UEA
UEA
UEA
Amelia Abdullah
USM, Universiti Sains Malaysia-Malaysia
USM, Gelugor, Penang 11800 -Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4055-699X
1. Introduction
The one-size-fits-all method is no longer acceptable in today’s classrooms
(Bondie, Dahnke & Zusho, 2019). Today’s classrooms vary in readiness,
interests, learning profile, family support, culture, socio-economic status, and
the technology that students use. Classroom diversity leads many researchers
(Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010) to call for different trends in education and
explicitly call for differentiated instruction to solve the problem of various
classroom levels. Tomlinson (2017) defines differentiated learning as the
adaptation of curriculum components, in the areas of content, process, and
product, based on students’ needs according to their readiness, interests, and
learning profiles by the teachers in their classes whenever they want, during the
whole course, small groups or individual learners. Wesley-Nero (2007) explains
that in differentiated classrooms, teachers work to highlight students’ learning
styles and academic needs by using various modified instructional structures
like the use of small groups, pairs, individual and whole group education.
Teachers modify the content they are dealing with and the learning process they
are following to present the content and the expected outcome to fulfill the best
students’ needs (Aysin & Serap, 2017).
In modified instruction, teachers vary their teaching to suit whole learners, small
groups, pairs, or individual learners, in the areas of content, methods, product
and learning environment based on students’ readiness, interests and learning
profiles. Tomlinson (2014) explains the definition of each area. The content is the
knowledge, understanding, the principles, and the values that we want students
to learn. The content is what students learn and what teachers teach.
Differentiating the content does not mean having different content to various
learners or change the content itself; instead, teachers sometimes need to go back
to prerequisite content or go forward to specific students.
The process is the way students learn or the way the teachers teach. Tomlinson
states that the word “process” is another word for “activities.” According to
Tomlinson (2014), processes and activities are two terms referring to one thing;
the way the students learn, and the way the teacher teaches. The product is how
students demonstrate what they have come to know, understand, and able to do
after an extended period of learning. The product is what students show after
they have learned something. Teachers distinguish the product by giving
students various ways to express what they have studied from the lesson or unit
(Anderson, 2007). The environment is the place and the atmosphere of learning
and teaching, and it is the physical and emotional context in which learning
occurs. Readiness is the students’ proximity to knowledge, understanding, and
skills; it is the previous knowledge, not the ability (Pegram, 2019). Tomlinson
stated that willingness does not mean ability because it can change with the
quality of teaching. Interest is tied directly to that which engages the attention,
curiosity, and students’ involvement. Learning profile is a preference for taking
in, exploring, and expressing content.
method, all learners studied following the same means of training for all
students (Leblebicier, 2020). Planning for separated education would be the most
challenging part of differentiated instruction, which might lead many teachers
not to implement modified instruction in classrooms (Bondie, Dahnke & Zusho,
2019; Magableh & Abdullah, 2020b). Teachers can execute distinguished
instruction in two forms: the first is distinguished learning by setting students in
mixed-ability classes; students of the same grade are clustered within the same
classroom. Therefore, teachers have to meet all students’ needs and abilities and
modify instruction in the areas of content, process, and product at the same time
to suit a small group of learners, one learner or all learners. The second type of
differentiated learning is streaming by ability, where each level is disconnected
in different classrooms (Spina, 2019). The below-average, the average, and the
above-average students are not reading in the same classes; instead, they are
being clustered in different ability classrooms (Hallam & Parson, 2013). There
are many advantages when differentiated learning is applied. Students become
engaged, interaction increases, classes become more homogeneous and students
become responsible of their own learning.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theories of Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction is not a new term or a modern philosophy (Anderson,
2007; Kauchak, 2013; Valiandes & Neophytou, 2018). Anderson (2007) states that
it goes back to the one house schoolroom, where all students with different
levels used to sit all together, and teachers used to teach and differentiate
instruction based on their needs. Distinguished learning is constructed on many
theories like Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Bloom’s
Taxonomy, and Gardner’ Multiple Intelligences (Dendup & Onthanee, 2020).
Vygotsky’s ZPD is the distance between what students can do and what they
can do with the help of an adult. In differentiated education, teachers provide
challenging activities to each level, to the below-average, to average, and to the
above-average (Magableh & Abdullah, 2019, Magableh & Abdullah, 2020b). The
below-average students would not find the offered tasks too complicated, which
might lead them to quit. The above-average students would not see the given
responsibilities too easy that might lead them to feel unchallenged and
disappointed (Anstee, 2014).
The setting puts putting students in mixed-ability classrooms, where all students
are in one classroom despite their diversity and ability (Westwood, 2018). In
mixed-ability classrooms, teachers distinguish instruction to the whole class,
small group, pairs, and individual learners at the same time at the same level
based on readiness, interests, and learning profile (Robb, 2008). However, in
streaming categories, students are separated in different levels and instructed a
diverse curriculum, and probably by different teachers. Hallam and Parson
(2013) examined streaming effects on students compared to setting students into
mixed-ability classrooms on both literacy and Math. There were 2500 students
participated in the study, which indicated that streaming had many adverse
effects on students compared to those who were sitting in mixed-ability
classrooms. The study stated that the use of streaming helped the high-ability
students the most, but it has minimal benefits on average or below-average
students. Besides, the study showed that streaming has adverse social effects on
students that the mixed-ability classrooms do not have. Richard (2014) indicated
that based on the findings of the study, streaming in London had faced many
criticisms by parents and many school teachers as well as students; therefore, the
government directed to cancel it and apply distinguished education by setting
students in mixed-ability classrooms instead.
Mansor, Maniam, Hunt, and Nor (2016) explored the advantages and
disadvantages of streaming in Malaysia from students’ and teachers’
perspectives. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers
and students to collect data. The study revealed that streaming has many
advantages, like the above-average can achieve more when they are in separate
classes, and they are getting A’s anyway. The teachers expressed that streaming
helped them get better results with both: the low-level and the high-level
students. However, many disadvantages appeared, like many complaints from
fathers and students like the below-average students’ needs were not taken into
consideration. The interviewees indicated that streaming helps the above-
average students, but not the below-average ones.
3. Methods
3.1 Design
The researchers followed the qualitative exploratory quasi-experimental design.
The instruments consisted of two semi-structured interviews with both English
teachers and students who were in cycle two in Al Ain schools, United Arab
Emirates (UAE). The authors prepared the interview questions and validated
them by a panel of two UAE university lecturers, two English supervisors in Al
Ain, and three English teachers. The latter were outside the sample of the study.
Amendments were made on particular questions of the interview based on the
3.2 Participants
The sample of the study consisted of 12 English teachers based on a voluntary
and convenient sample and aging from 26 to 50 years old from both genders
teaching grade 8 and of 18 students of both sexes aging from 13 to 14 years old,
purposively selected from the three leveled classes of categories eight. The
students were chosen from four different public schools in Al Ain, UAE, which
are applying streaming in them. They were purposefully selected for
convenience to reach and conduct the interviews. There were 22 classes of grade
eight in the four schools and 12 English teachers teaching them. As an average,
types of grade 8 range between 25 to 28 students. There were six above-average
classes, eight ordinary levels, and eight below-average courses. All the English
teachers of grade eight, in the four schools, agreed to participate in a semi-
structured interview, and they were only 12 teachers in the 1st semester
2019/2020. The researchers interviewed the 12 teachers first and then
interviewed the 18 students, six students of each level, two from each gender.
The researchers followed the interview protocol to ask the questions of the
interview, and they recorded the interviewees’ responses after gaining the
consent of the school administrations, teachers as well as students.
3.3 Instrument
Two semi-structured interviews were conducted by the researchers to collect
data. The first instrument is the teachers’ semi-structured interview. It consisted
of six open-ended questions in which the responses were recorded on tapes and
transcribed on the word document file. The students’ semi-structured interview
also contained six questions. The researcher followed the interview protocol and
recorded the responses. For teachers, the conversations were steered using the
English language only because all teachers were teaching English and having
English language degrees. However, students had a choice on whether to
interview in English or Arabic, their mother tongue, because some students were
from the below-average and could not perform the interview in English. Later,
the recordings were sent to a specialist to convert them to word document, and
the responses in Arabic were also sent to translators to translate them into
English. The responses were transcribed and stored in a word document file
with a protected password on the researchers’ computer and could not be
reached by anyone, just by the researchers.
