Available online at [Link].

info
[Link] 10.32601/ejal.776002 EJAL
Eurasian Journal of
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335
Applied Linguistics

The effects of differentiated instruction on Turkish

students’ L2 achievement, and student and teacher
perceptions
Ahmet Cihat Yavuz a *
a NUN Schools, Beykoz, İstanbul, 34973, Turkey

Received 2 August 2019 Received in revised form 11 July 2020 Accepted 13 July 2020

APA Citation:
Yavuz, A. C. (2020). The effects of differentiated instruction on Turkish students’ L2 achievement, and student and
teacher perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 313-335.
Doi: 10.32601/ejal.776002

Abstract
Endeavors have been invested to account for inefficient instruction, which is frequently attributed to
disregarding learner idiosyncrasies. As a matter of course, differentiated instruction has begun to receive
scholarly and professional attention in the hopes of ameliorating learner outcomes through learner-
aware teaching. Despite a great deal of recorded research, little is known about how differentiated
instruction is prepared and operationalized. This study, conducted at a private high school in Istanbul,
Turkey, investigated the impact of differentiated instruction on Turkish L2 learners’ L2 achievement
along with the perceptions of learners and teacher. Two intact classes were selected as control (N=14)
and DI group (N=8). The control group was exposed to traditional instruction, while the DI group
received differentiated instruction guided by the principles of constructivism, multiple intelligence theory
(Gardner, 1993), and the differentiated instruction framework of Tomlinson (1999). Data collected by
means of L2 achievement tests revealed that DI group outperformed the control group in overall L2
achievement. Learner reflective essays revealed that Turkish L2 learners found differentiated
instruction as distinctive, entertaining, engaging, instructive, and interest-related, while teacher
reflective journals raised the issues of time constraints, needs for learner awareness and training about
differentiated instruction.
© 2020 EJAL & the Authors. Published by Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics (EJAL). This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND)
([Link]
Keywords: Differentiated instruction, differentiated L2 Instruction, traditional L2 instruction

1. Introduction

The significance of adapting instruction to individual differences has been

recognized since the fourth century BC (Anderson, 1995). As a result of the increasing
heterogeneity of students, educational research and policies focused their attention on
these differences (Tomlinson, 2005). Despite teachers’ acknowledgement of the need to
cater to student diversities, they insist on using a one-size-fits-all approach in their

* Corresponding author. Tel: +90-554-771-4686

E-mail addresses: ahmetcihatyavuz@[Link]
[Link]
314 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

classrooms and overlooking students’ individuality (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998).

The one-size-fits-all approach, as its name suggests, is based on the underpinning
that all learners are treated in an egalitarian way by disregarding the wide range of
diversity. However, it was not until recently that individual differences received
surging interest, and failures in learner learning started to be attributed to the one-
size-fits-all approach (Kasteloot, 2011). This consciousness has attracted mindful
attention on differentiated instruction (hereinafter DI) among educators and
researchers, and the demand for coping with learner diversities has become
inexorable. DI, in contrast to the one-size-fits-all approach, considers diversities
among learners, and assumes addressing these differences. Having said that, dealing
with learner differences is highly ambitious, as it is potentially related to a vast array
of aspects such as learner readiness, needs, interests, styles, capabilities, and level of
development (Tomlinson et al., 2003). In the same vein, DI has multiple avenues to
attend to these differences (Blaz, 2006), such as grouping learners according to their
interest or level, setting individual learning outcomes, providing more instructional
support through different sorts of materials, adapting course materials, giving more
encouragement and time, and allowing for more in-depth exploration (Heacox, 2012;
Tomlinson, 2005).
Although DI looks like a potential solution for grappling with learner differences,
and thus maximizing achievement, most teachers maintain traditional instruction
and abstain from espousing DI in their contexts, which is substantiated by research
on teacher perception, specifically finding DI time-consuming (Njagi, 2014; Siam & Al-
Natour, 2016; Stewart, 2016; Theisen, 2002) and necessitating particular knowledge
base (Lunsford 2017; Oliver, 2016; Robinson, Maldonado, & Whaley, 2014). Hence,
familiarity with the procedure of DI has not been established due to its equivocal
perceptions, lack of scholarly effort, and eschewing any undertaking in educational
contexts. While much has been reported about perceptual understanding and
encountered barriers during implementation, little has been scrutinized for the sake
of providing a pattern that is grounded in theory and structured through a variety of
strategies. The current study will thus seek fulfilling this need through its well-
constructed procedure.
In the following sections, the conceptual base of the study is firstly discussed with
an emphasis on theoretical underpinnings that informed the structure of the DI, and
then the implementation of DI is given by breaking it down into its characteristics
and existing strategies.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) defined DI as proactive planning informed by varied

approaches to what learners should learn, how they will learn, and how they will
demonstrate their learning in an attempt to reach out to each learner. It allows
teachers to utilize varied instructional strategies to meet needs of each learner. In
other words, teachers are flexible in tailoring the content, such as facts, concepts, and
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 315

principles (Blaz, 2006; Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson, 1999); the process, the way learners
understand a key concept or develop the target skill (McCarthy, 2015; Tomlinson,
2001) and the product, the means by which learners show their understanding
(Tomlinson, 1999). DI incorporates instructional strategies informed by learner
varieties that provide significant information for teachers (Chung, 2005) and
implemented considering various aspects of teaching.
The reconstruction of the aforementioned curricular elements requires full
awareness of each learner in terms of their readiness -entry point to a specific concept
or skill- (Tomlinson, 2014), interest through which teachers can relate lesson content
to learners interests and boost motivation, and learning style which is determined by
dominant intelligence (Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Gardner, 1993). Readiness of learners is
traditionally determined through placement or achievement tests, whereas interest
and learning styles, if attempted, are verified through surveys, observation and the
other means. DI hinging on these three characteristics of learners discernibly opposes
the one-size-fits-all mindset (Lewis, Rivera & Roby, 2012), for it is designed to cohere
with students’ readiness, interest, and learning style, and is enriched by instructional
strategies such as tiered activities, choices, and flexible grouping. Yet, DI is not
merely constituted by a set of strategies but grounded in and starts from a mindset
assuming that each learner learns differently, and a single teaching style does not
suit them when it is not conformed to their individual diversities. Thus, DI should be
embraced by teachers in order to cope with individual differences and to optimize
learning outcome rather than simply experiment a set of instructional strategies
(Suprayogi & Valcke, 2016).

