THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS’ ORAL PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT.

(1)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

FOR STUDENTS’ ORAL PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Education

By: ASTRI REJEKI, S.Pd

1101627

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

(2)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

Oleh

Astri Rejeki

S.Pd. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), 2009

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Januari 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

(4)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

The Implementation Of Differentiated Instruction For Student Oral Proficiency Development

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

ABSTRACT

(5)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Lesson Plans

APPENDIX B Samples of Learning Materials APPENDIX C Samples of Students’ Assignments APPENDIX D Computation Result of t-test

APPENDIX E Field Notes/ Observation Sheets, Transcript of Interview & Rubric of Assessment

(7)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Comparing Classroom ... 18

Table 2.2 Tiered Assignments ... 31

Table 2.3 Compacting ... 31

Table 2.4 Flexible Grouping ... 32

Table 2.5 Varying Question ... 32

Table 3.1 Aspects that were assessed ... 48

Table 3.2 Students Oral Language Observation Matrix ... 50

Table 3.3 Schedule of the Research ... 52

Table 4.1 Students Oral Language Observation Matrix ... 60

Table 4.2 Cycle 1 Scores ... 70

Table 4.5 Post-test scores ... 78

Table 4.6 Students’ Gained Scores ... 79

(8)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Learning Cycle and Decision Factors ... 21

Figure 3.1 Single-Group Interrupted Time- series Design... 42

Figure 3.2 Action Research Cycle ... 43

Figure 3.3 Gained Score Formula ... 50

Figure 3.4 Dependent t-test Formula ... 51

Figure 4.1 Target Language of Cycle 1 ... 69

Figure 4.2 Practice Language of Cycle 1 ... 70

Figure 4.6 Practice Language of Cycle 3 ... 76

Figure 4.7 First Gained Scores ... 80

Figure 4.8 Main Gained Scores (Pre-test & Post test) ... 81

Figure 4.9 Charts of Main First & Second Gained Scores ... 81

Figure 4.10 Chart of Mean Scores ... 82

Figure 4.11 Students’ Difference Scores ... 83

(9)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents introductory explanation of the research. Mainly it discusses background of the research that shows the problem found in the classroom when a teacher could not maximize each of the student’ learning because of various students’ learning needs and characteristics. Moreover, the phenomenon leads to the demand of teacher to provide high quality learning accommodation both for struggling learners and advance learners in the classroom to be the successful learners based on their learning profile, interest, and readiness. Furthermore, this chapter covers the explanation of background and rationale of the research, statements of the problems, reason for choosing the topic, the scope of the research, research questions, the aims of the research, significance of the research, site and participants, methodology of the research, research design, data collection techniques of the research, data analysis, the definition of terms, and organization of the thesis.

1.1 Background and Rationale of the Research

(10)

2 different difficulties. More specifically, they were some struggling and advance learners who had different level and difficulties of oral proficiency. Actually, there has been much research findings discussed method and approach utilized to improve students’ oral proficiency, but rarely found the research talked about what root problems are. The root problem lies in assumption that the approach and method had been implemented might not successfully accommodate each of the students’ learning characteristics and needs, so that the students might not have effective learning yet.

In a classroom there are various students with different prior knowledge, interest, learning preferences, passions, learning styles, readiness, and potentials (Kyriacou, 2007). Each of the aspects brings different influence to the students’ learning (Tomlinson, 2005). How the students learn would be affected by the how the differences accommodated by the teachers. It is believed that each student has his or her own experience in learning. It can be argued that classroom is not a simply a group of students who are taught together. There are many aspects should be considered there. Classroom is a complex world, which contains various students with different prior knowledge, experience, habits, etc. (Tomlinson, 1995).

(11)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

3 environment that greater the possibility of students to learn effectively through interacting not only with teachers but also with their peers.

Different prior knowledge means different learning starting point, different interest means different learning topic, different preferences and passions mean different object to study, different learning styles means different thing to do, different readiness level means different learning material types and complexity (Tomlinson, 1995) This way, the differences might affect the students’ learning quality in the classroom.

It can be argued that to have maximum learning teachers need to consider the uniqueness of each student. Each of the student’ prior knowledge (readiness), preferences (interest), and learning profile become key factors that might determine the quality of students’ learning (Tomlinson, 2001; Harmer, 2001) However, it is assumed that in typical classroom in Indonesia, these differences were not recognized well yet (Bachrudin Musthafa, Personal communication, 2th of August 2013). It is explained by Musthafa (Bachrudin Musthafa, Personal communication, 4th of July 2013), that both of struggling learners and advance learners got similar instruction in their classroom.

(12)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

4 Finally, it is believed that varying the instruction based on students’ needs and characteristics might support development each of the students more maximally. According to Richard and Rodger, (2001) these differences also enable the students to become more well-rounded individuals and more successful learners in generals, since each of them know more their own characteristics and needs. Moreover, as stated by Chritison (1997:9 cited in Richard and Rodger 2001: 120) that the more awareness students have of their own intelligences and how they work, the more they will know how to use that intelligences to access the necessary information and knowledge from a lesson. Teaching is not merely about transferring as much as possible knowledge and skills, but it is about maximizing students’ potential and learning achievement as best as the students can achieve (Rejeki, 2009). Teaching is a great responsibility because teaching means inspiring and educating the students. In the classroom, teachers have great roles and responsibilities. The teachers have roles and responsibilities as the facilitator, controller, prompter, and learning resource for the students (Harmer, 2001). Teaching is a complex process that requires careful organization for its success (Woodward, 2001; Nunan, 2002). There are many aspects should be taken into account. It starts from planning the lesson plan well, organizing the learning activities effectively, and assessing students’ learning achievement comprehensively (Woodward, 2001; Nunan, 2002).