3.4 Procedures
The interviews took place during the 1st trimester of 2019/2020. Twelve teachers
and 18 students from four different schools contributed to the conversations for
over 15 days upon the availability of the teachers and the time of the researchers.
The researchers guaranteed Al Ain office consent, established the schools’
administrations’ clearance as well as the teachers’ and the students’ approval to
participate. Students’ contributions in the interviews depended on students’
voluntary basis, whether to participate or not. Each meeting took nearly 10 to 12
minutes to answer all the interview questions for both teachers and students.
The interview recordings with all the papers were sent to a specialist to translate
and transcribe them on the word document file. The researchers analyzed the
data qualitatively using the hand analysis method and used inter-rater reliability
to compare the results with an external validator using Cohen’s Kappa, K, which
was found to be K=0.77, which the authors considered a substantial agreement
between the two inter-raters. Then, the researchers discussed the results and the
findings with the participants for results validation.
4. Findings
The authors presented the research findings depending on the order of the
questions. Question one findings come first and then followed by question two
findings. The qualitative analysis depended on the content analysis method,
where the hand analysis was developed to analyze the results. First, the
interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The Arabic transcripts were
translated into English and typed into a word document file. After that, the data
were coded, segmented, and categorized into the major themes. Then inter-rater
reliability was ensured to compare the topics and categories with another
external validator who was considered an expert in qualitative data analysis.
Kappa was found to be 0.77 in Table 2 which is considered substantial reliability
as per Table 1. Table 1 shows the rating of Kappa.
N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
Finally, after reporting the results, they were validated by taking them back to
the respondents to discuss with them whether their responses match the results.
The findings of question one had two parts: first, the benefits of applying
streaming as indicated by teachers, and then followed by the advantages of
using splitting as signposted by students. There were four themes that appeared
on the strengths as specified by teachers. The most common ones were
streaming saves time, and planning for modified activities becomes easier;
above-average students achieve better; streaming helps student centered-classes,
and streaming gives equal opportunities for students to participate.
The first theme was related to planning and saving time. In streaming, teachers
are no longer preparing for the three levels simultaneously; instead, they are
planning just for one level of students. This way, planning becomes more
comfortable, and teachers are no longer consuming most of their time preparing
for the three levels. Teacher 1 and 7 talked about saving time. Teacher 7
indicated that “this year we started streaming, one advantage is timing. Streaming
saves time in the class because all students are at the same proficiency level.” Teacher 1
explained that “because the students level, now we can finish what we plan and prepare
in the same period. Streaming saves time in the classroom.” Teachers 2 and 5
remarked that streaming makes planning easier for differentiated education.
Teacher 2 reflects “planning now is easier because we do not have more than one level
in each class. The below-average students are all together, so one plan is enough for them
and the same for the other two levels.” Teacher 5 states that “planning used to take a
lot of time at home, now it takes less time and less effort.”
The third theme was that streaming drives classes to be more student-centered.
Students can direct their learning, and teachers just monitor. Most of the time,
students are learning based on their pace. Teacher 10 states that “in high ability
classes, learning is more like student-centered; rather than teacher-centered. Students
themselves are directing their learning.” Teacher 4 stated that “streaming is changing
the class to be more student-centered.” All students are working on activities that
make a challenge to them. So, streaming benefits all levels because it is more
student-centered, especially in the above-average classes.
The fourth theme was that streaming has benefits on the below-average student,
and the other levels, the average and the above-average. Teacher 4 indicated that
“all students get equal opportunities to participate because they are in separate classes,
and there is no dominance from the above-average over participation.” The below-
average students get an advantage from streaming in that they get rid of being
shy. Now they can answer the questions as any other student in the same class.
