SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

The effects of differentiated instruction on Turkish students’ L2 achievement, and student and teacher perceptions

Ahmet Cihat YAVUZ
Pages
313–335
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Data collected by means of L2 achievement tests revealed that DI group outperformed the control group in overall L2 achievement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Endeavors have been invested to account for inefficient instruction, which is frequently attributed to disregarding learner idiosyncrasies.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Data collected by means of L2 achievement tests revealed that DI group outperformed the control group in overall L2 achievement.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Differentiated instruction · differentiated L2 Instruction · traditional L2 instruction

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAVUZ, A. C. (2020). The effects of differentiated instruction on Turkish students’ L2 achievement, and student and teacher perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 313–335. https://ajindex.com/articles/284820

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. 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.
  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.405
  3. 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. 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. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-815
  4. 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.
  5. Chung, S. F. (2005). Putting students’ differences in perspectives: An introduction to the individual developing model. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), 133-151.
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  7. 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.
  8. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory