2. What might you do to improve students’ learning?
Consequences
1. How would you know if your actions were successful? (Describe how you would assess or evaluate your teaching beyond the students’ test scores.) 2. What are the possible consequences of conducting differentiated instruc tion in Huang’s classroom?
3. What might others (parents, students, government officials) accept as evi dence of success?
Table 2
Questions for Participants
the case, the second participant was given the case and three analyses: the principal’s, researcher’s, and the first participant’s. Following this sequence, the last participant was given the case and nine analyses: the principal’s, researcher’s, and previous seven participants’. For each participant to have as many ideas of differentiated instruction as possible, he or she was asked to read all of the preceding case analyses before they started to analyze the case.
The compact disc delivered to each participant contained the case in Powerpoint format, the five-step case analysis tutorial, and the reflections of the researcher and the principal of the target school, which were included as models of case analyses. After they finished reading the case, the participants needed to write down their analyses and answer questions related to the case. All questions were open-ended. The participants were given three hours to complete their analyses, which they later submitted to the researcher by e-mail, with MS Word document attachments.
The study was guided by two research questions, and the methods used to answer them are described below.
Q1: How do the beliefs of Taiwanese high school EFL teachers about differentiated instruction compare with Tomlinson’s six principles of differentiated instruction (2003)?
Tomlinson et al. (2003) proposed six characteristics of effective differentiation. Using replication logic (Yin, 2003b), the six theoretical propositions about effective differentiated instruction (Tomlinson et al., 2003) served as “criteria” for conducting the case analyses.
1. Proactive, rather than reactive, curriculum and instruction 2. Flexible use of small teaching-learning groups in the classroom
3. Variable materials used by individuals and small groups of students in the classroom
4. Variable pacing as a means of addressing learner needs
5. Knowledge centeredness
6. Learner centeredness (p. 131-133).
Because the theme of the case describes a classroom dilemma about differentiated instruction, the theoretical propositions used to filter data were borrowed from the review of the literature of differentiation in the Journal for the Education of the Gifted (Tomlinson et al., 2003). Tomlinson et al. held that adaptations to curriculum and instruction should be evident enough to identify and address a wide range of students’ readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles.
For this reason, Tomlinson et al., proposed the six characteristics of effective differentiation.
The six theoretical propositions not only play a role in guiding data analysis, but also serve as a measurement for the upcoming pattern-matching. To answer the first question, the researcher conducted content analysis for each participant’s responses related to the differentiated instruction. The researcher looked for saliency and fluency in each of the eight content analyses. When searching for saliency, the recurrent constructs that appear in all participants’ analyses are recorded. Fluency represents the number of times each construct is mentioned in participants’ responses. Searching for and recording saliency and fluency enabled the researcher to summarize Taiwanese teachers’ beliefs about differentiated instructions. The results of the eight participants were compared with the six theoretical propositions about effective differentiated instruction, as identified in the literature.
Q2: How are the beliefs of Taiwanese high school EFL teachers about differentiated instruction influenced by their colleagues and experts in a case-based exercise?
The questionnaires invited teachers to comment on the design, theme, trustworthiness, and associated supplementary materials of the case. Content analysis was used to evaluate the teachers’ responses to the questionnaires: Each
of their responses was examined; then the themes they reflected in the response were coded. The findings of the analysis are summarized in sections 4.7 and 4.8.
After completing the analysis of the eight teachers’ questionnaire responses, the researcher conducted two comparisons to find out how teachers’ beliefs about differentiated instruction were influenced by the critical perspectives and other teachers’ analyses that they read. The first involved comparing the analysis of teacher #1 with that of teacher #8. Since teacher #8 would read the preceding seven case analyses, plus two critical perspectives, the expectation was that the analysis of teacher #8 would provide rich and in-depth data. The way the participants worked together is shown in Figure 1:
The second compared the case analyses of teachers #1 and #2 with those of teachers #5 to #8. With successive replication (Yin, 2003), the analyses of teachers #5 to #8 were more comprehensive and deeper than those of the first four teachers. When conducting the comparisons, special attention was given to whether the four teachers (#5, #6, #7, and #8) would provide richer answers or different perspectives from those of teachers #1 to #4. The researcher assumed that, since teachers #5 to #8 had read the analyses of the experts and teachers #1 to #4, they would either scaffold their thoughts on said analyses or think from another perspective.
Participant 4
Figure 1. How the participants worked together
4. RESULTS
This section presents the results of comparing Taiwanese ESL teachers’
beliefs about differentiated instruction and the six principles of effective differentiation from the literature, and how these participants’ beliefs about differentiated instruction are influenced by reading the analyses of other teachers in the case exercise. This section begins with a description of the findings of the first research question, followed by that of the second question’s findings.
Q1: How do the beliefs of Taiwanese high school EFL teachers about differentiated instruction compare with Tomlinson’s six principles of differentiated instruction (2003)?
This question was answered through each principle of effective differentiation, followed by a brief description of the principle.