Teacher 12 stated that “because all the students are at the same level in the same
classroom, students are encouraged to answer without being afraid that the answers are
wrong.”
The second theme was streaming enhances students’ scores. Student 3 remarked
“coursing helped me and gave me the motivation to move to high ability classes.”
Student 9 stated, “We should move to other classes if we get better, so I am working
hard so that I can move.” In general, students agreed that streaming affects
students’ learning. All students agreed that in some way, separation by
streaming affects learning positively. Student 16 reflects, “Definitely, learning in
this way affects results.” Student 6 stated that “dividing students into different levels
improves students’ marks.” Student 14 remarked, “Distinguished learning helps
students progress. Distinction by streaming helps students to increase their marks.”
Students 18 noted, “Questions of the exams are easy, and we get good marks.”
The findings of the 2nd question had two parts. The first part was the problems
that the teachers indicated, followed by the weaknesses identified by students
when applying to stream differentiated instruction. Four significant themes
appeared regarding the challenges that teachers face when using “streaming” in
differentiated classrooms. The most common issues of the disadvantages, as
shown by the teachers, were the lack of motivation among average and below-
average students, parents’ refusal to stream their children by ability, low self-
esteem among students, and finally increased behavioral issues in below-
average classes.
Concerning the first theme, splitting increases the lack of motivation among the
ordinary and the below-average. Teacher 1 remarked, “when streaming students,
the below-average did not like to be labeled as below-average. They did not like to be
separated from the average or above-average because they learn from them. Streaming
prevents them from learning from other students.” Teacher 12 stated that “the below-
average classes are so weak and students barely answer questions. Students lack
motivation because they do not have other ability students.” Teacher 10 mentioned
that “the below-average and even the average classes lack competition inside the
classrooms, which affects their motivation.” Streaming affected students’ motivation
among the below-average and average because they do not have other peers to
encourage them to participate or to compete with since all the students in the
same classrooms are within the same level.
The third theme is issues related to below-average classes. It has four sub-
themes, low self-esteem, increased behavioral problems, the use of mother
tongue, and little classroom interaction was all significant complications
happened because of streaming. Students of below-average showed low self-
esteem. Teacher 8 agreed with 12 on that the below-average students showed no
self-esteem. Teacher 12 stated that “the below-average students were not motivated
by streaming, even their self-esteem was at the bottom.” Most of the teachers talked
about classroom communication in below-average classes. They agreed that the
interaction was at the lowest limit. Teacher 10 said that “streaming prevented the
low-level students from classroom collaboration because they often do not understand
everything. They keep asking about everything, which sometimes hinders learning.”
English. Teacher 2 stated that “the use of Arabic is evident in the below-average
classes. Teachers sometimes use their mother tongue to explain tasks, and students keep
talking in Arabic.”
The second part of the 2nd question presents the disadvantages that the students
recognized in streaming classes for differentiated instruction. Five themes
appeared from students’ discussions. The problems that the students face were
that they do not like to be in separate classes. All grade levels should take the
same book but not different books. Teachers do not take care of the below-
average or even the average. So when the bad behavioral students are clustered
together, the below-average feels embarrassed and inferior to other level groups.
The first theme was that students of the same class refused to be separated based
on their ability. Student 1, 4, 15, and 18 explained their refusal to be separated
from other students. Student 4 explained that “I do not like to be in this class and to
learn like this. I want to be with the other students.” Student 15 stated that “I hate this
classification; I want to learn with other students.’ Student 18 remarked that neither
his father nor his mother liked him to be split from other students. They do not
like him to be in the below-average courses. He stated, “My mother was angry
with the school because of this classification. My dad declined to let me stay with the
below-average students.” Streaming leads to rejection, especially of the below-
average students. They do not like labeling them as below-average learners.
The second theme was related to remarks mentioned by three students 2, 8, and
14, which states that all students of the same class should take the same book,
not different books. If teachers want to differentiate, they modify learning within
the same level. Student 2 explained, “we take different books, why? We should take
the same book.” Student 8 stated, “I do not like our book; I want a book like the other
levels.” Student 14 remarked, “grade eight students have different books, why? We all
should get the same book.” When UAE started streaming, the students of the same
grade are not taking the same book, which leads them to wonder why they
receive different education to the other group of learners.