It is commonly believed that effective teaching deals with the approach, method and technique applied by teachers in the classroom (Kyricou, 2007). The more effective the methods and techniques are, the more opportunity the students have for effective learning (Woodward, 2001). In effective learning, each student may get the same opportunity to be the successful learners (Border and Chism, 1992).

(13)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

5 personally. In the other words, teachers need to have a good pedagogic competence, academic competence, social competence, and personal competence. These competencies should be kept-updated, developed, and improved. The updated competencies and professionalism would not influence the students’ learning if the teachers might not maximally accommodate and develop each of the students’ potential. More specifically, in the pedagogical competence, a teacher is really required to be able to know well the students’ characteristics and needs.

All the unique learning characteristics and needs of each student should have been developed and fulfilled well by their teachers. However, in fact in reality, mostly in the classroom all the unique students’ learning characteristics and needs are not developed and fulfilled maximally yet, since often times in the classroom the teachers might only provide a few activities in the classroom (Hartiyana, 2008). Some teachers see their students similarly. As stated by Koez (Koeze, 2007), that some teachers see the classroom as whole entities and do not account for the variances in the level of readiness with which students enter the room may either over challenge or under –challenge the learners. The uniqueness, the diversity of the students’ learning might be neglected by the teachers. This way, the opportunity of students to reach maximum learning achievement might be not easy to reach (Rejeki, 2009). Teaching and learning seemed to be daily ritual when students only have to do what is instructed by the teachers without knowing why they should do that (Masitoh, 2008).

(14)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

6 be the successful learners. From the definitions, it is obviously seen that there are three main variables of effective teaching i.e. the teachers, the students, and the learning activity itself. It means that the students’ learning characteristics and needs should be known well by the teachers, and then the teachers should develop various instructions to fulfill the needs. Then, when the teachers provide instructions that meet students’ learning characteristics and needs means that the effective learning is more easily achieved (Rejeki, 2009).

In the meantime, in relation to how teachers should facilitate and scaffold the students learning, Tomlinson (2005) stated, that teachers should facilitate each of the students so that personally the students would have similar opportunity to be successful learners. Each student has similar opportunity to reach best level of his or her own learning. The way of how teachers should vary their instruction based on the students’ characteristics and needs is called Differentiated Instruction. The term ‘Differentiated Instruction’ according to Tomlinson (2005) refers to a systematic approach to planning curriculum and instruction for academically diverse learners. In line with that, Tomlinson and McTighe (2006, cited in Powell and Powell, 2010, p: 202), that the primary goal is ensuring that teachers focus on process and procedures that ensure effective learning for varied individuals. It means that teachers need to plan various approach that students need to learn, how they will learn it, and or how they can show what they have learned as maximum as possible.

(15)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

7 as quick as possible without assuming one students’ road map for learning is identical to anyone else’s.(Tomlinson, 1995).

According to Tomlinson (1999, p: 2), in differentiated classrooms, teachers begin from where students are, not from the front of curriculum guide. The teachers accept and build upon the principle that teachers must be ready to engage students in instruction through different learning modalities. It seems that Differentiated Instruction is not widely used yet by all classroom settings in Indonesia. It can be observed that most of students in Indonesia get similar learning activity in their classroom. Both of struggling learners and advance learners get similar instruction in their classroom (Bachrudin Musthafa, personal Communication, 4th of July 2013). In essence, the definition of Differentiated Instruction is a method of teaching that is really based on students’ needs and characteristics. In the implementation of Differentiated Instruction in the classroom leads the teachers to differentiate their teaching content, products, and process. Consequently, the instruction in the classroom would be greatly various (Tomlinson, 1995). Main aspects that will always hold by the teachers in implementing the Differentiated Instruction are: what should be differentiated, how to differentiate, and why should be differentiated.

Differentiated Instruction is indicated by the modification of three concepts of a lesson plan: content, process, and product. Content refers to what the students need to learn and how they might access the information they need. According to Powell and Powell (2010), content is principle and concept focused. In the meantime, Process refers to what activities the students are involved in to make sense of the content or to master the content presented (Powell and Powell, 2010). Then, the final concept- Product refers to the learning outcomes (ibid).

(16)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

8 Instruction have an impact on students’ oral proficiency. More specifically, it would determine if Differentiated Instruction can maximize students’ oral proficiency more effectively. This research also would discover how important and beneficial it is to facilitate students with Differentiated Instruction. More specifically this research also would seek how the students respond to the Differentiated Instruction. Besides, this research also would find information if there are any problems or shortcomings found in the implementation of the differentiated instruction.

1.2 Statement of the Problems

(17)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

9

1.3 Reason for Choosing the Topic

Students of class X of a Junior high school had low level of oral proficiency. Each of the students had their own difficulty of oral proficiency. Some students had problem to pronounce the words correctly, some other had problem to speak fluently and had limited vocabulary. Each of the students had their own learning needs of oral proficiency. The students are not alike. They are different. They have their own prior knowledge, hobbies, interest, learning style, etc. This research would choose the Differentiated Instruction as the method to be used as a way to improve students’ oral proficiency, which has been adapted, so that the application would suit the context of English as Foreign Language in Indonesian classroom settings.

1.4 The Scope of the Research

The research would cover how teacher implemented the differentiated instruction, how the differentiated instruction may improve the students’ learning. This research would focus on implementing some learning strategies of Differentiated Instruction and investigating its affect to the students’ oral proficiency i.e. in the aspect of comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.

1.5 Research questions

There are two research questions to be discovered in this research i.e.:

1. What happens when students learn English with differentiated instruction?

(18)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

10

1.6 The Aims of the Research

The research was aimed at finding some information. First, finding the information of what would happen when students of a Junior High School learn English with a Differentiated Instruction. Second, this research is aimed at finding the information whether Differentiated Instruction might maximize students’ learning achievement.

1.7 Significance of the Research

There are several reasons make this research significant. First, practically, In essence, for students, this research is expected to be beneficial to improve their oral proficiency. Second, theoretically, there has not been much research about the implementation of Differentiated Instruction in Indonesia, therefore, hopefully, this research might contribute to the development of English teaching and learning, which based on students’ differences: learning style, prior knowledge, interest, and readiness level, so that the learning suit the students’ learning characteristics and needs. Third, professionally, this research is expected to lead teachers to challenge all students by providing materials and tasks on the standard at varying degrees of scaffolding through multiple instructional activities.

1.8 Site and Participants

The site for the study was junior high school students. The participants were the second graders of a junior high school in Sumedang. The classroom consists of 24 students. There were 12 boys and 12 girls. They were 13-14 years old students. They have different learning characteristics and needs: learning styles, readiness, and interest.

1.9 The Definition of Terms

(19)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

11 would communicate his or her research findings accurately and precisely. Therefore, in consideration of the need for precision and similar understanding of seeing what this research is all about, below are explained some key term definitions:

1. The term ‘Differentiated instruction’ refers to the way of the teachers to differentiate the content, process, product, affect of their instruction (Tomlinson, 2005)

2. Content: What teacher wants to each students to know by the end of unit (Tomlinson, 2005; Koeze, 2007)

3. Process: The way in which the teacher designs activities to ensure the students learn the content and the way students come to understand the knowledge, understanding, and skills essential to a topic (Tomlinson, 2005; Koeze, 2007)

4. Product: What the students create to demonstrate their understanding of the content. (Tomlinson, 2005; Koeze, 2007)

5. Readiness Level: Students’ entry point relative to particular understanding or skill (Tomlinson, 1999; Koeze, 2007).

6. Interest: Interest is what a student enjoys learning about, thinking about, and doing.(Tomlinson, 2005)

7. Learning styles: Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetics. (Tomlinson, 2005;2011) 8. Tiered Assignment: Varied levels of activities to ensure that students explore

ideas at level that builds on their prior knowledge and prompts continued growth. (Tomlinson, 1995)

(20)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

12 10. Flexible Grouping: The ways of both teacher and students select work group

(heterogeneous/homogenous), which is based on their readiness or interest. (Tomlinson, 1995)

11. Varying questions: How teacher varies the sorts of question based on the students’ readiness, interest, and learning styles. (Tomlinson, 1995)

12. Effective Instruction: Instruction that motivates students to learn, affirms the presence of validity of diverse learning style and maximizes the climate or conditions for learning in the classroom. (Nancy and Border,1991, cited in Rejeki, 2009)

13. Oral Proficiency: The speaking and listening skills. (McKay, 2006) 14. Students: The eighth graders of a Junior High School in Sumedang.

15. Rubric of assessment: Comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar.

1.10 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. The chapters were presented as follows: 1. Chapter 1: Introduction

(21)

13 research questions, aims of the research, significance of the research, site and respondent of the research, the purpose of the research, significance of the research, and clarification of the terms used in the research.

1 Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

This chapter discusses theories related to the problems studied that present the literature review of the topic. More specifically, it encompasses the definition of the Differentiated Instruction, learning philosophy that bases the implementation of the Differentiated Instruction, the elements of the differentiation, learning environments that supports the differentiation, the characteristics of the students, learning styles in Differentiated Instruction, some strategies of Differentiated Instruction, theories about language learning skills and its relation to the Differentiated Instruction, and some findings of related researches.

2 Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter elaborates methodology of the research that covers research design, site and respondent of the research, data collection techniques, procedure of the conducting the research, questions, and stages of the research, detailed procedure of the research, and data analysis method.

3 Chapter 4: Research Findings and Discussions

This chapter presents the research finding which is followed by discussion of those findings.

4 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation

(22)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter particularly discusses the methodology used in the research which included the explanation of the research design, procedure of the classroom action research, site and participants, techniques of collecting the data, and techniques of analyzing the data.

