Group5 Edls6507 Assignment3

Running head: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: EVIDENCE OF ITS USE
1
A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfilment
Of the Requirements of
EDLS 6507 Research Methods
Differentiated Instruction: Evidence of Its Use
to Support the Struggling Learner at Four Caribbean Secondary Schools
Group 5 - Assignment 3
Donnette Abbott-Ferdinand 308003507
Genevieve Cox 315102220
Kendia Ferguson-Simmons - 315104547
Brehaniea Wight 309101654
Email Addresses: genevieve.cox@my.open.uwi.edu
donnette.abbottferdinand@my.open.uwi.edu
brehaniea.wight@my.open.uwi.edu
kendia.fergusonsimmons@my.open.uwi.edu
University: University of the West Indies (UWI) Open Campus
Group Facilitator: Dr. Madgerie Jameson-Charles
Course Coordinator: Dr. Madgerie Jameson-Charles

DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: EVIDENCE OF ITS USE
2
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................6
The Aim/Purpose of the Research................................................................................................6
The Research Setting...................................................................................................................7
Identification of Research Problem..............................................................................................8
Research Question........................................................................................................................9
Significance of the Research........................................................................................................9
Literature Review..........................................................................................................................10
The Case for Differentiated Instructions....................................................................................11
Benefits of Differentiated Instruction to the Teacher.................................................................11
Challenges with Implementing Differentiated Instruction.........................................................12
Relationship Statement..............................................................................................................13
Research Design and Methodology...............................................................................................14
Description of Sample Size........................................................................................................17
Sampling Strategy and Justification...........................................................................................17
Description of Data Collection Instrument................................................................................18
Validity and Reliability..............................................................................................................19
Data Analysis Procedure............................................................................................................20

3
Evaluation of Findings...................................................................................................................22
Presentation of Findings.............................................................................................................22
Conclusions................................................................................................................................48
Recommendations......................................................................................................................49
References......................................................................................................................................52
Appendix A....................................................................................................................................58
Differentiated Instruction Survey..................................................................................................58
Appendix B....................................................................................................................................67
Appendix C....................................................................................................................................69
Letter to MOE in Survey Participating Islands..............................................................................69

4
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Teachers Surveyed Based on Location.27
Table 2: Teacher Status..28
Table 3: The Six Components of DI: Understanding29
Table 4: The Six Components of Di: Support for the Struggling Learner..33
List of Figures
Figure 1: Count/Relative Frequency % of Grade Taught....24
Figure 2: Ages.25
Figure 3: Count/Relative Frequency of Education Level.26
Figure 4: Teaching Service....27
Figure 5: DI Experience.....28
Figure 6: Count/Relative Frequency of DI Training..28

5
Abstract
Caribbean teachers encounter multifaceted challenges due to the increase of the diversity
of 21st century students co-existing in their classrooms. Therefore, it is imperative that teachers
understand that they must be knowledgeable not only about their content area, but accept that a
one size fits all instructional approach does not work for all students. (Hobgood and Ormosy,
2011) This charge embodies the ideologies of Differentiated Instruction and served as the focus
of this research. The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate to what extent teachers in
Antigua/Barbuda, The Bahamas, St. Vincent and Trinidad and Tobago utilize Differentiated
Instruction to support the struggling learner in their respective secondary school classrooms.
Utilizing a quantitative approach, the researchers sought to ascertain whether or not teachers are
firstly knowledgeable about Differentiated Instruction and secondly, whether they use this
knowledge to inform their pedagogy to support their struggling learners.
Keywords: differentiated instructions, struggling learner