1.2. Previous studies

There has been a burgeoning interest in the research dedicated to DI for the past
few decades. The learners who are exposed to DI strategies showed enhanced self-
confidence (Affholder, 2003), increased motivation and engagement (Chien, 2012;
Danzi, Reul & Smith, 2008; Powers, 2008; Ramos & Lasaten, 2018), and positive
attitude (Baumgartner, Lipowski, & Rush, 2003; Karadağ & Yaşar, 2010; Liao, 2015),
as measured by mixed data collection tools.
The impact of DI on learner achievement was also explored in the previous
research. Baumgartner et al. (2003), found increased reading performance among
primary and secondary school learners after being exposed to DI through flexible
grouping, choices, longer self-selected reading time, and access to different reading
sources. Similarly, Koeze (2007) reached increased reading achievement scores after
implementing choice and interest strategies among fourth and fifth graders in
Michigan; Beecher and Sweeny (2008) attempted to close the achievement gap among
ethnically, culturally and economically diverse groups through enrichment program
and DI. They found that engagement in learning was improved and the achievement
gap reduced when elementary learners’ interests and choices were taken into account.
316 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

However, studies conducted in the field of ELT are limited. Chien (2012) found
more improved and effective learning after modifying pre-assigned resources, offering
learners choices, assigning them various activities, and varying the assessment tools
complied with L2 learners in a Taiwanese elementary school. Similarly, Alavinia and
Farhady (2012) reached raised vocabulary achievement score among 80 Iranian
English learners after addressing learners’ multiple intelligences. Aliakbari and
Haghighi (2014) also found a significant difference after fostering reading
comprehension through tiered instruction in content, process, and product. Recently,
Siddiqui and Alghamdi’s (2017) study resulted in a significant difference following
applying tiered activities and flexible grouping at the L2 remedial hours of a
university’s preparatory program in Saudi Arabia with the participation of 17
learners and 4 teachers. Paredes (2017) experimented DI strategies like double entry
journal, reading charts, project menus in compliance with 43 university learners’
interests and needs to gauge their impact on learners’ EFL vocabulary, reading, and
grammar achievement. The findings revealed that the experimented strategies made
a difference on the stated areas of L2 students.
The previous research also investigated teacher perceptions of DI. Teachers
consider DI as time-consuming (Siam & Al-Natour, 2016; Theisen, 2002), requiring
professional training (Lunsford, 2017; Robinson et al., 2014; Siam & Al-Natour, 2016)
and necessitating in-depth knowledge about learner characteristics (Oliver, 2016).
Considering the existing evidence, namely the necessity of catering to learner
differences and the lack in the scrutiny of execution of DI specifically stimulated the
present study to contribute to the field with a model by seeking the impact of DI on
high school L2 learners.

2. Method

The current study is based on an experimental design, and integrated both

quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments. It aimed to investigate the
impact of DI on high school learners’ L2 achievement as well as explore their and the
teacher researcher’s perceptions of DI. In conjunction with the stated goals, the
following research questions were addressed.
1. Is there a difference between DI group and control group regarding their L2
achievement?
2. What are the L2 learners’ perceptions about DI?
3. What are the teacher researcher’s perceptions about DI?

2.1. Context and participants

The study was carried out at a private high school in Istanbul, Turkey. The school
delivers education to 545 students aged 16-19. The overwhelming majority of the
population is Turkish despite having limited number of foreign students from
different countries. The school requires all the sections from 9th to 11th grade to take
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 317

an English placement test at the beginning of academic year, by which aiming to

place students at the appropriate level ranging from A2 to C1 for the English
Language Teaching program. Following the placement test, each grade is split into
three CEFR levels according to the results such as ninth graders A2, B1 and B2.
The program intends to develop students’ macro skills by offering them level-
appropriate L2 program and thus graduate them with essential language
communication skills. To this end, certain ELT coursebooks which are selected by a
consultation committee before the onset of the academic year are assigned to the
levels, and the ELT teachers are to cover the syllabi of these textbooks without
diverging from the curricular goals of the program. Moreover, they are supposed to
follow the procedural flow of the textbooks with a limited flexibility to adapt the book
aligned with learner differences in terms of readiness, interest, learning styles and
the other dynamic factors.
Concerning the assessment and evaluation of the program, the examination is
administered over a common exam paper at the same time across the sister high
schools. It thus forces educational staff of one campus to move along congruously with
the other campuses. Having a standardized English program in each high school, as
well as KG, primary and middle school, the institution gives little autonomy to its
teachers to modify the program for learners’ sake, which suggests that DI concerning
content, process and product is nearly impossible unless it is specified in the unit
plans. Yet, consent was given for two 9th grade classes only for research purposes and
for a limited period.
The participants of the study were two intact 9th grade classes with a total number
of 22 students aged 15-17 studying at the elementary level (A2, CEFR) in the English
program. Selection was made based on convenience sampling after taking
administrative and parental consents. The students were placed at this level after a
placement test administered at the start of the school year. The evaluation was made
only upon the number of correct answers without including other criteria such as
overall school achievement and a nation-wide high school entrance test score. The
control group consisted of fourteen students, whereas the experimental group
consisted of eight students. Detailed information about participants is displayed on
Table 1 which indicates the overview of pre-assessment results, namely Perceptual
Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (hereinafter PLSPQ) developed by Reid
(1984), Holland Codes or Holland Occupational Themes (Holland, 1997) and teacher
observation. The instructor of the control group was a colleague of the researcher who
had been teaching since 2015, while the instructor of the experimental group was the
researcher who had been teaching since 2009. Each group had weekly 8 hours of
English each lasting 40 minutes. During the research, the experimental group
received 6 hours of treatment (in total 24 hours) per week.
318 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

