Article #8

Article #8

“Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective”

By Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini

The following article entitled Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective, by Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini (2016), looks at differentiation through the educator’s viewpoint.

Stavrou and Koutselini begin their article with an introduction. During the introduction the authors explain that they believe that differentiation is not simply a teaching approach; instead differentiation can be a novel way of reflecting on education and instruction (pg. 2583). Stavrou and Koutselini (2016) ask “what is the best way of training and retraining teachers, so as to achieve conceptual change, which will then motivate them to engage consciously in the diversification of teaching techniques, as well as the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills required in their application?” (pg. 2582). In order to answer this question, the authors along with other researchers believe research needs to look at “how teachers understand, engage with and respond to diversity in their classrooms” (pg. 2582).

Based on research regarding differentiation in the classroom, Stavrou and Koutselini developed the following three research questions.  Question one asks, “What are the problems/challenges teachers facing in their effort to design and implement differentiated lessons in their class and how do they handle them in order to successfully teach in mixed ability classes?” Question two asks, “What is the effect of teachers’ active involvement in action research in their training and further professional development?” Question three asks, “To what extent can differentiated instruction and learning contribute to the improvement of students’ learning skills?” (pg. 2582).

After introducing their study and providing the reader with their research questions, Stavrou and Koutselini move to their methodology section. The authors explain that two teachers contributed in the action research. One teacher was a veteran teacher who taught over 21 years. The other teacher taught 10 years and earned a Master’s Degree in Special Education. The study consisted of a control group and an experimental group. The control group, which did not have any differentiated instruction, was made up of 81 students from four classes who were around 15 years old. The experimental group, which experienced differentiated instruction, consisted of 82 students from four classes who were also 15 years old. Both groups took pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

The authors explain that qualitative and quantitative obtained from the research data were utilized to look for “special learning conditions in classes and for a thorough analysis of the phenomena” (pg. 2582). Qualitative information consisted results from teachers’ lesson plans, teachers’ journals, student teacher interviews and classroom observations (pg. 2582). Quantitative information consisted results from pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

After explaining the methodology section, the Stavrou and Koutselini then discussed the results. According to the analyzed data, teachers faced a number of challenges regarding differentiation. One difficulty was “the lack of a structured curriculum based on prerequisites, substantive and transformational knowledge and skills which can function together in every class and from class to class” (pg. 2583). Another challenge was the “teachers’ inability to sufficiently ascertain their students’ readiness even though they had studied the results of the pretest” (pg. 2583). Teachers also had a difficult time “designing appropriate activities in order to address students’ readiness, interests, learning style and incentives” (pg. 2583). In addition, “teachers’ had fear and uncertainty about their ability to successfully differentiate their lessons” (pg. 2583).

In order to surpass the challenges, teachers looked for solutions and tried to solve their differentiation issues. One way teachers worked to overcome their difficulties was to choose an assortment of different material that matched the students’ interests and readiness levels (pg. 2584). Another way teachers tried dot overcome their difficulties was that teachers taught various reading techniques and tried to improve metacognitive abilities (pg. 2584). In addition, to surpass their differentiation issues, teachers developed a plethora of different activities that focused on the students interests.  Examples of activities were having students develop speeches to use for a debate and to compose articles in a magazine (pg. 2584). Additionally, to combat their concerns with differentiation, teachers promoted a “non-competitive class” environment that allowed for students to understand how to work in groups and teams. Furthermore, teachers worked on helping students improve their cooperation skills by working on active listening skills and being aware of others viewpoints (pg. 2584).

After discussing ways teachers tried to solve their differentiation issues, Stavrou and Koutselini then discuss the contributions of teaching on learning. The authors believe that the strong interaction of instructors during the action research and the way instructors responded to students’ variances played a big part in the success teachers had with their instruction (pg. 2584). Prior to teachers getting involved in the action research about differentiation, students felt like the way teachers presented information was “useless” and students believed the way teachers presented the information either on the blackboard or in their notebooks was challenging to get through. However, once teachers focused on differentiating lessons, the significance of education changed for the students (pg. 2585).

Once teachers differentiated, students felt like the skills and techniques teachers used were actually “useful and permanent knowledge” (pg. 2585). In addition, students felt like the resources that were implemented during instruction were stimulating. According to the students in the study, differentiation made the educational setting imaginative and an environment of “acceptance, encouragement and the expression of personal interest” (pg. 2585). Students believed that this type of educational setting allowed them to work alongside their peers, to communicate, to discuss their viewpoints and talk about their differences. The authors explain that this educational setting inspired the all types of students to learn efficiently and effectively (pg. 2585).

After discussing the results, Shavrou and Koutselini then focus on the conclusion. During the conclusion, the authors summarize the article and reiterate the importance of differentiation.  Shavrou and Koutselini believe that differentiation provides teachers with many benefits. The authors explain that when teachers are able to change from theory to practice, they can obtain abilities that permit them to create and utilize differentiated lessons and feel self-assured and excited about their students’ achievements (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini believe that the data on student’s performance from the study illustrates how effective the teachers were with their differentiated instruction (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini end by saying that “it is obvious that learning is the outcome of quality teaching which is not based on what the teachers do, but on how and on what students are working on and how they feel” (pg. 2586).

Reflection

After reviewing Shavrou’s and Koutselini’s article, I feel as though this article was very informative. I liked that Shavrou and Koutselini considered differentiation from both the teacher’s perspective as well as the student’s perspective. I also liked that the authors explained that differentiation in not easy and that many teachers including the teachers in the study faced numerous difficulties when trying to differentiation. I also liked that instead of being discouraged by differentiation difficulties, the article explained that teachers actually attempted to solve their differentiation concerns.

I feel as though Shavrou and Koutselini did a great job at explaining what elements made up the qualitative data and how the qualitative data was analyzed. However, I think the authors could have improved upon explaining in greater depth how the quantitative data was utilized and analyzed.

Although the authors did use various heading throughout the article such as the introduction, methodology, results conclusion, I do feel like the article would have been a little more clear if the information was divided into more sections.

Finally, I believe  Shavrou did a very nice job with their concluding section of the study because they added a summary of the entire article which helped me the reader get a clearer understanding of the purpose and findings of the study.

Reference

Stavrou, T., & Koutselini, M. (2016). Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers Perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(11) pg. 2581-2588. Retrieved from http://www.hrpub.org/download/20161030/UJER11-19507726.pdf

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

Action Research Update #2

Action Research Update #2!

During the month of January, I made the following progress on my action research. One part of the action research I conducted was that I contacted the school principals who agreed to be part of my action research during the fall semester of 2016. After initially reaching out to the principals, we then worked together to discuss my action research procedure. I informed the principals that I needed around five to ten participants from each school to participate in my study. During a scheduled faculty meeting, school principals briefly spoke to their staff members about the action research opportunity. After informing faculty of my action research, few faculty members from each school expressed interest in participating in my study.

Once I heard that teachers were interested in my study, I contacted the school principals again to inform them of the consent form process. Since some of the schools I am conducting my research at are a long distance from my location, I asked the principals if it would it be okay if I mailed hard copies of the consent forms to their school offices. I explained that if faculty members are interested in partaking in the study they could easily obtain a consent form from the office, sign the consent form and place it back in the folder in the school office. I would provide postage, a return address and an extra envelope. When the research deadline approaches I explained that I would simply need the school to mail the envelope containing the signed consent forms back to me. I believe mailing the hard copies of the consent forms would make it easier for the school faculty because they would not have to print the consent forms, then sign, then scan, then upload the signed forms and then email them back to me.

After I discovered the schools received the consent forms, I then started to gather prospective participant’s emails. Once I obtained the emails, I sent the participants a link to my survey that I created on Google Forms from my Western State email account.

On the survey, the first question I asked participants to answer was to include their name so I could match the name on the survey with the name on the signed consent form. I informed participants that their name and information would be kept confidential. I will continue to update the progress of my action research throughout the semester!