6
Differentiated Instruction: Evidence of Its Use
to Support the Struggling Learner at Four Caribbean Secondary Sls
Introduction
Teachers occupy an irreplaceable position in transforming education and enhancing
teaching practice within a classroom. In particular, Caribbean teachers are required to develop
skills to manage student diversity, and offer significant learning opportunities for all students,
according to their learning, social, economic and cultural context (OREALC/UNESCO Santiago,
2012). However, some gaps exist between the ideal and effective classroom practice. One cause
of such difference is that teacher preference is placed on teaching average to high performing
students, as they do not know how to begin differentiating (Conkin, 2011). If this is the general
experience of Caribbean secondary schools, then an alternative instructional philosophy must be
adopted to include struggling learners and transform the instructional approach. One inclusive
solution being promoted and heavily invested in among the Caribbean islands is differentiated
instruction (Butler, 2014; Brown, 2007; Magazine, 2015). Differentiated instruction aims to
increase the chance that students are successful learners (Hamm & Adams, 2013).
The Aim/Purpose of the Research
The study seeks to investigate the extent to which teachers support struggling learners
through the application of the principles of differentiated instruction and to examine what
differentiated instructional strategies, if any, are currently used in Caribbean secondary schools.
In particular, the research intends to explore teachers perceptions of differentiation, the factors
which contribute to their use or lack thereof, as well as to determine to what extent these teachers
are supporting struggling learners using differentiated instruction. Additionally, the principles of
7
differentiation will be explored, and conclusions drawn regarding what specific knowledge base
teachers need in order to implement differentiation within the Caribbean secondary school
context successfully.
The Research Setting
This research study was conducted in one secondary school in each of four Caribbean
islands: Antigua/Barbuda, the Bahamas, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago. All schools consist of classrooms where teachers manage student diversity
and offer significant learning opportunities for all students, according to their social, economic
and cultural context. In the typical Caribbean secondary school, students range in ages between
ten and nineteen, and classes range from Grade seven to eleven. A wide range of subjects are
offered, which include, but are not limited to English Language and Literature, the social and
natural sciences, foreign languages and technology. Secondary school teachers are most often
professionally trained and specialize in the various disciplines.
Emphasis was placed on selecting schools that are classified as low performing or
underperforming schools. All teachers, trained or untrained, who are attached to the selected
schools were invited to participate in the study. Although the teachers may or may not be
familiar with differentiated instruction, their philosophy of differentiated instruction and their
views and perceptions of the issue will be under enquiry. The research investigated whether or
not teachers utilise differentiated instructional strategies in the classroom to meet the needs of
their diverse students.
The research advanced a new understanding of the acceptance and presence of
differentiation in Caribbean classrooms for supporting struggling students, and establish how
widespread the practice of differentiation is at the secondary schools studied.