Table 1. Participants

Student Language Learning Style Interest Career Classroom

Background (Reid, 1984) Dispositions Behavior
(Holland, 1997)
1 Relatively better Major- Auditory Football, Social jobs where Likes working in
command due to his technology, he solves groups and
Minor- Individual
undertaking robust comparing problems and helping others
pre-8 English in Chinese and works in
China. Turkish cultures cooperation
2 Fairly good Major- Tactile Cooking, Social jobs where Loves reading and
command, likely and Auditory photography he interacts with watching about
due to the intensive people and solve crime, patronizes
Minor- Individual
English program in their problems the others
his early education
3 Confident yet Major- Group and Cooking, Conventional Cooperative,
ineffective English Kinesthetic videogames, jobs, working helpful, enjoys
despite 4-year-long watersports routinely as a competitive tasks
Minor- Individual
middle school accountant, clerk
program
4 No prior experience Major- Auditory Media and Media, Conscientious,
likely due to poor and Group fashion enterprising fields cooperative, yet
state school lacks self-
Minor- Individual
program confidence
5 Poor command Major- Auditory Videogames, Engineer Rarely grasps
despite early and Individual computers tasks or speaks,
education in France prefers working
Minor- Group and
alone
visual
6 Poor command of Major- Individual History and Social jobs such Alienated from
English despite Theology as teacher, the class, learns
Minor- None
intensive prior psychologist, by writing, yet too
deduced from the
English program counselor slowly
scale
7 Very poor command Major- Group and Cinema, music Actor Prefers pair-group
likely due to visual works, bullying
inefficient state- others
Minor- Auditory
based program
8 Very poor command Major-Kinesthetic Computer Enterprising Inclusive student,
likely due to an Group occupations health problems
irregular prior occasional no-
Minor-Individual
experience shows

The teacher researcher has been teaching English as a foreign language since 2009
to various groups of learners between the ages of 7 and 19 in Turkey. The researcher’s
interest area of research is primarily DI, curriculum development, and teacher
education. Considering DI as the most essential solution for the current teaching
context, he seeks expertise in the field of DI by experimenting various self-prepared
lesson procedures in compliance with different DI strategies. The teacher researcher
intended to contribute to this field with this study in which he used some pre-
assessment surveys, implemented some DI strategies, and took some theoretical
principles into account in the design of the DI lessons, which is given at length further
in the paper.

2.2. Data collection instruments

 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 319

The study incorporated multiple data collection phases to make sure that all the
garnered data would be analyzed appropriately. PLSPQ and Holland Codes test were
administered to assemble vital information about the participants before the
treatment. With respect to the nature of the study, it relied heavily on the statistical
analysis of the achievement test as a result of which the impact of the treatment on
student L2 achievement was determined. Finally, with an intent to reach the effect of
the experiment on the perception of the participants and the researcher, qualitative
data was collected through reflective essays kept by the participants at the end of the
study and reflective journals kept by the teacher researcher at the end of each
treatment week.

2.2.1. Perceptual learning style preference questionnaire

The PLSPQ was developed by Joy Reid (1984) in an attempt to measure English
language learners’ preferred learning styles. It is made up of 30 self-reporting
statements aiming to unveil six learning styles, namely auditory, group, individual,
kinesthetic, tactile and visual based on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As a consequence of the calculation tendered by the
scale, engendered learning styles are classified as major, minor and negligible. Major
learning style denotes the preferred learning style, whilst minor learning style could
still function in learning as opposed to negligible learning style indicating difficulty
learning in that way (Reid, 1995). The rationale behind the selection of this
instrument was not only its suitability for the context (English Language Learning)
but also its conduciveness to garnering information about learners’ preferred way of
learning, which informed DI-based lesson plans.

2.2.2. Holland codes

Holland Codes or the abbreviation RIASEC, developed by John L. Holland (1997),
represents a theory of personality in concern with career dispositions. The test
categorizes people in terms of their inclination to six distinct groups of occupations,
namely realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventions, which is
conventionally abbreviated as RIASEC. The test comprises 48 occupational tasks that
are rated by how much it is relished on a scale of 1 (dislike) and 5 (enjoy). The test is
available online and takes 5-10 minutes to complete. The incentive behind
implementing this test was its feasibility for unearthing respondents’ career
dispositions and descriptions of the task they are predisposed to enjoy experiencing,
as well as its practicality for providing information about learners’ profile.

2.2.3. Achievement test

The achievement test was applied three times as pre-test, post-test, and delayed
post-test in the study. It comprised reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar
questions which were taken from the material pack of the level textbook. The test was
the recommended end of unit test that had been prepared in parallel with the unit
goals and content. Therefore, piloting was not considered to be necessary to measure
its suitability (validity) to the level. The test was conducted to both groups prior to the
320 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

treatment and lasted 60 minutes to complete. The same test was given to the
participants as the post-test just after the treatment which lasted as long as four
weeks, and as delayed post-test five weeks later. The reading section of the
achievement test comprised ten questions. Five of these questions measured reading
for main idea, whereas three of them measured reading for specific information, and
two of them tested reading for detailed information sub-skills. The section constituted
25% of the total weight. Given writing section of the test, with 25% of total weight, it
only had one task that required students to use target structures and words in a
meaningful context. The pieces of students were assessed by two raters against the
criteria given by the institution as suggested by Brown (2007). The quantitative data
related to writing products of the control and experimental groups in pre-, post-, and
delayed post-tests entailed a second rater for a reliable data analysis procedure. That
being the case, the researcher requested a colleague of his, who holds a BA and MA
degree in English Language Teaching, and has been teaching since 2009, to grade the
writing pieces of both groups. Following the Cohen’s Kappa calculation, a strong
agreement between two raters in the pre-test (κ =0.95), in the posttest (κ =0.94), and
in the delayed post-test (κ =0.89) was found. Concerning vocabulary section, it was
composed of 25 items each having one point of value, thus making up 25% of the total
score. The type of vocabulary ranged from main verbs (15 items) to target nouns (10
items). Finally, the grammar section included 18 question items. Seven items gauged
the ability of using possessive have in the correct form, while five items asked for
distinguishing possessive “have” and present “to be”. Last six items tested the ability
of putting “can” in the correct form in a dialogue. The section constituted the final
25% of the overall score.
In the present study, the researcher controlled the measurement of instruments as
a source of error. In addition to this, the procedure of scoring was objective and clear-
cut, as the publishing company had already prepared the answer key of the test,
which had single correct answer. For the writing pieces of the participants, an
experienced ELT teacher graded the writings of the participants for more reliable
interpretation. Moreover, the test was not brief but long enough to measure specific
skills of the students efficiently, which also contributed to the reliability of the study.
Furthermore, the achievement test was retaken five weeks after the post-test, which
also increased the reliability of the study. When it comes to the Cronbach’s alpha
value of the study, it was .831 which confirmed the reliability and internal consistency
of the test.

2.2.4. Reflective essays

Reflective essays illustrate one’s perceptions, attitudes, understanding, thoughts
and reactions upon some experience or on a subject matter. This study thus made use
of reflective essays in order to reach the perceptions of the participants who
experienced the treatment. The essays were written by all the students in the DI
group. The students reflected on the treatment they had been exposed to for a month.
The essays of the participants provided data for the second research question.
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 321

Following exploratory analysis of the essays to obtain a general sense of data

(Creswell, 2012) in-depth coding process was conducted. During open coding, major
categories (themes) related to the DI were identified. Specifically, major themes in
concern with the participants’ perceptions of DI were determined. As the study
included open coding, the inter-rater reliability was sought for a true interpretation of
the results. The inter-rater reliability means that “two or more individuals observe an
individual’s behavior and record scores, and then the scores of the observers are
compared to determine whether they are similar” (Creswell, 2012, p. 622). To find out
the inter-rater reliability, two expert ELT teachers determined major categories out of
the codes. For this study, the formula proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994),
assuming 80% agreement sufficient, was performed. Consequently, the inter-rater
reliability was found 90%, which is above the satisfactory rate.

2.2.5. Reflective journals

A reflective journal is an account of a work in progress, which helps researcher
reflect on the experience (Creswell, 2012). In this study, this data instrument was
employed to explore the teacher’s attitudes during the planning and preparation of
differentiated lesson plans, and after the implementation, which provided data for the
last research question.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure

The study lasted for nine weeks including four weeks of treatment. In the first
week, the researcher collected data about DI group’s interests, learning styles, and
profile in order to acquaint himself with them and design informed lessons. To this
end, two pre-assessment tests; PLSPQ developed by Reid (1984) and Holland Codes
(Holland, 1997) were conducted to better familiarize himself with learners,
particularly about learners’ characteristics, learning styles and career dispositions,
which later, along with the teacher researcher’s observation notes, formed DI-based
lessons,. After having a good knowledge of the learners, the researcher conducted
achievement test in both groups to determine readiness in the second week.
Then, in the following four weeks, the teacher of the DI group abode by the content
of the textbook as mandated by the school’s ELT department but modified the process
and product by harnessing the conceptual framework of constructivism. Specifically,
he entailed from learners to engage in learning environment, to connect the input to
their real-life and existing experience, and most importantly to build knowledge
through interacting with peers and other people in an attempt to construct meaning
of the given input. Additionally, he differentiated the process by taking the advice of
Vygotsky (1978) in that it included activities that were just above the current level of
students, (the zone of proximal development), thus challenging them to reach the
lesson goals by constructing new knowledge stage by stage. In concern with his role,
the teacher, as is also assumed in the constructivist theory, took on the role of
facilitator who not only diagnosed the needs, abilities, interests, and learning styles of
learners but also helped them construct meaning through appropriately designed
322 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

lesson plans as supported by DI strategies. Table 2 illustrates the theoretical and

practical groundwork of the study, which is recommended for an informed DI.
Table 2. Theoretical and practical groundwork

Framework Function

PLSPQ To inform about learners’ preferred learning styles

Holland Codes To inform about learners’ career dispositions
Observation To inform about learners’ classroom behaviors and their learning profile

Constructivism To liaise knowledge with the real life

The ZPD To build on current knowledge or skills through challenging activities

DI Framework To guide instruction through its conceptual propositions and hands-on strategies

Multiple Intelligence To inform instruction as regards task variation

The teacher researcher also differentiated the ways of production that the students
would likely to prefer. In other words, lessons were designed, as underpinned by
multiple intelligence theory, (Gardner, 2008, as cited in Paone, 2017) bearing diverse
dominant intelligences among the class instead of expecting a shared type of from
learners. Furthermore, he used DI strategies, as suggested by Tomlinson (1999) such
as tiered-activities used to design materials in line with the readiness of the
participants; choices used to provide learners with alternative tasks in relation to
their interests and real life, and to give them the liberty of opting for any of them;
flexible grouping used to group learners differently not only in compliance with their
learning styles (e.g. individual learner, group learner) but also with their interests
(e.g. the ones interested in photography), as reported in the PLSPQ and Holland
Codes results. Table 3 exhibits a brief lesson procedure (practical implementation) of
Week 3.
In the following two weeks both groups took the achievement test immediately and
five weeks after the instruction; DI group wrote their reflective essays and the teacher
researcher collected his weekly written reflective journals. In the last week (Week 9),
the researcher analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data. The overview of the
procedure is illustrated on Table 4.
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 323

Table 3. Example Procedure (Week 3)

Group Aim Procedure Strategies
Control Describe Reading for detailed information Traditional
people using instruction that
Listening for specific information in the context of clothing
have in the assumes almost full
affirmative Introducing lexical sets of colors and clothes dependence on the
form Speaking and writing activities based on textbook characters textbook with very
little flexibility to
Homework assignment from Workbook ensure
Source: New Inspiration 1 Student Book (Garton-Sprenger & standardization
Prowse, 2011, pages 24 and 25)
DI Describe Conversational worksheet on what hobbies do they have, what Flexible grouping
people using do they have that most people do not have (St-1, auditory,
have in above the average level, and St-2, auditory and above the
affirmative average level). These two students with similar preferred
and the learning style and level found their commonalities. The rest of
other forms the class followed the textbook sections
Find someone who… in the context of expressing possession
Tiered activities
(The rest of the class)
St-1 & St-2 prepared a text related to the result of their
exchange of information using conjunctions and, but.
Describe and identify famous people using have/has in pairs
(Additional activity for the whole class)
Write a paragraph describing family members (St-4-5-6-7-8) Choice
Write a paragraph describing two celebrities comparatively (St-
1-2-3)
Homework
Auditory (St-1-2-4-5) and group learners (St-3-7-8) prepare 10
questions using possessive have in the context of clothing, and
interview one person from the family or friends. Choice
At the end of the interview the students were supposed to
either prepare a chart about the wardrobe of the interviewed
person or a video showing the person’s clothing style

Table 4. Overview of data collection procedure

Week Procedure
Week 1 Observation, Perceptual Learning Style
Preference Questionnaire, Holland Codes

Week 2 Pre-test
Week 3 Treatment, Reflective Journal
Week 4 Treatment, Reflective Journal
Week 5 Treatment, Reflective Journal

Week 6 Treatment, Reflective Journal

Week 7 Post-test

Week 8 Delayed post-test

Week 9 Reflective essays

2.4. Data Analysis

Non-parametric tests were run since the size was not big enough in control and
experimental groups. Quantitative data were processed and analyzed through SPSS
324 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 22. Raw data out of student
reflective essays and teacher reflective journals were analyzed inductively (Boyatzis,
1998), for there were no pre-determined categories to seek. With an explorative
approach, the codes were identified using open coding, they were then categorized,
which was followed by thematic analysis. The emerging codes and themes were
iteratively verified in an attempt to make meaningful interpretations (Creswell,
2012).

