Evaluating a Newly Developed Differentiation Approach in Terms of Student Achievement and Teachers’ Opinions

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate a differentiation approach that was recently developed to teach mathematics to gifted middle school students in terms of its practice by teachers by studying the effect of the approach on achievement among both gifted and non-gifted students. From mixed research methods, the study used an explanatory design. It was conducted with 68 gifted and 144 non-gifted students who were in the 5th, 6th and 7th grades and 5 mathematics teachers. A mathematics achievement test, the Multiple Intelligences Inventory, and a teachers' opinion form were used as the data collection instruments. When the lessons that were designed according to the recently developed differentiation approach were compared with the lessons that were conducted according to the Ministry of National Education curriculum, those lessons designed according to the Purdue model, and those that were conducted within the scope of differentiation that was outlined in the Program for Noticing Individual Skills, the participating students' achievements increased significantly with the use of the recently developed differentiation approach. In addition, the teachers expressed that the activities that were conducted based on the differentiation approach were creative, beneficial, and tailored to the students' levels, and they addressed different intelligences types. The teachers reported that the students were more active; the lessons were more effective; the students improved their academic and social skills; and they had opportunities to understand their students better; understand the importance of project studies; and experience the project management process.

Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence

“…Papers reporting on the same project and outcomes were taken together as one study. The papers by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a,b) report on the same project. The same applies to two other papers as well (Vogt and Rogalla, 2009; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 2011).…”

“…In Table 2, the characteristics and individual effects of the studies included in our review are summarized. The selection of studies includes eight quasi-experimental studies in which classes were randomly allocated to a control or experimental condition (Mastropieri et al, 2006; Richards and Omdal, 2007; Huber et al, 2009; Vogt and Rogalla, 2009; Little et al, 2014; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a,b; Bal, 2016; Bhagat et al, 2016), three studies in which schools were randomly allocated to conditions (Wambugu and Changeiywo, 2008; Mitee and Obaitan, 2015; Bikić et al, 2016), and one survey-study (Smit and Humpert, 2012). These studies covered a wide range of academic subjects, including science, mathematics and reading.…”

“…A number of selected studies use a macro-adaptive approach to differentiated instruction (Richards and Omdal, 2007; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a,b; Bal, 2016; Bikić et al, 2016). Of these studies, the study of Richards and Omdal (2007) has the most robust design.…”

“…In that sense, it is difficult to judge what caused these positive findings. In another study on mathematics by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a,b), teachers assessed students' preferred learning modalities by taking a multiple intelligences inventory. The data obtained from the inventory were used to determine the students' project topics, to select the teachers' teaching strategies, and to determine the relevant factors for motivating students.…”

“…In contrast, the relatively small studies reported on large effects, and the other studies mostly show moderate effects of the approach. A cumulative analysis (see Appendix D) illustrates that the small study by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a,b) considerably shifts the point estimate of the effect size in the positive direction. Excluding this outlier, the summary effect of differentiated instruction is d = +0.509 (95% CI = 0.215–0.803; see Appendix D).…”