8
Identification of Research Problem
There are calls from governments, United Nations agencies and teacher training
institutions for the use of differentiated instructions within the Caribbean classroom setting.
With mantras such as Education for All and No Child Left Behind, teachers must heed those
calls not just as a requirement but as a dutiful and effective teacher. In a Trinidad study, Joseph
(2013) reports that a larger number of primary school teachers demonstrate an understanding of
differentiation than their counterparts at the secondary school level and that there is evidence to
suggest that in some instances, this understanding may be merely theoretical. This finding may
indicate that an inadequate one-size fits all approach to instruction is still prevalent in Caribbean
secondary schools, evidenced by the practice of tracking and streaming of students, which does
not offer much flexibility and variation in supporting struggling students.
This study sought to investigate the extent to which teachers support struggling learners
through the application of the principles of differentiated instruction, and examined what
differentiated instructional strategies, if any, are currently used in Caribbean secondary schools.
In particular, the research explored teachers perceptions of differentiation, the factors which
contribute to their use or lack thereof, as well as to determine to what extent these teachers are
supporting struggling learners using differentiated instruction. Additionally, the principles of
differentiation were explored, and conclusions drawn regarding what specific knowledge base
teachers need in order to successfully implement differentiation within the Caribbean secondary
school context.
9
Research Question
The study sought to answer the following question: To what extent have teachers of four
Caribbean secondary schools supported struggling learners in the high school setting through the
use of Differentiated Instruction?
Significance of the Research
The diversity of needs, abilities and interests represented by students in Caribbean high
schools, dictate that there is a need to utilise strategies and techniques which will arm teachers
with the expertise and resources to meet these varied needs. According to UNICEF (2014) high
school students should engage in instructional practices and learning materials that relate to
students experiences and relevant to their needs, interests and preferences, all of which are
embedded in differentiated instruction.
Differentiated Instruction affords teachers the opportunity to implement research-proven
and highly practical instructional ideas (Bender, 2013). While the literature, though limited, that
supports Differentiated Instruction in the Caribbean context exists, this study serves to evaluate
the extent to which differentiated instruction is implemented in the Caribbean context, using data
obtained from high schools in Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, St Vincent and the
Grenadines and the Bahamas, thus serving as a catalyst for additional research into its
implementation within the wider Caribbean context.
There is a plethora of literature regarding the use and effectiveness of the differentiated
model in practice, and there is a need to investigate whether teachers in the Caribbean implement
any of these in their classrooms to support the diverse student composition, as well as the
successes, issues and challenges they experience. Additionally, since much research has not been
conducted in the Caribbean region on the topic under review, exploration of this issue will
10
provide a body of knowledge that is current, culturally relevant and research-based, upon which
further investigations can be established.
Literature Review
The Caribbean people can be described as a unique people, strung together by a common
history but characterised by differences in interests, beliefs, attitudes, ethnicity, language and
socio-economic status within and across islands. These differences are reflected in the
classroom, which consists of students with different learning needs. Teachers are mandated to
address these differences, thus requiring them to review their approach to educating their
students continually. Heacox (2012) asserts that a one-size fits all approach to instruction is
inadequate and submits differentiation as an answer to the call for personalised instruction. Levy
(2008) posits that the needs of every student can be met by focusing on the learner individually,
and the tools of differentiated instruction can be used to help learners reach their potential. The
optimal environment for learning would be where the level and pace of instruction are matched
to the student (Kiley, 2011).
In describing the differentiated classroom, Tomlinson (2014) asserts that it is one where
teachers accept and act on the premise that they must be ready to engage students in instruction
through different approaches to learning by appealing to a range of interests, and by using varied
degrees of complexity and differing support systems (pp. 3-4). Stanford and Reeves (2009),
posit that it involves teachers organising instruction in a manner that benefits all students. It is
important to establish that this process is not simple, nor is it incidental; rather, Heacox (2012)
suggests that differentiation is rigorous, relevant, flexible and varied and complex. It is evident
that differentiation is more than an instructional strategy. In fact, Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010)
contend that it is a way of thinking about teaching and learning which goes beyond merely
11
introducing tiered lessons, independent study, alternative forms of assessmentor even moving
to multi-text adoption.
The Case for Differentiated Instructions
Success stories associated with the use of differentiation to improve academic standards
can be found at Holland Elementary School in Fresno, Conway Elementary in Missouri, and
Colchester High School in Vermont (Cusumano & Mueller, 2007; Kiley, 2011). Harman (2014)
concludes that teachers incorporate differentiated instruction into their instructional practices for
five reasons: importance to the teacher, importance to the student, the fact not all students are the
same, increased diversity, and school requirement. In another study, teacher efficacy and sense of
self-efficacy beliefs were important to teachers in the process of differentiating instruction
(Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, (2014). However, Kileys (2011) study revealed that
factors such as professional development, administrative support, smaller class sizes, fewer
classes per day, more planning time, and/or a variety of schedules, cannot get a teacher to
differentiate more if he/she already differentiates. A teacher who differentiates wants to support
the needs of the learner to improve the student's academic performance.
Benefits of Differentiated Instruction to the Teacher
The benefits of differentiated instruction to all learners, and to the struggling learner in
particular, are profound. These do not only redound to the student, but the facilitator of the
process can also benefit. Differentiation is a logical and practical way of meeting students
learning needs in an inclusionary classroom, and these steps are helpful in enabling teachers to
reach that goal (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014). In short, differentiated instruction is
one means through which the teachers learning goals for his or her students can be successfully
12