3.1Research Design

This research is a classroom action research with a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative data analysis as its framework. The qualitative method deals with detail explanation of the implementation of the differentiated Instruction by starting from the planning stage, the implementation stage, and the observation, until the reflecting stage. Heigham and Croker (2009) stated that the qualitative method is intended to capture the phenomenon of teaching and learning in the classroom comprehensively particularly how the students’ oral proficiency might be improved through implementing the Differentiated Instruction program.

In the planning stage, this research investigated the preparation of the instructional planning and design done by the teachers (Heigham and Croker, 2009). The planning stage is closely related to analyze and plan the teachers’ instructional design. The documents of curriculum start from the Annual School Program, the Semester Program, the Monthly Program, until the lesson plans of each day were planned. More specifically, the curriculum of KTSP was observed and analyzed with the learning need analysis conducted by the teacher. This observation provides significant information of how the teaching plan is enacted. Then, in the stage of implementation, what have been planned in the planning stage was implemented.

(23)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

42 addition, in the stage of observation, this research analyzed what teaching and learning factor might be failing and what factors would be successful. Then, in the stage of Reflection, it was analyzed what should be improved in the next cycle so the teaching and students’ learning process was even more effective. All of the stages were done in a set of cycles until the best practice was found and optimal students’ learning achievement was achieved.

The main aspects that become the focus of analysis were: learning content, learning process, learning product, and learning environment (Tomlinson, 1995; Powell and Powell, 2004; Richards and Rodgers, 2001). It was seen how teachers tried to develop the students’ language skills through implementing the Differentiated Instruction. This research discovered whether the Differentiated Instruction might improve the students’ language skills or not. More specifically, it described how vary the students’ learning profiles affects how the teachers differentiate the learning content, learning process, and learning product in the classroom.

In the meantime, for its quantitative data, this research implemented quasi- experimental design (single-group Interrupted time-series Design). The time series quasi experimental design leads the research to record pre-test and post-test during the teaching and learning cycles. As stated by Cresswell (2003) that single-group interrupted time- series design measures a single group both before and after the treatment. The focus was to record the pre test, post test, and progression during the teaching and learning process. The design of this study can be seen in the following schema:

Single-Group Interrupted Time-series Design

O - O - O - X O - O - o

Pre-test Pre-test Pre-test Treatments Post test Post test Post test

(24)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

43 This study was a classroom action research, which its procedure was done through

implementing chronological 4 main stages: planning,

experimenting/implementing/actuating, observing and reflecting.

The stages are well known as cycle of implementing action research (Kemmis and Taghart, 1986, cited in Croker and Heighem 2009, p: 115). The stage is shown in the following table:

Figure 3.2 Action Research Cycle ( McTaggart et.al, 1982, cited in Howden, 1998).

3.2Site and Participants of the Research

(25)

44 vocabulary, they were able to predict several words and got the information by seeing and relating all the words with its context. They were also able to speak up in English confidently and good enough. For further explanation of who the students are, please see appendix E.

3.3Teaching and Learning Cycles 3.3.1 Planning

In the stage of planning, there were several aspects that were analyzed i.e. the aspects of how the teacher designed curriculum, how the teacher clearly articulated what he or she wants students to know, understand, and able to do, how the teacher varied curriculum and instruction from simple to complex, and from concrete to abstract, how the teacher used a variety of materials other than standard text, how the teacher provided varying level of resources and materials and learning tasks, how the teacher adapted content. (Nafisah, 2012; Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson, 1995; Powell and Powell, 2004)

3.3.2 Experimenting/implementing

Experimenting stage was the stage of implementation of what have been planned The aspects that were analyzed at this stage were how the teacher used tiered lesson/activities of varying levels of challenge and curriculum compacting, how the teacher varied the pace of learning for varying learning needs (Nafisah, 2012; Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson, 1995; Powell and Powell, 2004)

3.3.3 Observing

(26)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

45 observation, the observer analyzed the aspect of how the students explored the learning material and assignments, which had been varied and differentiated its challenge by the teacher. More specifically, the aspects were how the teacher varied learning tasks based on students’ learning profile, how the teacher allowed the students to engage in independent study, how the teacher used interest centers/groups, how teacher used learning centers/groups, how the students chose the learning material, how the interaction happened in the classroom, how they worked well both of individually or in a group discussion (Nafisah, 2012; Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson, 1995; Powell and Powell, 2004)

3.3.4 Reflecting

In the stage of reflecting stage both of teacher and observers discussed what had been done by the students and teacher in the classroom: how the students achieve the learning goals, how the teacher gives product assignment that balance structure and choice, how teacher allows for a wide range of product alternatives, and how teacher provides opportunities for students product to be based upon the solving of real and relevant problems (Nafisah, 2012; Tomlinson, 2001, Tomlinson, 1995; Powell and Powell, 2004)

3.4. Data Collection techniques

The data were collected through several ways: observing the classroom, examining archival documents, interviewing the observers and the students, and computing the students’ learning achievements.

3.4.1 Classroom Observation

(27)

46 stated that observation might reveal delicate and micro aspects that are difficult to discover by any other research procedure, since the observation might be more open, inductive, and holistic. It means that observation is the best method to do to get the real picture of what happens in the classroom. In the other words, the better understanding of what happens in the classroom might be achieved through doing observation. The advantage of observation also revealed by Wray et.al (1998, p: 187), that is observation seems easier and more flexible to do than any other research method but the data collected are comprehensive, massive, and holistic.

