Paige Bishop 17288141

Part A: Literature Review

Group Topic: “Strategies to maximise student academic achievement in secondary schools”
Sub-topic: Impact of differentiated learning on student academic achievement in secondary schools.

Each student is an individual, who learns at different rates and in various ways. These learning

differences contribute to the way student’s process and demonstrate their understanding of knowledge and

skills (NESA, 2018). There are multiple factors which contribute to these learning differences, such as,

individual prior knowledge and learning experiences, cognitive abilities, learning styles, interests and skills

and their motivation and engagement to learn (NESA, 2018). To overcome these learning differences while

also improving academic achievement, research suggests that teachers should implement the

differentiated learning strategy within their program and lesson planning, to ensure that every student has

an equitable opportunity to learn and succeed. Although differentiated learning is expected to be

implemented within every lesson, there is limited research on the impact and effectiveness of differentiation

on student’s academic achievement, which is surprising considering its popularity. This literature review

examines current research that outlines various effective differentiation strategies that can be implemented

within classrooms, analyses whether differentiated learning actually increases secondary student’s

academic achievement and examines the benefits, limitations and challenges associated with the

implementation of differentiated learning in the classroom.

As stated by Tomlinson et.al (2003), differentiated learning is an extremely broad term that can imply

an array of meanings, however, Bartlett (2015) explains that differentiated learning comprises of effective

planning and modifying of pedagogical instruction and assessments to cater for the individual learning

needs of students. Bartlett (2015) and Njagi (2015) both emphasise that there are three key aspects which

determine the level of differentiation required, these include the student’s readiness to learn, their learning

needs and their interests, all of which will vary between students. There are a multitude of ways that

teachers can differentiate the content, process, product and environment for their students, however, some

studies, such as Osuafor & Okigbo (2013) and Smyth (2018), focused on differentiated learning in general

and did not specify the differentiated strategy implemented, while majority of studies tended to focus on

specific differentiation strategies, such as grouping students during activities based on their abilities,

providing students with tiered or scaffolded activities and by differentiating the pace of set tasks (Richards
Page | 1
Paige Bishop 17288141
& Omdal, 2007; Tieso, 2005; Maeng, 2017). In order to provide the most effective and appropriate

differentiation strategies, Maeng (2017) and Bartlett (2015) suggested that teachers should get to know

their students, especially their strengths and interests and understand their learning ability by providing

students with a pre-test before commencing the unit. Although current studies have provided suggestions

for differentiated learning, it should be noted that these strategies are merely a glimpse of the various

differentiation strategies available to accommodate student’s learning needs.

According to recent studies, implementing differentiated learning can benefit students in multiple

ways. De Jager’s (2013) study focussed on differentiating the pace of the lesson, and found that this

benefitted students with low abilities, as this provided them with additional time to complete tasks and

allowing them to achieve the same outcomes as the higher ability students. From this, De Jager (2003)

concluded that the implementation of differentiated learning significantly boosted the confidence and self-

esteem of the students, thus they were more engaged and motivated to learn, which in turn led to the

improvement of academic achievement. The link between differentiated learning and improvements with

student’s engagement and academic achievement was also stated in Maeng’s (2017) study, which

focussed on differentiation through tiered activities. Similar to De Jager’s (2003) study, Richards & Omdal

(2007) and later Pui (2017), found that students significantly benefitted from differentiated learning as it

provided students with more time to practice and strengthen skills and demonstrate their knowledge

through a medium that best suits them, which also led to an improvement in academic success for these

students.

Tieso (2005) and Richards & Omdal (2007) focused their studies on differentiation through ability

grouping, by either placing students in groups with similar abilities or groups with different abilities, both

studies concluded that this differentiation strategy was beneficial to students, as there was a significant

improvement with the student’s academic achievement and students with high abilities performed

exceptionally better overall. Smyth (2018) also promoted ability grouping in her study and stated that this

strategy combined with high teacher expectations were vital for student academic achievement. Osuafor &

Okigbo (2013), agree that differentiated learning improves student’s academic success, however, they

concluded that it was more beneficial for low-ability students, as opposed to high ability students in other

studies, while Njagi (2015), whose study focused on the influences of gender on differentiated learning,

Page | 2
Paige Bishop 17288141
claims that differentiated learning was effective for everyone, regardless of gender, and there was a

significant improvement across the spectrum of abilities. Although these studies point to an obvious positive

impact for student’s learning, Faber et.al (2018) studied the impacts of ability grouping within classroom

and claims that differentiated learning can have a negative impact on low ability students, was slightly

effective for average range ability and have no effect on high achieving student’s success. This study went

on to conclude that they found no connection between the implementation of differentiated learning and

student’s academic achievement (Faber et.al, 2018).

With the implementation of differentiated learning, studies have noted that there are multiple

limitations and challenges that can affect the effectiveness of differentiated learning. In Tieso’s (2005)

study, she found that low and average ability student’s improvement after the implementation of

differentiated learning trivial and even in some cases negative. Tieso (2005) suggested that a possible

explanation for these findings could be linked to student readiness, particularly with low ability students.

This was, however, loosely linked to Richards & Omdal (2007) and Faber et.al (2018) studies, where they

suggested that teachers who focussed on a specific group ability during differentiated learning led to a

negative impact on student’s academic success with other levelled abilities, as they were often left to their

own devices. Majority of studies agreed that implementing differentiated learning significantly increased the

workload and planning time of activities and modifications to the curriculum, which can also have negative

effects on the student’s achievements as teachers had negative attitudes towards differentiated learning

and were not inclined to differentiate as much as they should as a result of the increase in workload (De

Jager, 2013; Rock et.al, 2008). Both Rock et.al (2008) and then later De Jager (2013), also mentioned

teachers reluctancy to implement differentiated learning due to the slower pace of learning, thus struggling

to complete the curriculum and insufficient training to build confidence skills and teacher efficacy (Dixon

et.al, 2014). Another factor affecting the academic success of student’s during differentiated learning is

teachers’ expectations.

Teacher expectations were also mentioned numeracy times throughout studies as a major

contributing factor for poor or negatives results (Rock et.al, 2008; De Jager, 2013; Maeng, 2017). Rock

et.al (2008) stated that teachers who had higher expectations for all of their student’s saw an increase in

academic achievement after the implantation of differentiated learning, thus a lack of teacher expectations

Page | 3
Paige Bishop 17288141
resulted in a decrease of grades. To combat the extensive workload, Richards & Omdal (2007) suggested

to limit the number of flexible instructions to make lessons more manageable and teachers should also

participate in professional development regularly to support and enact differentiated learning effectively to

benefit all students (Maeng, 2017).

From recent studies, it is clear to see that differentiated learning can significantly improve the

academic achievement of all students, regardless of ability, as long as differentiated learning is

implemented effectively. To implement these strategies effectively, it has been suggested that teachers

participate in professional development continuously to build confidence, skills and teacher efficacy.

Teachers should also maintain high expectations for their students, especially when executing

differentiated learning, to further student’s academic success.

Page | 4
Paige Bishop 17288141

Part B: Data Collection Protocol

Semi-structed interview will be conducted with audio recording. Interview questions include:
1. What is your opinion on differentiated learning?
2. What type of students do you have in your classroom?
- Different abilities & various cultural, racial, socio-economic and religious backgrounds?
3. How do you differentiate for your students?
- For low, middle and high ability students?
- Content, process, product and environment?
4. How confident are you in differentiating lessons for your students compared to when you first
started differentiating your lessons?
5. Tell me more about the differentiation process you undertake
6. How much time and effort do you put into planning differentiated lessons?
7. In your opinion, what are the benefits of differentiated learning for your students? How can you tell?
8. How often do you undertake professional development for differentiated learning?
9. Who or how do you seek support when differentiating for your students?
10. What are some of the challenges or limitations that you face with differentiated learning?
11. How do you think differentiated learning impacts on the academic achievement of your students?

Page | 5
Paige Bishop 17288141

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled ‘the impact of differentiated learning on student academic achievement in secondary
schools’, for the class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am
collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

My topic comprises of understanding the impact of differentiated learning on secondary student’s academic achievement.
I hope to gain insight into how teachers plan for and implement differentiated learning within their classrooms, how
effective teachers think differentiation is, the challenges and limitations of differentiating lessons and whether teachers
actually believe differentiation improves academic achievement. This data will be collected through semi-structured
interviews with teachers who implement differentiated learning within their classroom.