3. Results

Aligned with the three research questions, this section is split into three
subsections. The first subsection presents an overview of the achievement scores of
both groups, while the other two sections give account of the inductive analysis of the
reflection papers and reflective journals.

3.1. Achievement rates

Overall scores of each group were measured after each testing attempt using
Friedman test (Table 5).
Table 5. Overall scores (Friedman test)

Experimental Control
Item M SD Min Max df p M SD Min Max df p
Pre-test 35.7 18.15 13 60 36.9 15 10 63
Post-test 67 17 41 90 2 0.002 49.4 15.3 25 80 2 0.000
Delayedpost-test 68.1 18.3 41 92 48.1 12.6 30 77

The experimental group’s scores are respectively (μ1= 35.75, μ2= 67.25, μ3= 68.13)
which indicated that the experimental group almost doubled the score after the
treatment. It is concluded that the treatment made a difference on DI group’s overall
achievement. The delayed post-test test was implemented five weeks after the post-
test, and the result showed no significant difference as compared to the post-test. The
control group’s overall scores are respectively (μ1= 36.93, μ2= 49.43, μ3= 48.14) which
showed around 13% increase from pre- to post-test. Once the delayed post-test scores
were calculated, the result showed no difference comparing to the post-test. The effect
size for this analysis (d = 1.06) was found to exceed Cohen’s (1988) convention for a
large effect size.
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (Table 6) was operated to identify the groups posing
difference. As multiple comparisons were required to be made on the same data, the
significance level was taken as =.05/3=.0167 (Bonferonni correction).
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 325

Table 6. Overall results (Wilcoxon Signed Rank)

Post_overall – Delayed_overall – Delayed_overall –

Group Pre_overall Pre_overall Post_overall
Z -2.533b -2.524b -.254b
Experimental Asymp, Sig, (2-tailed) 0.0110 0.0120 0.7990
Asymp, Sig, (1-tailed) 0.0055 0.0060 0.3995
Z -3.297b -2.626b -.770c
Control Asymp, Sig, (2-tailed) 0.0010 0.0090 0.4410
Asymp, Sig, (1-tailed) 0.0005 0.0045 0.2205
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
b. Based on negative ranks.
c. Based on positive ranks.

When Table 6 is viewed, there is a statistically significant difference between pre-

and post-test overall scores (z=-2.533, p=.006<.0167) in the experimental group, which
denotes that the treatment made a significant difference by leading to an increase in
the overall scores. A significant difference is also true between pre- and delayed post-
test (z=-2.524, p=.006<.0167). Regarding the difference between post- and delayed
post-test, there is not a significant difference in terms of overall achievement (z=-.254,
p=.399>.0167).
Given the control group, there is a statistically significant difference between post-
test and pre-test overall scores (z=3.297, p=000<.0167). In other words, the traditional
instruction made a significant difference by leading to an increase in the overall
scores. A significant difference is also true between pre- and delayed post-test (z=-
2.626, p=.004<.0167). Regarding the difference between post- and delayed post-test,
there is not a significant difference in terms of overall achievement (z=-.770,
p=.221>.0167).
The study’s first research goal was to investigate the achievement difference
between the DI group and the control group. Table 7 depicts both groups’ overall
achievements.
Table 7. Overall achievement (Mann-Whitney U)

Design Item Group N M SD MR z Sig.

Exp. 8 31.50 11.68 18.13
Pre-Post Overall -3.624 0.000
Test Cont. 14 12.50 5.93 7.71
Post-Del. Exp. 8 0.88 6.77 13.25
Post Test Overall -.959 0.338
Cont. 14 -1.29 11.73 10.50

Regarding overall achievement, the increase after treatment is 31.5 points in the
experimental group, and 12.5 points in the control group, which poses a statistically
significant difference (z=-3.624, p=0.000<.05) between the groups. Moreover, there is
0.88 points overall increase from post- to the delayed post-test in the experimental
group, while there is -1.29 points decrease in the control group. When the difference is
analyzed between these two groups (z=-.959, p=0.338>05), no significant difference is
326 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

found between the groups. To have a better insight into the achievement, Table 8
dissects the achievement score based on reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar
sections.
Table 8. The breakdown of achievement

Design Item Group N M SD MR z Sig.

Exp. 8 6.63 2.72 15.25
Reading -2.085 0.037
Cont. 14 3 4.69 9.36
Exp. 8 7.38 5.23 16
Writing -2.467 0.014
Cont. 14 2.36 2.70 8.93
Pre-Post Test
Exp. 8 9.50 3.16 18.19
Vocabulary -3.678 0
Cont. 14 2.71 2.64 7.68
Exp. 8 7.75 4.43 14.44
Grammar -1.611 0.107
Cont. 14 4.14 4.81 9.82
Exp. 8 1.25 3.53 12.25
Reading -.413 0.680
Cont. 14 0.64 5.73 11.07
Exp. 8 1.38 4.27 10.88
Writing -.345 0.730
Post-Del. Cont. 14 1.79 4.93 11.86
Test Exp. 8 -0.25 3.28 12.44
Vocabulary -.525 0.600
Cont. 14 -1.93 5.75 10.96
Exp. 8 0 3.02 12.88
Grammar -.757 0.449
Cont. 14 -1.43 5.04 10.71

Table 8 demonstrates that while the increase is up to 6.63 points in the

experimental group, it is 3 points in the control group, which poses a significant
difference (z=2.085, p=0.037 <.05) between the groups in terms of reading
achievement. When the writing difference is analyzed between the groups (z=-2.467,
p=0.014<.05), there is a statistically significant difference between the groups in
terms of writing achievement. It also shows that there is a statistically significant
difference (z=-3.678, p=0.000<.05) between the groups concerning vocabulary
achievement. Given grammar achievement, unlike the previous measurements there
is not a significant difference (z=-1.611, p=0.107>.05) between the groups.

3.2. Results of the Reflective Essays

An in-depth analysis of students’ reflective essays yielded eight codes that were
grouped into two main themes (Table 9).
Table 9. Thematic coding (Reflective essays)

Main themes Codes

Positive Attitude Entertaining, engaging, instructive
Unorthodox Aspects Various activities (e.g. presentations, questionnaires) lack of full adherence to
textbooks, right to choose, peer aid, interest-related tasks
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 327

Basically, participants expressed their content with the treatment with respect to
its being entertaining, engaging and instructive, all of which were categorized as
positive attitude.
[...] I had such entertaining lessons that sometimes I did not take a break because
I was engaged in the tasks. In the previous lessons. I was not this engaged. (S5)
[...] I easily learnt about grammar topics and words. I did not have any
difficulties to understand them because we did several practices. (S2)
Based on the comments, it can be inferred that differentiating L2 instruction
resulted in not only fun and entertainment but also engagement and learning.
The participants also stated that the treatment brought unconventional aspects
such as preparing presentations and questionnaires, not fully covering the textbook,
giving students the liberty of choosing among optional activities, getting help from
peers and having interest-related tasks.
[...] It was a different experience for me because we used to cover the textbook
before this. (S6)
[...] We were offered to choose among different tasks. I enjoyed preparing a recipe
for “Patlıcan Kebabı”, and Dos and Dont’s of photography. (S2)
[...] I did not use to work with a classmate very often, but in these lessons, I
generally worked with them to prepare a questionnaire, to get their help about
preparing a presentation and so forth. It was very useful. (S5)
Based on the comments it is deduced that DI is viewed unconventional in many
aspects such as the variety, flexibility and grouping of the activities, which was barely
or never experienced in the traditional instruction.

3.3. Results of the Reflective Journals

An in-depth inductive look into the journals unveiled five codes that fell into two
main themes (Table 10)
Table 10. Thematic coding (Reflective journals)

Main themes Codes

Challenges Time consuming, lack of autonomy
Familiarity Student profile (e.g. learning styles, interests etc.), student differences,
planning and implementing DI

The recurring patterns were mainly based on the challenges, specifically that DI be
time consuming and the practitioner be unable to bend institutional regulations and
rules.
[...] I cannot help thinking how I could deal with DI if it were required by the
school, because it took all my weekend to prepare for one class. (T, Treatment
Week 2)
328 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

[...] If I did not have to adhere to the textbook, it would be easier to differentiate.
Textbook constrained me to include target language and unit goals. (T,
Treatment Week 2)
[...] I had to cover certain parts of the book at times, as it was required by the
foreign languages department to conduct the same exams across two campuses,
which rather affected the efficiency of the study. (T, Treatment Week 3)
These statements vividly indicate that planning and preparation for DI was time-
consuming and nearly unmanageable because of the regular school responsibilities
such as lesson plans, paperwork, and administrative burdens. Such being the case, it
can be inferred that planning and preparing DI require a great deal of time, or else it
is highly likely to be obstructed by time-constraints. The comments also emphasize
that DI was impeded from a complete implementation due to institutional policies.
This challenge of the researcher implies the issue of strict policies in the schools in
which teachers neither have flexibility to modify syllabus nor are given autonomy to
differentiate instruction for the optimization of learning. In other words, schools do
not allow their teachers to change instruction for the sake of establishing standard
instruction across multiple campuses.
The analysis of the reflective journals also revealed the fact that DI necessitates
multilayered familiarity, particularly with learner diversities, learning styles,
interests and teacher knowledge of planning and implementing DI.
[...] Although I applied the PLSPQ and Holland Codes to get to know their
preferred learning styles, strong intelligences, and occupational orientations, I
had to make observations to become more aware of my learners. (T, Pre-
assessment Week 1)
[...] I was overwhelmed while putting thought on how to cater to varieties and
follow the curricular objectives at the same time. I need to improve myself in this
area. (T, Treatment Week 4)
The records of the teacher demonstrate that differentiating instruction called for a
full awareness of learners in concern with not only their learning characteristics but
also individual tendencies, interests, and so forth. Therefore, it can be concluded that
DI starts with knowing learners’ academic, and social varieties, as a result of which
instruction can be effectively differentiated based on these varieties. The expressions
of the teacher also highlight the fact that DI involved some degree of knowledge about
the treatment to overcome the obstacles related to integrating DI tools into the
present curriculum. This challenge of the teacher brings the issue of professional
development to the light, as DI does not simply assume finding extra sources for the
program; rather it conforms developed and adapted materials to learner varieties,
which varies from context to context.
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 329

4. Discussion

The research sought to determine whether there was a difference in learners’

overall L2 achievement including reading, writing, vocabulary, and grammar scores
from pre- to post-test. The results demonstrated a significant difference between the
scores of two tests both in control and DI groups, which suggests that both traditional
instruction and DI gave rise to an increment in students’ L2 overall achievement.
However, concerning comparative results, it was found that the difference is higher in
DI group than control group.
The reason to that is most probably due to DI’s learner-centered approach that
assumes and accepts students as individuals with diverse abilities, needs, interests,
learning styles, and preferences. Conversely, traditional instruction bears whole-class
delivery with little diversity but full commitment to the syllabus of the textbook. In
other words, it is more teacher-centered in that it offers a standard teaching that is
carried out nearly in the same way among practitioners. Simply put, traditional
instruction did not surpass the impact of DI because it was applied irrespective of
learner idiosyncrasies in the classroom.
Another reason that DI resulted in better scores might be due to the fact that the
instruction embodies such DI strategies as tiered activities, choices, and flexible
grouping. With tiered activities, the researcher assumed the mixed levels and abilities
of the students by designing or redesigning materials in concert with learners’
readiness and abilities over the same unit goals. For instance, some learners worked
on preparing and conducting a new questionnaire on life skills, while the others
conducted a ready-made questionnaire after making sense of the questionnaire items,
which allowed all learners to reach the equal unit goals through level-appropriate
tasks. This finding concurs with the study of Chien (2012) who reached similar
outcomes through the previously mentioned strategies in an elementary school’s EFL
class in Taiwan, and with Siddiqui and Alghamdi (2017) whose study generated very
similar results at the L2 remedial hours of a preparatory program in Saudi university.
Ultimately, incorporation of interest-relevant materials might be the other reason
for the difference. Taking interests of learners into account led to a conducive learning
environment in which the learners relished studying. This outcome is in line with the
findings of Beecher and Sweeny (2008) who also found increased achievement scores
after considering learners’ interests in their longitudinal study conducted at an
elementary school in the USA. Since limited research is available in L2 setting, there
is still a need for further investigation into the impact of DI strategies.
The other research question aimed to look into the impact of DI on learners’
perceptions, as interpreted from qualitative data obtained from reflective essays kept
by the students in the DI group at the end of the study. Given the overall results, it
can be stated that DI through the strategies of tiered activities, flexible grouping, and
choices which were suited to learners’ readiness and interests engendered a positive
attitude. One reason to that is most probably that the learners’ interests (e.g. St-2’s
330 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