During the learning activity, the field note was taken. Some aspects were analyzed. The aspects listed in detail in appendix E. Since the researcher was also the participant of the research (participant-researcher), therefore, the observation was done while also implementing the method. To avoid data misinterpretation, it was invited some observers. The observers were qualified English teachers, since they have longer period of teaching experience, and they have already been accredited as professional English teachers.

3.4.2 Document Analysis

(28)

47 by Barelson (1952, cited in Marshall and Rossman, 2006, p: 108), that is historically the content analysis is viewed as a natural way to get quantitative description of the content of various communication. This research would like to capture how the students; its learning quality includes its interaction, learning product and process might be improved through implementing the Differentiated Instruction. Thus, through implementing documentation, how the students learn and how the teachers teach would also be discovered through the documents. In the other words, the documents were also the data that can be analyzed.

3.4.3 Interview

(29)

48

3.4.4 Computing students’ Learning achievement

To see the students’ learning improvement, beside utilized observation, this research administered several tests. The students’ learning achievements were scored. The reliability and validity of the scoring has been reached by involving two more teachers to observe and give points and score to the students’ learning achievement. Even though, the two teachers did not give scores to all the students in each learning cycles because of their limited availability, but the teachers and the observers had similar views in assessing how the students learned. In essence, the students had been assessed and scored as they were.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data from observation, documents, and interviews were analyzed into several steps. The field-note, observation sheets, documentation, interview transcript were listed and decoded them into several categories. More specifically, since this research was conducted to find the information of what will happen when students learn with the Differentiated Instruction, therefore, the aspects that were assessed were about how the teacher differentiates the instruction and how the students responded to the implementation of the Differentiated Instruction.

Specifically for qualitative data such as teaching material, lesson plans, and classroom observation field note, the data were analyzed into four steps. The steps were defining the categories that would be investigated, identifying the categories, interpreting the categories, and presenting the data descriptively. In the meantime, the data from interviews were analyzed by conducting several steps. They were transcribing the participants’ answers into the data sheets, categorizing the answers into some the criteria, synchronizing the answers with the document analysis, interpreting the categories into general conclusion. The data of the interview were retyped and identified, and then they were categorized and interpreted based on the related theories. The instruments of quantitative data analysis are listed in the following table:

(30)

49

o Aspects Categories

1 Teachers’ point of view about planning a lesson

Teachers’ understanding about Differentiated Instruction Teachers’ techniques in planning a lesson plan Teachers’ sources in planning a lesson 2 Instructional

goals

Teachers ‘understanding about students’ learning needs

3 Objectives The concept of objectives in Differentiated Instruction

The techniques employed to formulate objectives from instructional goals for of Differentiated Instruction

Language focus in the objectives Learning domains in the objectives

4 Activities The implementation of Differentiated instruction in terms of product, process and learning content

How the students respond to the differentiated Instruction, that is seen from the aspects of learning stages that they experience: Noticing, taking risks, and succeeding

How teachers and students collaborate 5 Instructional

Media

The concept of choosing instructional media for students’ learning The techniques of using instructional media

[image:30.595.112.513.110.615.2]

6 Assessment The concept of assessing students’ achievement

Table 3.1 Teaching and Learning aspects that were assessed. Adapted from Rejeki. (Rejeki, 2009).

Then, Further research question focused on whether can the Differentiated Instruction improve the students’ language skills or not. Therefore, various analytical techniques were also used to analyze the data. These included quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics as well as qualitative approaches that identify the key categories, theme, and concept of the implementation of Differentiated Instruction. The quantitative data analysis was done through calculating: gained score (scoring rubric), and dependent t-test.

Firstly, Gained score was calculated to see the students’ learning result. The level of oral proficiency was listed in the following table:

N o

Aspects Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

1 Comprehension Student cannot understand even simple conversation.

Student has great difficulty following what is said.

Student understands most of what is said at slower-than- normal

Student understands nearly everything at normal speed,

Student understand everyday

(31)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

50

Student can comprehend only ‘social conversation spoken’.

speed with repetitions.

although occasional repetition may be necessary

difficulty

2 Fluency Speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually possible.

Speech usually hesitant: often forced into silence by language limitations.

Speech in everyday communication and classroom discussion is frequently disrupted by student’s search for the correct manner of expression.

Speech in everyday communicatio n and classroom discussion is generally fluent, with occasional lapses while the student searches for the correct manner of expression.

Speech in everyday conversation and in classroom discussion is fluent and effortless, approximating that of a native speaker

3 Vocabulary Vocabulary limitations are so extreme as to make

conversation virtually impossible.

Misuse of words and very limited vocabulary make comprehensio n quite difficult.

Frequently uses the wrong words; conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary.

Occasionally uses inappropriate terms or must rephrase ideas because of inadequate vocabulary.

Use of vocabulary and idioms approximates that of a native speaker.

4 Pronunciation Pronunciation problems so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible

Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problems. Must frequently repeat in order to be understood

Pronunciation problems necessitate concentration on the part of the listener and occasionally lead to misunderstandin g

Always intelligible, though one is conscious of a definite accent and occasional inappropriate intonation pattern.

(32)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

[image:32.595.114.511.113.270.2]

51 Table 3.2. Assessment Rubric. The Table was taken from Students Oral Language Observation Matrix

(SOLOM) developed by San Jose California United School District )Thomson, 1997, p:176, cited from

McKay, 2006,p:292).

Then for the gained score, the achievement of students’ oral proficiency improvement in each cycles was listed and then seen the differentiation. The formula of gained score was listed in the following table:

The formula of the scoring is S= Score

T = Total Points S= T/25 X100

Main Gained Score (MGS) 1= Post test – pre test

First Gained Score (FGS) = Result of learning cycle 2 – Result of learning cycle 1 Second Gained Score (SGS) = Result of learning cycle 3- Result of learning cycle 2

Figure 3.3Gained Score Formula. Adapted from Coolidge (2000).

Secondly, t-test was calculated to know if there was a significant difference Here are the steps to calculate dependent t-test:

1. State the hypothesis, the null hypothesis is no difference between students’ oral proficiency by implementing Differentiated Instruction and without implementing Differentiated Instruction, It means that:

Ho : µ1= µ2

The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference with the classroom that implementing the Differentiated Instruction and the classroom that is not implementing the Differentiated Instruction.

H1:_µ1≠ _µ2

Select the level of significance. The level of significance is σ = 0.05 5 Grammar Errors in

grammar and word order so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible

Grammar and word order errors make comprehensio n difficult. Must often rephrase or restrict what is said to basic patterns.

Makes frequent errors of grammar and word order which occasionally obscure meaning. Occasionally makes grammatical or word order errors which do not obscure meaning

[image:32.595.113.522.115.484.2]

(33)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

52 2. Compute the t, the formula is:

= mean of the difference score

[image:33.595.114.508.199.732.2]

= Standard Deviation Score of Difference Score = Sum of Difference score N = Number of sample

Figure 3.4 Dependent t-test Formula. Adapted from Coolidge (2000).

Then finally state the result (t). If it is less than value of the level significance (accept Ho or null hypothesis), or greater than value of the level significance (reject Ho or null hypothesis).

3.6 Schedule of the Research No Day and

Date

The Steps of Research Participants Research Site

1 Monday, 15th of July 2013

Preliminary research (Identifying students’ learning record both from

documentation and previous teachers comment-Part 1)

a. English Teacher of 7th graders b. Some 7thgraders’ teachers

A Junior High School

2 Tuesday, 16th of July 2013

(Identifying students’ learning record both from

documentation and previous teachers comments-Part 2)

Class 8 B A Junior High School

3 Monday, 22nd of July 2013

Preliminary research (Interviewing the Students)

(34)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

53

23rd of July 2013

(Analyzing students’ prior knowledge, interest, learning style, and learning

difficulties)

School

5 Monday, 29th of July 2013

Pre-test (Reading Skills) Pre-test ( Vocabulary Mastery)

6 Tuesday, 30th of July 2013

Pre-test (Speaking skills Part 1)

7 Monday, 19th of August 2013

Pre-test (Speaking skills Part 2)

8 Tuesday, 20th of August 2013

Pre-test Writing Skills Class 8 B A Junior High School

9 Monday, 26th of August 2013

Cycle 1 Meeting 1 Class 8 B A Junior High School

10 Tuesday, 27th of August 2013

11 Monday, 2nd of September 2013

12 Tuesday, 3rd of September 2013

13 Monday, 9th of September 2013

14 Tuesday, 10th of September 2013

16 Tuesday, 17th of September 2013

17 Monday, 23rd of

(35)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

54

September 2013 18 Tuesday,

24th of September 2013

Post-test speaking skills Class 8 B A Junior High School

Post- test speaking skills Class 8 B A Junior High School

20 Tuesday, 1st of October 2013

Post-test Speaking skills ( Part 1)

21 Monday, 7th of October 2013

Post-test Speaking Skills (Part 2)

22 Tuesday, 8th of October 2013

[image:35.595.115.509.112.611.2]

Post-interviews Class 8 B A Junior High School

(36)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The chapter five presents the conclusion of the research. It covers a concise description of the research result. In essence, this chapter explained how the research questions are answered and summarized into whole paper and some suggestions that concern on methodological point for further research and practical use for those who want to apply Differentiated Instruction. Then, this chapter explained how the research findings and discussions lead to some implication and recommendation for further and more in-depth research.

5.1 Conclusion

Every student is unique and special. Based on this knowledge, Differentiated Instruction can be applied as an approach to teaching and learning that gives students multiple options and choices for taking in information and making sense of ideas more meaningfully. Differentiated Instruction might become the students’ path to seek their own reasons of their own learning, since the method had successfully led the students to experience the language more naturally, fun, and meaningfully. Differentiated instruction is a teaching theory, which is based on the philosophy that instructional approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in classrooms (Tomlinson, 2001). The model of differentiated instruction requires teachers to be flexible in their approach to teaching. Teachers should adjust or adapt the curriculum and presentation of information to learners rather than expecting students to modify themselves for the curriculum.

(37)

87 Firstly, the students’ oral proficiency level was improving significantly from cycle to cycle. The students reflected a more comprehensive communicative competence. They used the expression of asking and giving opinion, expression of agreeing and disagreeing, expression of offering things, expression of admitting and denying facts, asking and offering things, expression of inviting someone, and acceptance in their spontaneous conversation naturally and more fluently than before with their peers in the classroom or even outside the classroom. They also had been able to use functional texts in a genre of descriptive and recount texts correctly (birthday invitation, describing best friends’ personal traits and physical characteristics, retelling unforgettable experiences). In the other words, they began to represent a comprehensive dimension of language proficiency.

Furthermore, it was found that the score of students’ learning achievements significantly increasing. From the pre-test that was conducted earlier in the beginning of the study (preliminary study), the means score of students’ learning achievement was 14,25 points. Then, from cycle to cycle the score was continuously improving i.e. 15,5 points, 16,875 points, 18,92 points, and then finally, 19,04 points.

(38)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

88 who got 2 gained score. There was 1 student who got 3 gained scores (20,83%).Then, in third cycle, it was found that the students have gained significant learning improvement. All the students got the relatively good gained scores. Almost all students got about 3, 4, 5, and 6 gained scores. There were 2 students who got 6 gained score (8, 33%), There were 7 students who got 5 gained score (29, 17 %), There were 14 students who got 4 gained score (58,30%). Then, there was only one student who got 3 gained scores (4,17%). In addition, the data under the t-test computation also showed a significant improvement. The data under the study showed that the t value was higher than t table, which means that the hypothesis was rejected. The implementation of Differentiated Instruction in students’ learning might successfully improve the students’ oral proficiency. They might have learnt more effectively though Differentiated Instruction.

Secondly, students’ interest and learning time span also were raised significantly by implementing Differentiated Instruction. Since, the Differentiated Instruction had led the students to experience the learning process meaningfully. The students did the learning activity because they wanted and needed to do that, in which it was closely related to the learning acquisition (Ellis, 1994). When the students know what role they have in their learning they have a role in determining meaning, they become more actively involved (Brozo, 1988, cited in Musthafa, 1994).

In addition, Differentiated instruction has led the teacher to provide more tasks, assignment, and learning source that support the amount of teaching and learning available, which met students’ learning characteristics and needs.

(39)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

89 any context and less on higher level thinking skills. The Differentiated Instruction has led the students to be active learners since they are challenged to experience the learning process. Through implementing the Differentiated Instruction, the students’ learning is not only about recalling of specific facts, but also grasping or understanding meaning of informational materials, making use of the knowledge, taking apart the known and identifying relationship among them, putting things together creatively, and making judgments about the value of learning content.

Fourthly, from the result of interview, it was found that students perceived their learning more fun and meaningfully. They felt the learning process is not frightening. They felt safe, relax, and are challenging as well. They got their own reasons to do the learning effectively. It also showed in the observations, the students willingly did the learning activities: they came forward to present their result willingly and bravely, they answered the questions freely and bravely, they experiment what they wanted to know in the classroom without being shy and worried.

5.2 Recommendation

Although this method created some improvement for students’ oral proficiency as it shown in conclusion, still, further researches related to this method are needed. Some suggestions for those who want to do research or want to apply the Differentiated Instruction are discussed below:

Firstly, this study has a relatively small sample size. A larger scale study might help to determine the extent to which Differentiated Instruction may improve students’ learning achievements. By simplifying the framework for differentiation, exact practices can be narrowed, so the further research might focus to see which practices work best for the students.

(40)

(41)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A.C. (2000). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Bondley, D. (2011). How will Differentiated Instruction affect Students Learning. Published thesis: Graduate School of Monit State University. Retrieved on December 4th, 2013, from: http://yourspace.minotstateu.edu.

Border, L. B. L. & Chism, N. V. (1992). Teaching for Diversity.Journal of New Direction for Teaching and Learning. San Fransisco: Spring.Jossey-Bass Publisher.

Brewster, J. Ellis,G. & Girard, D. (2003). The Primary English teacher’s Guide. England: Penguin English.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2nd edition. New York: Pearson Education.

Brown, H.D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Burns, R.B. (1995). Introduction to research Methods, Longman: Melbourne.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coolidge, F. L (2000). Statistics. California: Sage Publication Ltd.

Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd.ed). California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Diller, D. (2007). Making The Most of Small Groups: Differentiation for All. Portland: Stenhouse Publisher.

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris: Petunjuk untuk Guru. Bandung: Rizki Press.

Field, J. (2009). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press

(42)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language and Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. United States of America: Heineman.

Hall, T. (2011). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL

Implementation. National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. Last updated 11th of February 2011. Retrieved on on 27th Feb 2013, from: http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_in struction#.TK1A4395opO.

Hamm, M. & Adams, D. (2009). Activating Assessment for All Students: Innovative Activities Lesson Plans and Informative Assessment. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th.ed). Oxford: Pearson Longman.

Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. Edinburg: Pearson Education limited.

Hartiyana, P. (2008). Child-Centered Method in Teaching English to Young

Learners’: A Case Study in Western Area of Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Undergraduate Thesis.

