Copyright © 2015 American Scientific Publishers Advanced Science LettersAll rights reserved Vol.X, XXX-XXX, 2015, Printed in the United States of America

Differentiated Instruction: A Way of Rethinking Education Author: Manal Sharab Ramadan

Co-Author: Dr. Anwar Kawtharani

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine whether differentiated instruction was an effective teaching strategy to alleviatestudents’ achievements, the degree of the learners’ satisfaction in the learning experience, and the factors that helped orhindered differentiation. The research answered two questions “Does differentiated instruction alleviate students’achievements?” and “What are the factors that are helping or hindering the educators’ ability to differentiate instruction?” Thestudy applied a mix of quantitative and qualitative design. First, a quantitative survey of 2 questionnaires was conducted tocycles 2 and 3 educators and learners who belong to both the private and public education sector in Beirut during the scholasticyear 2012-2013. Results from the quantitative findings directed the researcher on how to frame the qualitative research design.A qualitative analysis of 1 structured formal interview with a school educational leader was carried out for highlighting themost effective teaching practices that were encouraged at school. The research findings supported the effort of learning stylestheorists and suggested that differentiation strategies of choice and interest should first be implemented since they play a keyrole in alleviating students’ achievements and raising the degree of learners’ satisfaction regarding the whole learningexperience. Besides, curriculum designers, school administrators, education managers and coordinators, official examiners,parents, and educators should all share one perspective that every learner is unique and could learn at his special pace and in hisown style. Another journey towards differentiation not as a teaching practice but as a way of rethinking education was highlyrecommended with a goal in mind to create and sustain effective differentiation of learning construction that successfullyaccommodates to enhance, extend, and empower the every learner’s affective, cognitive, and psychomotor growth.

Differentiated Instruction, a Way of Rethinking Education

After the growing interest of the Lebanese Ministry ineducation had developed and provided approval for equallearning opportunities for all learners, the meaning ofstudent achievement took on a broader definition, so thateducators were no longer only expected to showimprovement in test scores overall, but also to demonstratedocumented improvement for every learner to the schooladministrational system. In essence, schools always knewthere were certain populations of students incapable ofmaking as much achievement growth as others. This hasbeen documented with disadvantaged students for years, sothat any achievement gap would produce its lifetimeconsequences limiting the opportunities for below averagestudents in higher education.

Besides, schools were also aware that students at thehigh end of the spectrum continued to show lessachievement gains than those students in the middle of theachievement spectrum. This research indicated that mostclassrooms have taken on the role of teaching to the ‘ongrade level’ student population, leaving the learning needsof the talented and below average groups unmet. Educatorswho view classrooms as whole entities and do not accountfor individual differences in the learners levels of readinessto construct their own learning may either over-challenge orunder-challenge some students.

According to Vygotsky 1962; Howard 1994, as cited inTomlinson (2001), “We know that learning happens bestwhen a learning experience pushes the learner a bit beyondhis or her independent level. When a student continues towork on understandings and skills already mastered, little ifany new learning takes place. On the other hand, if tasks arefar ahead of a student’s current point of mastery, frustrationresults and learning doesn’t occur.” (p. 8).

In other words, classrooms in which differentiation is the

title of the learning practice may help to close everylearner’s achievement gap more effectively than classroomsin which no accommodation of learning abilities, needs, orpreferences are considered by spoon feeding teachers.

According to Tomlinson (1999), teachers indifferentiated classrooms use time flexibly, call upon arange of instructional strategies, and become partners withtheir students. Educators are diagnosticians, prescribing thebest possible instruction for their students. Therefore,differentiation suggests that all and every single learner canachieve and be appropriately challenged within any learningenvironment that should be pre-set by the educator to meetevery distinct need in the diverse classroom opening a widedoor for learning to occur.

In fact, children need not only to nourish but also toflourish. In a differentiated classroom, fear is removedand children are free to take risks in their learning. Bydeveloping lessons appropriate to students’ readinesslevels, preferences, and learning profiles, educators willbe able to draw upon prior knowledge and learners’experiences outside of the school environment which willempower students to be more engaged in learning process.With adjustments made to lessons, students are beingaccommodated and challenged at fitting levels to reducefrustration and demotivation. Maslow (1998) emphasizedthat before higher level needs are even perceived, lowerlevel needs must be satisfied. The need to differentiateinstruction is supported by practitioners who recognizethat the two ends of the achievement spectrum are notbeing appropriately challenged within heterogeneousclassrooms where one instructional strategy is deemed tofit all.