and efficiently met. Valiande and Koutselini (2009) observe that teachers who differentiate
change, enrich and perfect their practice as they do so.
In a study conducted in Trinidad, the majority of teacher trainees commented on the ease
with which learning was taking place when they were given the opportunity to choose the way
they learn best. The majority of students indicated their intention to attempt differentiated
instruction in their practicum sessions and agreed that using differentiated instruction after
graduation will give them an opportunity to practice freely, reach every learner and fulfil student
needs (Joseph, Thomas, Simonette, & Ramsook, 2013).
Notwithstanding these documented benefits, many teachers argue that differentiation
might lead to a watered down curriculum and low expectations of students, particularly if
assessment tasks offered varying levels of intellectual challenge (Mills, Monk, Keddie, Renshaw,
Christie, Geelan, & Gowlett, 2014).
Challenges with Implementing Differentiated Instruction
Despite current evidence of the effectiveness of incorporating differentiated instruction,
teachers face multiple challenges with implementation (Harman 2014). Differentiation dictates a
reliance on strong and skilful teachers in planning and implementing different levels of the same
concept at the same time (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014). The challenges are
multifaceted. Harman (2014) posits that one crucial barrier to implementation is teachers beliefs
about differentiation as it relates to time and effort, achievement, accountability, success, student
efficacy, and the reasons for use. Indeed, the decision to differentiate requires significant changes
in teachers classroom practice, and Harman (2014) observes that when teachers face the difficult
task of change, they commonly fall back to their accustomed way of practising.
13
The Caribbean situation is no different from an international context. Differentiated
instruction is perceived as a daunting task (UNICEF Eastern Caribbean, 2015). Joseph (2013)
lists the lack of time for planning adequate teaching, limited space for group work, and lack of
resources and administrative support as major challenges in Trinidad. In offering the trainee
teachers perspectives, the author indicated concerns of time constraints and observed that these
teachers were worried that differentiated instruction provided the opportunity for them to
showcase only their strengths. Research conducted in Montserrat point to the fact that teachers
were not prepared to meet diverse needs, lesson plans did not accommodate group work,
different learning styles, or instructions by content, process, or product and that they possessed
limited resources to practice (Spencer-Ernandez, & Edwards-Kerr, 2012).
Relationship Statement
The success of any endeavour is dependent to a large extent on its participants possessing
a comprehensive understanding of its tenets and nuances. This holds true for differentiation. An
examination of the literature suggests that there are apparently different perceptions and
mobilisations of differentiation amongst teachers, by the school administration and across
different faculties in the school. The findings of one study suggest that within these contexts,
lack of pedagogical differentiation was not due to any deficit in the teachers, but in the failure of
the system to create the appropriate environment for them to enact and try the forms of pedagogy
that align with differentiation (Mills, Monk, Keddie, Renshaw, Christie, Geelan, & Gowlett,
2014).
While much research has not been conducted on differentiation in the Caribbean region, a
Trinidad study revealed that fifty-eight percent (58%) of primary and secondary school teachers
understood the concept of differentiated instruction. Although most respondents did not
14
differentiate content and product, they did engage in process differentiation; it was however not a
planned, conscious strategy, and more primary school teachers practised differentiated
instruction (Joseph, 2013). While the factors that are work in determining may be as varied as the
contexts, the literature does agree that successful implementation of differentiation at all levels of
the educational institutions should be intentional and targeted (Spencer-Ernandez, & Edwards-
Kerr, 2012; Harman, 2014; Joseph, 2013; Stanford, & Reeves, 2009).
With regards the struggling learner, the literature establishes that the intentional
implementation of the tenets and principles of differentiated instruction is beneficial in
supporting the struggling learner at all levels of educational institutions, including the secondary
school, where this study was conducted. Dixon, Yssel, McConnell and Hardin (2014) assert that
the task of supporting the struggling learner through differentiated instruction, with all of its
complexities, relies on robust and skilful teachers planning and implementing different levels of
the same concept at the same time. In this study, many of the variables that are at work in the
differentiated learning environment are brought under scrutiny and determinations are made
regarding the current state of differentiated instruction within the Caribbean learning
environment.
Research Design and Methodology
Ireh and Ibemene (2010) as quoted in Joseph (2013) states that differentiated instruction
should be presented not merely as an instructional strategy, but rather as a critical teaching and
learning philosophy that all prospective teachers should be exposed to in teacher education
programmes and utilize to meet the varying needs of learners in the classroom (Joseph 2013,
p. 31). According to Least (2014), differentiated instruction has proven to be an effective strategy
to garner such results. However, the limited research in the Caribbean context has not yielded
15
sufficient data to indicate its implementation or effects in the Caribbean setting and more
specifically, the struggling learner in the secondary school. This research investigated the extent
to which Caribbean high school teachers utilize differentiated instruction to support struggling
learners in their classes.
A quantitative approach was utilized in the implementation of this research. Creswell
(2008) states that quantitative research entails utilizing statistical means to objectively analyse
the connection between variables that are outlined on data collection instruments. This data are
then documented in the form of a report that expands on the overview, related information,
philosophy, methods, results and evaluation.
The researchers measured and recorded the extent to which a small sample of teachers in
four low-performing high schools in Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago use differentiated instruction to support struggling learners.
Here, support is operationally defined as the assistance given to accelerate the students learning
progress in order to match that of their peers, meet learning standards or generally succeed at
school. Also, the research design considered intervening variables such as teacher motivation
and enthusiasm and extraneous variables such as teachers knowledge and ability to apply
differentiated instruction.
The researchers strove to ascertain the degree to which high school teachers use
differentiated instruction to support their struggling students. In so doing, the researchers relied
on a post-positivist approach to collect relevant data from teachers. Post-positivism recognises
that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable (Positivism & Post-
Positivism, 2016). