students using differentiation method?

The research question is followed by the hypothesis.

Hypothesis

Based on the research question, the researcher formulated a null hypothesis which is later to be

accepted or rejected after the data analysis. The null hypothesis is-

H0: There is no significant improvement to the experimental group students after the

differentiated teaching of technical vocabulary.

Research Procedure

The research procedure involves 60 hours of training sessions extended during a period of 2

months to the experimental group students. There were 30 students in the experimental group.

Students with similar assimilation pattern were put together and were given the drills which are

different from that given to the other members in the experimental group. For some students,

pictures of the words created deeper impact. Showing pictures along with the vocabulary of the

technical items became effective for some students. Some students demanded stories associated

with the vocabulary as they felt it more comfortable than pictures. For some students multimedia

materials associated with the vocabulary turned more effective. All the students were given equal

consideration and each student in the experimental group received the lessons in the way they

enjoyed and in the way that they felt easier to learn.

Analysis of the Test Results

The results achieved by the students after the pretest is described using the graphs and tables

below.

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 3102468

101214161820

1716

1513

1715

1615

14

1716

14

171616

1516

1415

1617

1617

1516

1414141616

15

Control groupExperimental group

Total number of students in both control and experimental groups

Mar

ks a

chie

ved

by th

e st

uden

ts o

ut o

f 40

Figure 2 – Pretest results of the experimental and control group

The bar chart depicted above show the test results of both the control and experimental group

students during the pretest. The blue bar represents the scores achieved by the control group

students and the red bars represent the scores of the experimental group students. The mean and

standard deviation of the data is evaluated through a t-test and the test results are described in the

table 2.

Mean N S.D

Control group 4.1000 30 .44621

Experimental group 4.1000 30 .71718

Table 2- t-test results of the pretest scores

The t-test results show that the mean score for both the experimental and control group students

are 4.1000. The standard deviation for the control group is .44621 and for the experimental group

is .71718. This result show that there no significant difference in the performance of both the

control and experimental group students. In order to validate this, a paired sample t-test is

conducted using the data and the results are depicted in the table 3.

Control and

Experimental

groups

Mean S.D Std.error

mean

t Df Sig.

.00000 054789 .13410 .000 29 1.000

Table 3- Paired sample t-test results of the pretest scores

The paired sample t-test results show the mean score as .0000, standard deviation 054789 and the

standard error mean .13410 which all together make the significance level 1.000. Since the

significance level is above .05 (p>.05), it could be deduced that there is no difference in the

performance level of both the control and experimental group students after the pretest. The

pretest was followed by the actual experiment where special coaching was given to the students

in the experimental group. The experimental session was followed by a posttest for both the

groups. The results are depicted below in the figure 3.

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 310

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

24252425272626

30

24232325

30

23

272425

282825

202223

20212322

25272827

Control GroupExperimental Group

Total number students in both control and experimental groups

Mar

ks a

chie

ved

by th

e st

uden

ts o

ut o

f 40

Figure 3- Posttest results of the control and experimental group students

The bar chart depicted above show the test results of both the control and experimental group

students during the pretest. The blue bar represents the scores achieved by the control group

students and the red bars represent the scores of the experimental group students. The mean and

standard deviation of the data is evaluated through a t-test and the test results are described in the

table 4.

Mean N S.D

Control group 3.7500 30 .67640

Experimental group 6.2500 30 .76070

. Table 4- t-test results of the posttest scores

The t-test results show that the mean score for the control group students are 3.7500 and for the

experimental group students are 6.2500. The standard deviation for the control group is .67640

and for the experimental group is .76070. This result show that there no significant difference in

the performance of both the control and experimental group students. In order to validate this, a

paired sample t-test is conducted using the data and the results are depicted in the table 5

Control and

Experimental

Mean S.D Std.error

mean

t df Sig.

groups 3.00000 1.10390 .17131 10.757 29 .000

. Table 5- Paired sample t-test results of the posttest scores

The paired sample t-test results show the mean score as 3.0000, standard deviation 1.10390 and

the standard error mean .17131 which all together make the significance level .000. Since the

significance level is below .05 (p<.05), it could be deduced that there is a significant difference

in the performance level of both the control and experimental group students after the

posttest.The degree of improvement that the experimental group students achieved after the

posttest is depicted using bar chart in the figure 4.