interest in cooking and photography, St-7’s interest in cinema) were considered during
the preparation of DI, which corresponds with the result of Danzi et al. (2008) who
also found increased motivation and decreased boredom in their study with primary
and middle school learners. The other reason to such a result might be due to the
unconventional instruction in which learner’s mixed readiness levels were respected,
and coped with through tiered activities, which is in agreement with Karadağ and
Yaşar (2010), whose study revealed that such DI strategies affected students’ attitude
in a positive way among middle school Turkish learners. By the same token, Chien
(2012) measured the impact of tiered tasks, and found boosted learner motivation,
and joy among a Taiwanese elementary school’s EFL learners. Moreover, the findings
are in line with Liao (2015) who uncovered that such tasks had positive influence on
learner perception at a Taiwanese university’s EFL classes. The final reason is
probably the consideration of varied learning styles in DI groups as informed by the
results of PLSPQ test, which was also found effective in Ramos and Lasaten (2018).
However, it should be noted that it is almost impossible to address each learner’s
individual interests, abilities, and learning styles especially in larger groups.
Therefore, the size of the class was the reason that encouraged the teacher to offer
diverse interest-relevant tasks. Yet, it is likely to diversify existing materials in the
way that are tailored to mixed learning profiles in general if not peculiar to
individuals.
The objective of the final research question was to elucidate the perceptions of the
teacher researcher about the implementation of DI, as extracted and interpreted from
the recurring themes in the reflective journals weekly kept by the teacher. The overall
results of data analysis suggested that implementation of DI posed many a challenge
such as keeping up with school schedule and DI at the same time, being conscious
about the learners, knowing how to differentiate, and meeting institutional curricular
requirements. The first and foremost difficulty for the teacher was to maintain DI and
the regular workload at the same time. In other words, the most significant issue is
time constraints. The necessity for more time is generally induced by the amount of
regular workload of teachers including lesson plans, documentations, paperwork, and
meetings. This issue is also agreed by Theisen (2002) in which teachers expressed
their concern, and difficulty about the lack of time; Robinson et al. (2014) who also
found lack of adequate time among many other challenges of teachers, as well as
Oliver (2016), and Siam and Al-Natour (2016), all of whom reached the same
conclusion. The other recurring theme found in the reflective journals was the
indispensability of being informed about learner profile, by which the researcher drew
attention to the becoming aware of learners’ needs, abilities, profiles, interests,
strengths, weaknesses and the other characteristics. This finding also aligns with
Oliver (2016) in which the participants reported their trouble knowing and meeting
the needs and abilities of learners. The other major theme was the necessity of
familiarity with planning and carrying out DI, which recommends that professional
development and training are required to be able to differentiate instruction
effectively, which concurs with the findings of Oliver (2016), and Lunsford (2017).
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 331

This finding uncovers the fact that differentiation of instruction is not an easy job
such as taking attendance and managing classroom that can be achievable by every
incumbent teacher. On the contrary, it entails in-depth knowledge about the
principles of DI, in which institutions need to prioritize as a need of teachers to cater
to immediately if DI is of high importance to the school. In brief, apart from the
expected difficulties of DI like time constraints, professional development, the
perspectives of institutions in standardization, giving flexibility to teachers constitute
a significant issue in front of teachers, and make DI even harder.

5. Conclusions

The present research study intended to find out whether DI resulted in a

significant difference in L2 achievement of Turkish high school students, and explore
the students’ perceptions about DI and the teacher’s perception about planning and
implementing DI. Quantitative findings displayed that DI makes a difference in L2
achievement among Turkish high school learners as measured by an achievement
test. Qualitative data analysis displayed that investigating student perceptions
generate valuable data for teachers who plan to execute DI in their classroom.
Similarly, findings from teacher journals generated important ideas and issues in the
field of DI.
The study has several recommendations for future research in the field of DI. The
recommendations are presented firstly through the lens of English language teaching
practitioner and then researcher. First and foremost, it should be noted that DI is not
a teaching method nor a range of strategies but an approach to teaching and a way of
thinking. To elaborate, DI does not have strict boundaries that limit teachers to carry
out specific strategies in specific ways. Conversely, it offers a mindset that expects to
become aware of learner varieties in needs, abilities, interests, learning styles, and
intelligence in class, thus entailing to prepare lessons in response to the existing
varieties. Briefly, it is a teaching approach that considers student differences, and
assumes learner-focused and tailored instruction in accordance with varied learner
characteristics.
Secondly, it is recommended for teachers, who intend to enact DI, especially in
large classes, to administer pre-assessment tools and make preliminary observation
about how their learners learn, and what their interests, strengths and weaknesses
are. It is paramount to get to know more about learners, which yield valuable data
that inform the implementation of DI. After getting the results from pre-assessment
tools, teachers could group learners in terms of their readiness, preferred learning
styles, and interests. In so doing, teachers could design lessons in alignment with
general characteristics of learners, rather than trying to cater to every single variety
in the class, which is not a part of DI. In brief, one should note that DI is not
individualized instruction.
Thirdly, DI encompasses a broad spectrum of strategies, areas, and theoretical
assumptions, which might deter language teachers from trying it in their classes.
332 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

However, teachers should not be daunted by the scope of DI but commence DI with
small steps. In other words, they might initiate it by differentiating presentation (not
executed in this study), practice or production in the beginning. Apart from the steps
of teaching, teachers might consider differentiating specific skills such as reading
lessons, CLIL lessons in the first place so that they could see difficulties and
possibilities, and thereby conveying it to teaching in general.
Fourthly, as DI requires plenty of time for preparation, it might be advisable to
carry out DI with smaller groups for the sake of piloting, then generalizing it to more
classes, and after that perhaps to the whole school.
The last recommendation for teachers is that it is imperative to invest in
professional development in this field by reading about diverse DI strategies,
observing colleagues, or watching videos reflecting DI. Otherwise, one might confuse
DI with providing individual instruction, giving extra work to strong learners, or
focusing attention on learners with learning difficulties.
Regarding recommendations for researchers, firstly, more research is needed in this
field with a larger group of learners, which makes it more likely to generalize the
results of the study. Secondly, similar research should be conducted in which teachers
of the experimental group and control group are the same to increase reliability of the
study. Thirdly, as this study was conducted with a four-week treatment period,
further research could be conducted at a longer period, which will yield more
sustainable and generalizable data. Lastly, to increase external validity of the study
future research could apply DI with different levels and groups of learners such as
upper intermediate young adults, advanced adults, or young learners.
The Conflict of Interest Statement
In line with the statement of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), I hereby
declare that we had no conflicting interests regarding any parties of this study.

References

Affholder, L. P. (2003). Differentiated instruction in inclusive elementary classrooms

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Education Faculty, Kansas.
Alavinia, P., & Farhady, S. (2012). Using differentiated instruction to teach vocabulary in
mixed ability classes with a focus on multiple intelligences and learning styles.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(4), 27-82.
Aliakbari, M., & Haghighi, J. K. (2014). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in
the enhancement of Iranian learners reading comprehension in separate gender education.
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 182-189. [Link]
Anderson, L.W. (1995). Individualized instruction. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.). Encyclopedia of
teaching and teacher education, (pp. 155-161). Oxford: Pergamon.
Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary
and middle school students through differentiated instruction. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Saint Xavier University, Education Faculty, Chicago.
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 333

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3),
502-530. [Link]
Blaz, D. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A guide for foreign language teachers. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. California: Sage.
Chien, C. W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in an elementary school EFL
classroom. TESOL Journal, 3(2), 280-291.
Chung, S. F. (2005). Putting students’ differences in perspectives: An introduction to the
individual developing model. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), 133-151.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Danzi, J., Reul, K., & Smith, R. (2008). Improving student motivation in mixed ability
classrooms using differentiated instruction. Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University and
Pearson Achievement Solutions.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they...Can they... be
matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-244.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd Ed.) London:
Fontana Press.
Gardner, H. (2008). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach
all learners. Golden Valley, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational choices and work
environments (3rd Ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Karadağ, R., & Yaşar, Ş. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students’ attitudes
towards Turkish courses: An action research. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,
1394-1399. [Link]
Kasteloot, B. A. (2011). Effects of differentiated mathematics instruction in a fourth grade
classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southwest Minnesota State University,
Education Department, Minnesota.
Koeze, P. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction: The effect on student achievement in an
elementary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eastern Michigan University,
Department of Leadership and Counseling, Michigan.
Lewis, L. C., Rivera, A., & Roby, D. (2012). Identifying and serving culturally and
linguistically diverse gifted students. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Liao, H. C. (2015). EFL learner perceptions of differentiated speaking assessment tasks.
English Teaching and Learning, 39(1), 29-68.
Lunsford, K. (2017). Challenges to implementing differentiated instruction in middle school
classrooms with mixed skill levels (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University,
Education Faculty, Minnesota.
McCarthy, J. (2015). 3 ways to plan for diverse learners: What teachers do. Retrieved
January 25, 2020 from: [Link]
plan-john-mccarthy
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd Ed.). California: Sage Publications.
334 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335

Njagi, M. W. (2014). Teachers’ perspective towards differentiated instruction approach in

teaching and learning mathematics in Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 4(13), 236-241.
Oliver, F. E. (2016). Teachers’ perspective on differentiated instruction in the foreign language
classroom (Unpublished master thesis). University of Iceland, Faculty of Teacher
Education, Reykjavik.
Paone, N. A. (2017). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction: A case
study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University, Education Department,
Arizona.
Paredes, J. P. (2017). The effect of differentiated instruction strategies in the learning of
vocabulary, grammar and reading among EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language
Teaching Methods, 7(3), 191-200.
Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for
gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65.
[Link]
Ramos, L. A., & Lasaten, R. C. S. (2018). Effect of differentiated instruction on students’ level
of engagement and performance in English. The Asian EFL Journal’s International
Conference on Research and Publication, Philippines, August 25, 2018.
Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Laramie: University of
Wyoming, Department of English.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Robinson, L., Maldonado, N., & Whaley, J. (2014). Perceptions about implementation of
differentiated instruction. Annual Mid-south Educational Research Conference, Tennessee,
November, 7, 2014.
Siam, K., & Al-Natour, M. (2016). Teacher’s differentiated instruction practices and
implementation challenges for learning disabilities in Jordan. International Education
Studies, 9(12), 167-181. [Link]
Siddiqui, O., & Alghamdi, F. (2017). Implementing differentiated instruction in EFL remedial
classes. An action research. Education and Linguistics Research, 2(3), 89-100.
[Link]
Stewart, O. S. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of differentiated instruction in elementary reading
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Education Faculty, Minnesota.
Suprayogi, M. N., & Valcke, M. (2016). Differentiated instruction in primary schools:
Implementation and challenges in Indonesia. PONTE, 72(6), 2-18
[Link]
Theisen, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction in the foreign language classroom: Meeting the
diverse needs of all learners. Lote Ced The Communiqué, Retrieved January 16, 2020 from:
[Link]
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 (2nd Ed.).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Differentiating instruction; Why bother? Middle Ground, 9(1), 12-15.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd
Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., Conover,
L., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness,
interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature.
 Yavuz / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2) (2020) 313–335 335

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145.

[Link]
Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for
differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52-55.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding
by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the Journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) ([Link]
Copyright of Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics is the property of Eurasian Journal of
Applied Linguistics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.