Heigham, J. & Croker, R. A. (eds.). (2009). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. United States: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hogan, K. & Pressley, M. (eds.). (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning.

Louseville: Brooklyn Book, Inc.

Howden, B. J. (1998). Using Action Research to Enhance the Teaching of Writing. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 45-58:

Retrieved on February 2013, from:

http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qjer14/howden.html

Hughes, R. (2011). Teaching and Researching Speaking.2nd edition. Harlow: Longman.

Johnson, R. K. (ed.). (1989). The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(43)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Board. Accessed on 1st of January 2013. Retrieved on march 2013, from: http://oar.nipissingu.ca/pdfs/v833e.pdf

Koeze, P. A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction: The Effect on Student Achievement in an Elementary School. Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 31: Eastern Michigan University@EMU.

Kumarandivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Method: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching: New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Kyriacou, C. (ed.). (2009). Effective Teaching in Schools (3rd .ed). United Kingdom: Nelson Thomes Ltd.

Linse,T. C (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. North America: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Malik, R. S. (2012). Week five: Qualitative Data Collection Methods.[Teaching Notes]. Unpublished Manuscript, Research Project.IG630. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology: Essentials of Behavioral Science. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,I nc.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. United States of America: Sage Publications,Inc.

Masitoh, S. (2008). Assessment Techniques Administered in English Language Classroom for Young Learners.Bandung:Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Undergraduate Thesis.

Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. Portsmouth NH: Macmillan Heinneman English Education Teaching.

Mustahafa, B. (1994). Literary Response: A Way of integrating Reading-Writing Activities. Reading Improvement Journal, 52-28. Retrieved on 21st of November 2011, 12:15 AM. Thompson Library Bound Journals 2nd Floor Mezzanine. DOI:iLLiad TN 871396

Musthafa, B. (2008). Teori dan Praktik Satra dalam Penelitian dan Pengajaran.

(44)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Nafisah, N. (2012). Differentiated Instruction for College Students. [powerpoint slide]. Unpublished Manuscript, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia.

Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated Instruction: Meeting the Educational Needs of All Students in Your Classroom. United Kingdom: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centered Curriculum: A Study in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1998). Language Teaching Methodology. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Nuthall, G. (2007). The Hidden Lives of Learners. New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) [Review of the book The Hidden Lives of Learners] Retrieved on December 2013, from PPThttp://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/hidden-lives-learners.

Oxford, R. L. (ed.). (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should Know. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle publishers.

Paul. D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Hongkong: Pearson Education Limited.

Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Powell, R. G. & Powell, D.L. (2004). Classrooom Comunication and Diversity: Enhancing Instructional Practice (2nd.ed). New York: Routledge.

Rahmatunisa & Maulana. (2011). What I Have Got from Ten Years of learning English: A Critical reflection. Presented on Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN) 5, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.

Reiser, R. A. & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers (2nd.ed). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

(45)

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Richard, J. C & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches Methods in Language Teaching (2nd.ed). United States of America: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C (ed). (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, W. A & Yteberg, L. H. (1990). Teaching English to Children. United States of America: Pearson Education Limited.

Serravallo, J. (2010). Teaching Reading in Small Groups: Differentiated Instruction for Building Strategic, Independent Readers. United States of America: Heineman.

Silabus Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk SMP Kelas VIII. (2007) Badan Nasional Standar Pendidikan: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Direktorat jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar dan menengah.

Sundayana, W. 2012. Week Five: Conceptions of Curriculum. [Powerpoint slides]. Unpublished Manuscript, EFL Curriculum Analysis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Sundayana, W. 2012. Week Five: Need Analysis.[Powerpoint slides].Unpublished Manuscript, EFL Curriculum Analysis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Syafryadin. (2013). The Use of Talking Chips in Teaching Speaking.: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Graduate Thesis.

Tomlinson, C. A & Strickland, C, A. (2005). Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum grade 9-12. United States: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Imbeau, M.B (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. United States of America: Association for Su

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS’ ORAL PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Education

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

Astri Rejeki, 2014

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

A Classroom Action Research in a Junior High School in Sumedang

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE OF APPROVAL

Astri Rejeki, 2014

REFERENCES

Astri Rejeki, 2014

LIST OF TABLES

Astri Rejeki, 2014

LIST OF FIGURES

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER I

1.1 Background and Rationale of the Research

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

1.4 The Scope of the Research

Astri Rejeki, 2014

1.7 Significance of the Research

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

1.10 Organization of the Thesis

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER III

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Figure 3.2 Action Research Cycle ( McTaggart et.al, 1982, cited in Howden, 1998).

Astri Rejeki, 2014

3.4. Data Collection techniques

3.4.2 Document Analysis

3.4.3 Interview

3.5 Data Analysis

Table 3.1 Teaching and Learning aspects that were assessed. Adapted from Rejeki. (Rejeki, 2009).

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

McKay, 2006,p:292).

First Gained Score (FGS) = Result of learning cycle 2 – Result of learning cycle 1 Second Gained Score (SGS) = Result of learning cycle 3- Result of learning cycle 2

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

CHAPTER V

5.1 Conclusion

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

5.2 Recommendation

Astri Rejeki, 2014

REFERENCES

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014

Astri Rejeki, 2014