According to Tomlinson (2001), “Differentiation calls ona teacher to realize that classrooms must be places whereteachers pursue the best understandings of teaching and

learning every day, and also to recall daily that no practice istruly best practice unless it works for the individual learner”(p. 17). Classrooms are currently filled with diversity instudents’ promptness, concentration, cultural backgrounds,prior knowledge, and learning profiles.

Moreover, there are many ways to accomplishdifferentiation within a classroom. For the purposes of thisstudy, differentiation will be defined according toTomlinson (1999), who said, “In a differentiated classroom,the teacher plans and carries out varied approaches tocontent, process, and product in anticipation of andresponse to student differences in readiness, interest, andlearning needs” (p. 10). Thus, differentiation suggests thatteachers can not only design lessons to tap into the interestsand readiness of their students, but also craft them in waysthat tap into multiple student intelligences to promoteheightened learner interest adequately intrinsicallymotivated to achieve the intended learning outcome.Likewise, it allows teachers to vary the ways in whichstudents work, alone or in groups, auditory or visual means,or creatively to further enhance, extend, and empowerevery student’s learning.

Accordingly, a differentiated classroom differs from atraditional classroom in many ways. Most importantly, in adifferentiated classroom more than one way to complete alesson exists for any given topic. These lessons aredesigned around the needs of the students. A lesson plan isnot created for each student; rather, lesson plans are tieredkeeping in mind the readiness, interests, and learningprofiles of the group. Pre-assessments play a vital role inthe development of the lessons since based on their results;lessons are created to best match the needs of the learners.Hence, educators ought to insist on changes that willdefinitely benefit all learners. This study will examineclassroom practices that support differentiation with thepurpose of determining if differentiated instructionalstrategies have an effect on student achievement. There arethree components of the curriculum that can bedifferentiated to meet students’ needs: content, process, andproduct. The content is what the teacher wants each studentto know by the end of the unit. The process is the “how”the teacher decides to design the lesson. Studentbackground data are taken into consideration whenplanning. Teachers need to understand that the priorknowledge with which students enter their classroom isbased on many factors such as cultural background andfamily opportunities. The “how” must be based on bestpractices in instruction and student learning such asreadiness, interest, learning profile, choice, and learningstyles of the students. The product, which is some form ofassessment of the content, also revolves around thereadiness, interests, and learning profile of the student. Theprocess is the way in which the teacher designs activities toensure the students learn the content. Products are what thestudents create to demonstrate their understanding of thecontent. Products vary as students are given choices onhow to show their mastery of the content. If based onstudent readiness, lessons would be designed to challengestudents at all levels of the achievement spectrum - thehigh, low, and middle. A student’s readiness is determinedthrough pre-assessments. Advanced students are allowed toexcel past the standard curriculum to perform applicationactivities to the standards. At the opposite end of theachievement spectrum, students are held accountable forthe grade level standards and are allowed to master them

through appropriate activities geared to their readiness leveland interests. Initially, a lesson organized around interestgives students a choice in how they learn the lesson.Students may be placed into groups based on a variety ofways including learning styles, interests, or choice, or theymay work independently to complete the assignment.Students would have choices as to how to demonstrate theirknowledge of the concept. The teacher can control thechoices by creating a choice chart where students selecttheir preferred way to demonstrate understanding of thetopic. Second, a lesson designed to meet the learningprofile of students would take into consideration the way inwhich students’ best process information and ideas, andways in which learning style, gender, culture, andintelligence preference influence the students. Teachersneed to recognize and understand if a student is a whole-to-part, part-to-whole learner or likes to work in silence,groups, or independently through written expression,speaking, and so on. It is important that students alsounderstand their learning strengths so they can make theappropriate choices within the classroom. The teacherwould accommodate for differences in how students learnso optimal learning can take place. According to Merrill(2002), most effective learning environments start with ameaningful problem that provides the focus for four phasesof instruction: activation of existing knowledge (includingskills), demonstration of new knowledge, application ofnew knowledge, and integration of new knowledge into thelearner’s world. In short, instructional strategies shouldcomprise a differentiated classroom. Therefore,differentiation should not be examined as an instructionalstrategy by itself; it is a climate of learning created in aclassroom by using best practices in teaching, learning, andlesson design. The purpose of this study was to determinethe extent to which teachers believe if they were usingdifferentiated instructional strategies, higher achievementresults would be produced and sustained with their studentsthan if they were implementing one teaching practice thatis intended to equally fit all learners. Specifically, the studyfocused on the following two research questions:

1. Does differentiated instruction lead to increasedstudent achievement?

2. What are the factors that might either help orhinder the teacher’s ability to successfullyimplement differentiated instruction in theclassroom?These two questions directed the researcher tosynthesize quantitative and qualitative data. Inresponding to the last question, the researcheranalyzed information around the variables studiedto determine any causal relationships between theresearch variables and student achievement.

Hypothesis

HA: Though some factors are hindering the teacher’s abilityto differentiate instruction, the adequate and relevantimplementation of effective differentiated instruction in thelearning environment will definitely have its positiveimplications alleviating students’ achievements.

H0: Though some factors are hindering the teacher’s abilityto differentiate instruction, the adequate and relevantimplementation of effective differentiated instruction

strategies within any learning environment has no causalrelationship with alleviating students’ achievements.

Methodology

To attain the research purpose, both quantitativeand qualitative research methodology was utilized regardingthe relation between differentiated instruction and students’achievement. The quantitative research technique consistedof a survey of 2 questionnaires: the first one was conductedto cycles 2 and 3 educators randomly chosen from both theprivate and the public educational sector, whereas thesecond questionnaire was a student appraisal of theinstructional process students were engaged in at theirschools. Students who participated were aged 9 to 14; i.e.,belonged to cycles 2 and 3. The qualitative research dataconsisted of 1 structured formal interview with aneducational leader. Worth mentioned, the data was collectedduring the scholastic year 2012-2013. Both the teachers’ andthe learners’ questionnaires consisted of 12 items eachstructured either dichotomous or in Likert scale anddeveloped by the researcher. Dissimilarly, the 4 interviewquestions were open ended. The questionnaire itemsrevealed some of the instructional strategies related todifferentiated instruction in purpose of discovering thedegree of awareness among cycles 2 and 3 educatorsregarding the significance of differentiation in enhancing thelearners learning outcomes. 40 questionnaire formats weredistributed by the researcher to 40 educators, whereas only31 were fully answered and submitted back. On the second

level, the students’ survey tool was fully answered by 24students. The researcher supposed that both educators andlearners had answered transparently and truthfully. Thus, theeducators’ response rate was around 76%, yet the students’response rate was 100%. Respondents among educatorsvaried in terms of age, gender, experience, and teachingcycle and subject matter being taught. At the same time,respondents among students varied in terms of age, gender,and learning cycle. To facilitate, the quantitative data wascollected via 2 different questionnaires from a parametricsample of 31 educators and a non-parametric sample of 24learners and was interpreted in bar graphs by means ofemploying an excel program.

Furthermore, the quantitative data was compiled,analyzed, and interpreted in bar graphs; besides, thequantitative research methods allowed the researcher notonly to analyze the sampled educators’ degree of awarenessregarding the importance of considering the element ofdiversity within any learning environment and the extent towhich they believe differentiated instruction might alleviatestudents’ achievements, but also to explore the learners’degree of satisfaction within the whole current learningexperience inside their schools. In addition, 1 interviewallowed the researcher to collect data on an educationalmanager’s outlook on how knowledgeable teachers are inimplementing differentiation strategies, how oftendifferentiated instruction occurs and in what subjects, whatfactors help teachers productively differentiate in theirinstructional practices, and what factors hinder effectivedifferentiated instruction to occur.

Data Result

I. Educators’ Differentiated Instruction Questionnaire (Sample = 31 educators)

The purpose of this survey is to investigate the knowledge educators possess in using differentiated instruction in theirclassrooms. Participation is voluntary. In choosing to complete the following survey, you are agreeing to participate in a researchstudy about differentiated instruction. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Confidentiality is assured;return of the survey to the researcher acts as the participants agree for their responses to be compiled with others. Pleaseunderstand that using the data will be limited to the research purpose.