TOTAL SCORE PRETEST TOTAL SCORE POSTTEST0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

473

770

Series1

Figure 4- Total score of the students in the experimental group before and after the test

The above depicted bar chart clearly shows the degree of improvement that the experimental

group students achieved after the experiment. In order to validate the data an analysis of co-

variance in conducted and the results are described in the table 6.

Test Between Subject Effects

Dependent Variable: Exp_1_Post

Source Type III sum

of squares

Df Mean square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected

Model

25.255a 2 17.627 34.628 .000 .322

Intercept 28.033 1 38.033 52.538 .000 .463

Sc_3_Pre .010 1 .010 .037 .448 .001

Group

experimental

29.530 1 29.420 42.474 .000 .428

Error

19.220 37 .432

Total 1321.000 40

Corrected

Total

54.555 39

a.R Squared = .412 (Adjusted R Squared = .385)

Table 6- Results of the Analysis of Covariance

The above depicted table shows the analysis of the covariance results. The results show the total

correlated score as 54.555 and the partial eta squared up to .412 and adjusted r squared up

to .385, which signifies a progress of 38.5 percentage to the experimental group students after the

experiment. These tests validate the experiment and the test results and proved that the

experiment based on differentiation turns out to be successful one.

Having analyzed the test results, it is necessary to evaluate the research questions on the basis of

the test results.

Discussion of the Research Questions based on the Test Results

The test results show that there is a significant improvement for the experimental group students

(38.5%) after the experiment based on differentiated learning. Hence the research question, Will

there be a significant improvement in the technical vocabulary learning of the secondary students

using differentiation method? Is validated with the answer that, yes there is a significant

improvement in the technical vocabulary learning of the secondary students using differentiation

method. Hence the null hypothesis H0: There is no significant improvement to the experimental

group students after the differentiated teaching of technical vocabulary, is rejected and the

alternative hypothesis H1: There is no significant improvement to the experimental group

students after the differentiated teaching of technical vocabulary, is accepted.

Conclusion

Classroom teaching is always subject to innovative changes depending on the nature of the

perception of each student and also on the nature of the subject. There- is- a- common- formula-

to- all, is an outdated concept and it is high time that academicians should think of rearranging

and restructuring the classroom atmosphere and thereby remoulding the total concept of

classroom teaching. Differentiated learning is one such attempt to bring in ground-breaking

changes in the classroom teaching aiming at the complete improvement- both emotional and

intellectual- of each student. In order to highlight the necessity of a paradigm shift from the

outdated age old teaching method to the most updated ways that suit the needs of the hour, a

comparison is done using pictures in the table 7.

Column 1 Column 2

Image of a car used that during the 19th century Image of a car used in the 21st century

Image of a telephone used during the 19th

century

Image of a phone used in the 21st century

Image of a classroom in the 18th century Image of a classroom in the 21st century

Table 7- Images to show the life in 18th-19th century and 21st century

Pictures speak more than words. No more description is needed to expound the necessity to bring

necessary changes to the classroom atmosphere.

References

Blaz, Deborah (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Guide for Foreign Language Teachers.

Larchmont, NY:Eye on Education, Inc.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners.

Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Ainslie, Susan. (1994). Mixed Ability Teaching: Meeting Learners´needs. Netword 3: Teaching

Language to Adults. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

Gregory, G. & Chapman, C. (2013.) Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit

All.Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Retrieved June 23 2017 from

https://repository.ffri.uniri.hr

Adami, A.F. (2004). Enhancing students’ learning through differentiated approaches to teaching

and learning: A Maltese perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(2),

91-97.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (1999). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all

learners.

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and

Differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1): 12-15.

Nixon D, Aldwinckle M (2003) Exploring: Child Development from three to six

years 2nd edition. Social Science Press, Katoomba.

Heacox, D., (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach

all learners (Updated anniversary edition). Free Spirit Publishing.

Willis, S. and Mann, L., (2000). Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet

individual needs. Curriculum Update, 4, pp.1-3.

Blaz, D., (2013). Differentiated instruction: A guide for foreign language teachers. Routledge.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach

all learners, Grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.