The third theme was that teachers take care only of the above-average students,
and the below-average or the ordinary do not get the same attention from
teachers. Student 13 stated, “I am an average student, but teachers do not take care of
our level; I hear from the above-average that teachers give them much attention.”
Student 10 stated that “I am a below-average student, and I think our teachers are
happier with the other levels.” Below-average and average felt that students of
above-average receive better education than they do, and teachers do not give
them much attention as the above-average.
keep making lots of behavioral issues that inhibit them from making many
benefits from streaming.
The last theme was that all the below-average students, who contributed in the
meetings, felt embarrassed because they were being labeled as below-average all
the year. Student 3 said that “we started, and I still feel embarrassed. I want to move
to the other level.” Student 5 explained that “I always talk to my friends who are with
me in my class, we do not feel happy. I feel embarrassed.” The below-average students
felt that they were inferior to the other two groups of students because they were
labeled weak in English. Student 11 explained that “the other students of the other
groups always say that they are better than us, they are with the clever students. I feel
inferior; I do not like my class.” Student 13 said that “splitting is not good. Some
students feel that they are superior to others. Table 3 summarizes the themes of the two
questions.
No Theme
1/streaming saves time, and planning for modified activities becomes
Q1 first part easier;
Advantages
from teachers’
2/above-average students achieve better; 3/streaming helps student
views centered-classes, 4/streaming gives equal opportunities for students to
participate.
Q1 second part
Advantages 1/streaming increases students’ interaction participation,
from students 2/streaming enhances students’ grades.
views
Q2 first part 1/the lack of motivation among average and below-average students,
disadvantages 2/parents’ refusal to stream their children by ability,
indicated by 3/low self-esteem among students,
teachers 4/increased behavioral issues in below-average classes.
1/they do not like to be in separate classes. 2/all grade levels should
Q2 second part take the same book but not different books.
Disadvantages 3/teachers do not take care of the below-average or even the average.
indicated by 4/bad behavioral students are clustered together,
students 5/the below-average feels embarrassed and inferior to other level
groups.
5. Discussion
Differentiated instruction by setting students into ability groups or streaming
them into different class levels seems to improve students’ learning. However,
the implementation of streaming has many advantages and disadvantages based
on teachers’ and students’ interviews. The study revealed numerous advantages
and benefits to streaming. It is easier to prepare for streaming than to plan for a
mixed-ability classroom because teachers are dealing with one plan per level.
Teachers do not have to spend most of their time preparing for separate
instruction to meet all students’ standards in one classroom; instead, they expect
one lesson plan per level, which saves time. The most benefit of streaming is for
above-average students. Both teachers and students of all levels agreed that
streaming is better for the above-average because they can read well, and learn
faster than others. Besides, streaming helps classes to be more student-centered.
The finding of the study revealed that streaming had various disadvantages
indicated by teachers’ and students’ interviews. The teachers signposted that
splitting decreased motivation among the below-average and the average
because they recognized that they were not equal to the above-average. The
below-average felt that the other groups were getting much benefit compared to
them because they receive different textbooks or even varied curriculum.
Teachers, as well as students, thought that both students’ interaction and
engagement were not very high in streaming compared to differentiated
instruction by setting. The minimal effect is on the below-average because both
teachers and students agreed that dividing students by ability in separate classes
would not help the below-average. Besides, many behavioral problems occurred
in the below-average courses that they have not witnessed in mixed-ability
classrooms. It is evident that teachers who teach the below-average encounter a
lot of difficulties regarding interruption. Most of the below-average students do
not understand the component of the lesson when teachers explain in English, so
they keep interrupting teachers and talk in the mother tongue, which is Arabic.
The teachers of the below-average use the native language to explain lessons in
the target language. Students always interrupt teachers using Arabic language,
which leads teachers to emphasize certain parts of the experience using their
mother tongue.
Nobody liked to label him/her as a failure; the below-average and their parents
refused to divide students in such a way that would leave their children
embarrassed by being awkward. The below-average expressed that when being
in below-average classes, it is a kind of classification that allows other children
to label them as failures. The below-average revealed that they did not like to be
in separate classes, and returning to mixed-ability classrooms would be much
better because they would not feel embarrassed since all students are in the
same class level. The findings of the students’ interviews were similar to the
results of teachers’ meetings. The below-average feels embarrassed and their
classes became worse than they were before.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper aimed to explore the advantages and the challenges that
teachers and students face when applying differentiated instruction by
streaming. All agree that students learn differently (Magableh & Abdullah,
2020b). Different students learn in various methods depending on students’
interests, readiness, and learning profiles. Two ways of classifying students are
to follow in differentiated instruction: the first is the distinction by setting and
the other by streaming. Streaming students by ability is the core of the current
study. Like mixed-ability classrooms, streaming has many advantages and
disadvantages. The most evident power agreed upon by all the respondents was
streaming helps the above-average student more than the below-average or the
average. However, the most common disadvantage of streaming was the
interruption, and lack of interaction existed in the low-ability classrooms. With
streaming, participation increases, and grades become higher. Like any method
of teaching, streaming has many benefits and some challenges as indicated from
both students’ and teachers’ sessions. The researchers recommend further
investigations like a quantitative as well as a qualitative study to show which
has more efficient on student learning, setting students in mixed-ability
classrooms or streaming. The findings of the current study are limited due to the
instrument, which only consists of interviews with both teachers and students.
Moreover, the findings are limited due to the small sample size of teachers and
students. A Larger number of participants and more instruments would get
more reliable and valid results.
Conflict of interest:
The authors witness that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the
publication of this paper. The researchers received no direct funding for this
research that might cause conflict.
Acknowledgment
The researchers would like to thank the board of education and the teachers
involved for their support during the research. The acknowledgment extends to
the school administrations and the students who are part of this study.
7. References
Anderson, K. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students.
Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.3200/psfl.51.3.49-54
Anstee, P. (2014). Differentiation Pocketbook. Management Pocketbooks.
Aysin, S., & Serap, E. (2017). The effects of differentiated foreign language instruction on
academic achievement and creativity of gifted students. Online Submission, 5(1),
276-287.
Bondie, R., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to
differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1),
336-362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821130
Dendup, T., & Onthanee, A. (2020). Effectiveness of cooperative learning on English
communicative ability of 4th-grade students in Bhutan. International Journal of
Instruction, 13(1) 255-266. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13117a
Gardner, H. (2018). Multiple approaches to understanding. In K. Illeris (Ed.)
Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 129-138). London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277-9
Hallam, S., & Parsons, S. (2013). Prevalence of streaming in UK primary schools:
Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. British Educational Research Journal,
39(3), 514-544.
Kauchak, D. (2013). Improving text simplification language modeling using un-
simplified text data. In ACL (1) (pp. 1537-1546). Susan Hallam, Samantha
Parsons. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2012.659721
Kotob, M., & Abadi, M. (2019). The influence of differentiated instruction on academic
achievement of students in mixed ability classrooms. International Linguistics
Research, 2(2), 8-28. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v2n2p8
Kumar, P. (2004). Ability grouping and academic achievement. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid,
27, 109-118.
Leblebicier, B. (2020). Learning through differentiated instruction: Action research in an
academic class (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University.
Macqueen, S. (2008). Between-class achievement grouping for literacy and numeracy: Academic
outcomes for primary students. In Proceedings of AARE 2008 Conference (pp. 1-
12). Brisbane, QLD: University of Technology.
Magableh, I., & Abdullah, A. (2019). The effect of differentiated instruction on
developing students’ reading comprehension achievement. International Journal
of Management and Applied Science (IJMAS), 5(2), 48-53.
Magableh, I., & Abdullah, A. (2020a). On the Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction
in the Enhancement of Jordanian Students’ Overall Achievement. International
Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 533-548. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13237a
Magableh, I. S. I., & Abdullah, A. (2020b). Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction on
Primary School Students’ English Reading Comprehension Achievement.