Gender: 12 males (Cycle 3) ; 19 females (Cycles 2 and 3) Age: 14 educators < 30 years old;

30 years old <10educators <40 years old; 7educators > 40 years old

Teaching Experience /years: 17 educators’ experience > 5 years 08 educators’ experience >10 years

06 educators’ experience < 5 years

Teaching qualifications: 15 educators: Primary Gr. K-6; 16 educators: Middle Gr. 7-9; None: Secondary Gr. 10-12

Current Teaching Assignments: Grade(s): -------------; Sector: 21 educators Private;

10 educators Public Subject Area Being Taught:

07: English Language Arts 05: Mathematics 02: Visual Art 04: French 06: Sciences 01: Geography 06: Arabic Social Studies History

Yes No1. Do you use differentiated instruction in your classroom? 18 (58%) 13

2. Are you familiar with the following instructional and managerial strategies?a. Learning Contracts: 16 (52%) 15 (48%)b. Tiered Assignments: 06 (19%) 25 (81%)c. Independent Projects: 23 (74%) 08 (26%)d. Independent Study: 09 (29%) 22 (71%)e. Curriculum Understanding by Design: 07 (22.5%) 24 (77.5%)f. Curriculum Compacting: 06 (19%) 25 (81%)g. Interest Centers: 19 (61%) 12 (39%)h. Learning Centers: 14 (45%) 17 (55%)i. Varied instructional materials: 23 (74%) 08 (26%)j. Provisions for student’s choice: 08(26%) 23 (74%)k. Flexible Grouping: 22 (71%) 09 (29%)l. Varying Questions: 27(87%) 04 (13%) m. Pre-assessment data to differentiation: 17 (55%) 14 (45%)3. How often do you use strategies mentioned in number (2) of this questionnaire in your classroom?

Always (daily basis) Frequently (weekly basis) Sometimes (monthly basis) Never03 (10%) 08 (26%) 15 (48%) 05 (16%)4. In what subject areas do you think differentiation is most effective? (Check all that apply)

Eng. Lang. Arts Math Arabic Visual Arts French Geography Sciences History& others12 (39%) 08

(26%)14(45%) 12(39%) 12(39%) 04 (13%) 08 (26%) None (0)

5. Do you think that implementing differentiated instruction strategies alleviatestudent’s achievement?

Yes No

26 (84%) 05 (16%)6. Please indicate how often you differentiate your instruction.

Always Frequently Sometimes Never07 (22.5%) 09 (29%) 12 (39%) 03 (10%)

7. Please indicate how important using differentiated instruction is in the following.a. Lesson Planning:

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important11 (35.5%) 12 (39%) 08 (26%) None (0)b. Assessment and Evaluation:

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important10 (32%) 06 (19%) 11 (35.5%) 04 (13%)c. Lesson Delivery:

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important15 (48%) 13 (42%) 03 (10%) None (0)8. In your opinion, which of the following factors help(s) your ability to successfully implement differentiated instruction in yourclassroom? (Check all that apply.)

Factors Educators School leadership/ administration: 15 (48%)

Parents’ expectations: 02 (6.5%)

Knowledge and experience 13 (42%)

Creativity 05 (16%)

Assessment purpose and type 00 (0%)

Support of other staff 05 (16%)

Instructional Goals: 04 (13%)

Lebanese Curriculum design 00 (0%)

Amount of instructional time 06 (19%)

Amount of planning time 00 (0%)

Range of diversity in the classroom 12 (39%)

Availability of materials 12 (39%)Integration between curriculum and instruction 00 (0%)9. What factor(s) do you think hinder(s) your ability to implement differentiated instruction in your classroom? Check all that apply)

Factors Educators School leadership/ administration: 16 (52%)

Parents’ expectations: 29 (93.5%)

Knowledge and experience 18 (58%)

Creativity 26 (84%)

Assessment purpose and type 31 (100%)

Support of other staff 26 (84%)

Instructional Goals: 27 (87%)

Lebanese Curriculum design 31 (100%)

Amount of instructional time 25 (81%)

Amount of planning time 31 (100%)

Range of diversity in the classroom 19 (61%)

Availability of materials 19 (61%)Integration between curriculum and instruction 31 (100%)10. What resources would you like to use in order to enhance your knowledge and understanding about differentiated instruction?(Check all that apply)

Staff professional development and workshops 19 (61%)

Reading books and journals 10 (32%)

Watching videos demonstrating its application 02 (6.5%)

11. My students take a learning style inventory every year.Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree0 (0%) 10 (32%) 02 (6.5%) 14 (45%) 05 (16%)12. I pre-assess my learners to determine their readiness in constructing their own learning.

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree05 (16%) 18 (58%) 0 (0%) 08 (26%) 0 (0%)

II. Students’ Questionnaire (Sample=24students)Please indicate your level of agreement regarding the following statements about your learning experience at your school. 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Neutral 4= Disagree 5= Strongly disagree Learning Experience 1 2 3 4 51. I like school time. 5

(21%)10(42%)

00 16(67%)

00

2. Most learning activities meet my interests and needs. 00 8(33%)

6(25%)

14(58%)

3(12.5%)

3. My work at school is neither too hard nor too easy. 00 11(46%)

5(21%)

15(62.5%)

00

4. I’m motivated to learn during class time. 00 10(42%)

10(42%)

8(33%)

3(12.5%)

5. We discussed in class how we learn best. 2(08%)

5(21%)

3(12.5%)

21(87.5%)

00

6. I think that my teachers know that every student has his styleof learning.

5(21%)

6(25%)

3(12.5%)

14(58%)

3(12.5%)

7. I understand all my lessons during class time. 00 19(79%)

2(08%)

10(42%)

00

8. We often work in groups. 00 16(67%)

00 12(50%)

3(12.5%)

9. Group members are always the same. 5(21%)

10(42%)

4(16%)

12(50%)

00

10. The teacher gives us choices regarding how to complete ourassignments and projects.

00 00 00 18(75%)

13 (54%)

11. The teachers helped me accept that students learn at differentlevels.

0 10 0 16 05

12. Sometimes, our class activities, assignments, and examsaren’t all the same.

0 05 02 14 11

Data Analysis

The purpose of this study was to figure out whetherdifferentiated instruction as a way of thinking of curriculumand instruction would alleviate students’ achievements. Forthat purpose, the researcher aimed to identify supports that

teachers needed successfully and effectively to differentiateinstruction so that school leaders would develop and sustaina sense of awareness regarding how to strategically plan foran effective implementation of differentiated education.Subsequently, professional development sessions would beplanned to address the identified needs. The findings

enclosed the educators’ perspective regarding the relationbetween differentiated instruction and students’improvement in learning, the degree to which teachers wereknowledgeable about differentiated instruction strategiesand the extent to which such strategies would embrace theconsecutive teaching practices, and the factors that mightplay a vital role either helping or hindering an effectiveimplementation of differentiation.

First and foremost, the results demonstratedinconsistency in the responses of some educators as someresponses to some interrelated questions were contradictory.To begin with, when asked whether they differentiated theirinstruction in their classrooms (Table1; Q.1), the majority ofeducators responded positively (58%); whereas when askedin details about how often they apply differentiationstrategies in their instruction (Table.1; Q.3), only 10% of thesampled educators responded that differentiation had beenamong their daily teaching practices, and only 26 % hadapplied differentiation strategies on weekly basis, whereas48% claimed that they used to monthly differentiate, and16% were so frank to confess that they had neverdifferentiated their instruction. Thus, the (58%) of educatorswho claimed differentiation in their instruction in Q.1 wasactually reduced to (36%) of educators who showedfrequent or constant differentiation of instruction in Q.3.

In table1.Q.2, the researcher needed to identifyhow familiar the sampled educators were with differentiatedinstruction strategies, and the majority of the responsesdisclosed knowledge-ability with varying questions (87%),independent projects and varied instructional materials(74%), and flexible grouping (71%). In addition, 61% of thesample revealed familiarity with interest centers, and morethan 50% showed understanding of pre-assessment data todifferentiate and learning contracts. Thus, of the 13differentiation strategies questioned, the educators might be skilled at 7; on the other hand, 6 differentiated instructionstrategies (learning centers, tiered assignments, independentstudy, curriculum by design, curriculum compacting,provisions for student’s choice) needed sessions of trainingand development to build among educators a sense ofknowledge and expertise about what’s missed thoughprerequisite for effective and fair education nowadaysespecially that a sense of awareness about the significanceof such teaching approach had been already developedamong educators as 84% believed that the affectiveimplementation of differentiated instruction would definitelyalleviate every student’s achievement (table 1; Q.5). Stillsome educators not totally aware of the fact thatdifferentiated instruction could be applied in almost allsubject areas (table1; Q4.). Thus, the researcherrecommended that empowerment in training educators howto differentiate was compulsory to guarantee successful andauthentic implementation of differentiation. Furthermore,considering how often they differentiate their instruction ingeneral (table1; Q6), 22.5 % of educators reported that theydifferentiate on daily basis, 29% differentiate on weeklybasis; in contrary, 39% differentiate on monthly basis, and10% do not differentiate at all. In comparing the results ofquestions 3 and 6, the researcher found that differentiatedinstruction is practiced either on daily or weekly basis on arange of 36% to 51%; nevertheless, differentiation is passiveor almost passive in instruction on a range of 49 % to 64%though educators greatly understand its value in extendinglearning and elevating the achievement scale.