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the information and my
involvement in the project with the researcher.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and any questions I
have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to being interviewed and having the interview audio recorded.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this data collection
experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2’ unit, and that
all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship with the
researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student who is 17 years
old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and provide my
consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

Page | 6
Paige Bishop 17288141

Part C: Data Collection Protocol Explanation

The types of participants required for this data collection are at least 5 current teachers who regularly

implement differentiated learning within their lessons. These participants would teach within the secondary

school system within various faculties and would ideally teach students with a range of abilities. The

participants would be targeted as they would have extensive knowledge of differentiation strategies for a

range of students and how to successfully execute these within the classroom and they would understand

the impacts of differentiated learning on their student’s academic achievement.

The semi-structured interview protocol, used for this research, is a qualitative data collection method.

The semi-structured interview protocol was chosen as the data collection method for this research as it

provides a guide for the responses by the interviewees, while also allowing the interviewer to ask

supplementary questions (Efron & Ravid, 2013). Semi-structured interviews encourage the interviewee to

explore certain questions, concepts or ideas in depth, then a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, which as

pointed out by Efron & Ravid (2013) is more beneficial to this research. Semi-structured interviews cover

the same ground of research information, from the interview guide questions, when the interviews are

replicated with multiple participants (Efron & Ravid, 2013). These types of interviews are ideal for beginning

researchers as they provide structure from the guide questions to help keep the interview flowing (Efron &

Ravid, 2013). Another reason why the semi-structured interview protocol was chosen for this research is

because majority of the studies on differentiated learning, including Maeng (2017) and Pui (2017), used

interviews as their method of data collection and the studies which did not use interviews, like (Faber et.al,

2018), who used observations or artefacts instead, stated that they should have used interviews as they

provide more of an insight on the impact of differentiated learning. The interview questions provided in

section B were formulated from the themes and findings from current studies. While the interview is being

conducted, an audio recording device will be used to record the interview, so the researcher can listen back

over the interview to ensure they have not missed any important information that might influence their

research. By recording the interview, Efron & Ravid (2013) stated that the interviewer can also focus more

on having a conversation with the interviewee and make them feel valued and important, instead of

constantly writing notes during the interview.

Page | 7
Paige Bishop 17288141

References
Bartlett, J. (2015). Outstanding differentiation for learning in the Classroom. Taylor and Francis. Florence.

De Jager, T. (2013) Guidelines to assist the implementation of differentiated learning activities in South

African secondary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:1, 80-94, DOI:

10.1080/13603116.2011.580465

Efron, S.E, & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education : A practical guide. New York: Guilford

Publications.

Faber, J.M., Glas, C.A.W., & Visscher, A.J. (2018) Differentiated instruction in a data-based decision-

making context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29:1, 43-63. DOI:

10.1080/09243453.2017.1366342

Maeng, J. L. (2017). Using Technology to Facilitate Differentiated High School Science

Instruction. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1075-1099.

Njagi, M. W. (2015). The Effects of Differentiated Instruction on Students Achievement in Mathematics by

Gender in Secondary Schools in Meru County in Kenya. International Journal of Education and

Research, 3(3), 377-386.

NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). (2018). Differentiated Programming. Retrieved from

http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-

curriculum/programming/differentiated-programming

Osuafor, A.M., & Okigbo, E.C. (2013). Effect of differentiated instruction on the academic achievement of

Nigerian secondary school biology students. Educational Research, 4(7), 555-560.

Pui, W. (2016). Differentiated Curriculum Design: Responding to the Individual and Group Needs of

Students with Learning Difficulties with Self‐regulated Learning Strategies. Support for Learning,

31(4), 329-346.

Richards, M., & Omdal, S. (2007). Effects of Tiered Instruction on Academic Performance in a Secondary

Science Course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 424-453.

Page | 8
Paige Bishop 17288141
Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. (2008). REACH: A Framework for Differentiating Classroom

Instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 31-47.

DOI: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-47

Smyth, E. (2018) Working at a different level? Curriculum differentiation in Irish lower secondary education,

Oxford Review of Education, 44(1), 37-55, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2018.1409967

Tieso, C. (2005). The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement. Journal

for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60-89.

Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A., & Reynolds,

T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile

in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,

27(2-3), 119-145.

NEED TO INCLUDE:

- NESA, 2018

- INTERVIEWING FOR ACTION RESEARCH, 2010

Page | 9