In view of that, Questions 8 and 9 of the educators’

questionnaire sought to determine not only the factors thathelp, but also those that hinder the educators’ ability toappropriately and most adequately employ differentiatedway of thinking in planning for achieving intendedinstructional objectives, assessing learners, preparingactivities, and practicing instruction for learners’construction of learning. The survey results illustrated thatthe sole modest support for the teacher to applydifferentiated instruction was referred to schooladministration in a contribution of 48%; besides, educators’knowledge and experience in a variety of teaching strategieswere active supporters only up to 42%, range of diversity inthe classroom and availability of materials were 39% aidingdifferentiated instruction. In other words to make a longstory short, the factors examined by the researcher wereestablishing a passive relation with differentiated instructionas the graph of Q9 in the educators’ survey proved thefollowing disappointing educators’ perspectives:

1. The Lebanese curriculum design, integrationbetween curriculum and instruction, planning ofinstruction time, and assessment purpose and typewere 100% hindering the educators’ ability tosuccessfully implement differentiated instruction intheir inclusive classrooms.

2. Parents’ expectations of their children learningexperiences were 93.5% hindering the educators’ability to successfully implement differentiatedinstruction in their inclusive classrooms.

3. Instructional goals, the element of creativity,support of other staff, and instructional time werehindering the educators’ ability to successfullyimplement differentiated instruction in theirinclusive classrooms on a scale of 81% to 87%.

4. Range of diversity in the classroom along with theavailability of materials was 61% hindering theeducators’ ability to successfully implementdifferentiated instruction in their inclusiveclassrooms.

5. Educators’ knowledge and experience along withschool leadership were the least factors reallyhindering the educators’ ability to differentiate,respectively 58% and 52%.

In fact, such result made it obvious for the researcherwhy educators were still passive regarding the extent towhich differentiation as a way of re-thinking education as awhole is very important; whereas, their active notion ofdifferentiation is further interconnected with lesson deliverythan with lesson planning or assessment and evaluation.(Table1; Q7.)

Nonetheless, though 72 % of the educators reported thatthey pre-assess their learners to identify their level ofreadiness in constructing their own learning (Q12), only 32% agreed on students’ need to take a learning style inventoryevery year (Q11); this fact would only emphasize theeducators’ more than 60% at least need for staff professionaltraining and workshops (Q10).

Next, the 2nd questionnaire was a reflection of students’perspectives regarding their learning experiences at school.As graph 8 demonstrated, 67% of the sampled learnersexpressed their negative feeling in relation to school time,and 58% reported their disinterest in class activities, whereas 25% showed indifference. Regarding the level of ease ordifficulty of their learning, 46% of the participants in the

student survey agreed that their work at school is neither toohard nor too easy; thus, adequate. In contrary, consideringthe 21% that reported neutral response and the 62.5 % thattotally disagreed about the adequacy in the level of ease ordifficulty of their work at school, the researcher summed upthat 83.5 % of the sampled students were either over or lesschallenged to actively and effectively engage in school workand construct, enhance or extend their own learning. This isquite evidently proven in the fact that 45.5 % of the learnersdisagreed that they’re motivated during school time; whilst,42 % responded indifferently that they’re neither motivatedthe opposite. That is, around 87% of the sampled learnerslacked the inspiration to be high achievers since with thelack of motivation, the learner’s self-efficacy would bedeteriorated adding only passivity and disengagement to thehis/her whole learning experience and hence, insufficiencyof achievement.

What’s more, the survey result showed that only 29% ofthe students’ participants were taught how they learn best;i.e. 1/3 of the sample leaving 2/3 lost regarding their beststyle of learning, which if considered during studying, thelearner would increase the possibility of alleviating his/herachievement level. Unsurprisingly, the majority of learnershad displayed disagreement regarding how knowledgeabletheir teachers are about the diversity of learning stylesexisted in class. Such opinion reflects the kind of teachingthat usually occurs inside those learners’ classrooms, alearning experience which is either too near to lecturing andspoon feeding or too far from differentiation. Naturally, theresult would be not surprising if 50% of the learners leavethe class not understanding their lessons.

Moreover, with respect to some differentiationstrategies such as flexible grouping, tiered assignments, orchoice centers, the learners’ responses revealed thefollowing:

1. Though 67% agreed that they often worked ingroups, 63 % clarified that group member werealways the same. This fact raises an importantquestion regarding the objective of grouping andthe extent to which it’s taking into considerationstudent’s different needs, preferences, or learningabilities.

2. The teachers were still not skilled or even trying togive differentiated assignments. Every learnerschoice regarding how to accomplish assignments orprojects was neglected as 75% of the sampledlearners revealed.

In conclusion, the results of the quantitative surveyrevealed a high level of dissatisfaction among botheducators concerning the factors that they believed werehindering their abilities to successfully implementdifferentiated instruction in their weekly or daily teachingpractices and learners concerning school time, classroomcurricular activities, and assignments. As a result, theresearcher inferred that accommodation and adjustment areno more optional but essential means that must accompanyany educational experience if effective learning is intendedto be its ultimate goal.

Moreover, the quantitative data findings guided theresearcher towards a qualitative method by formallyinterviewing an educational school manager who answeredthe interview questions stressing on the significance of

differentiated instruction as a teaching approach to addressall learning needs and preferences. The intervieweeemphasized that the school’s educators were highlyknowledgeable about how to apply differentiation strategiesinside their classroom learning environments. He reportedthat almost all teachers used differentiation strategies;however, it’s most used in languages and sciences subjectareas. Moreover, the education manager revealed aboundless extent of awareness concerning the aspects thatmight either help or hinder the teachers’ ability todifferentiate and accentuated the fact that the school istrying its best to provide and develop effective learning forevery student as an entity, yet he was too reticent inuncovering up how.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Classroom diversity is multifaceted and not easy to understand. Educators are the assets that can not only enhance learning experiences but also build as well as break the reputation of education as a whole. The main purpose of this study was to explore the most important factors that might help or hinder the educators’ ability to successfully implement differentiated instruction and to establish a thought concerning whether a successful differentiation in inclusive classrooms could alleviate every learner’s achievement record. The research study focused mainly on the extent to which differentiated instruction strategies were adopted by educators and education leaders, discovering the educators’ degree of knowledge and understanding about differentiated instruction as a way of rethinking education, curriculum and instruction, starting up down from the curriculum itself, its materials, training and development, reaching the instructional daily practices, and inspiring the learners’ different domains of knowledge and skills.

The research answered to research questions through emphasizing that an adequate adoption of the notion of differentiated education will definitely alleviateevery student’s achievement and highlighting some of thefactors that play a key role either in advancing or hindering the teachers’ capacity to differentiate instruction. Four independent variables seemed to be the most significant roots obstructing the teacher’s willingness to differentiate. These were first, the Lebanese curriculum design itself, integration between the curriculum and instruction,assessment purpose and type, and amount of planning time. On the second level, parents’ expectation of the whole learning experience and the tension of attaining thepreplanned instructional goals passively affected the implementation of differentiated instruction in classrooms. On the third level, shortage in the merit of creativity among educators, deficiency in staff support, and the amount of instructional time were impeding the appropriate demonstration of differentiated instruction, facts that had their negative influence on the learners’ degree of satisfaction regarding their curricular learning practices. Consequently, the researcher recommended a tour revisiting the Lebanese curriculum for the purpose of reformation to bridge the elongated gap between the

curriculum itself and instructional essential needs towards differentiation not as a teaching practice but as a way of rethinking education to produce and retain effective instructional strategies that respect and honor the difference; hence, addresses it sensitively and empathetically through strategically accommodating to enhance, extend, and empower every learner’s affective, cognitive, and psychomotor growth.

References

Maslow, A. (1998). Toward a psychology of being. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Researchand Development. 50, (3), 43-59.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. (2nded.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.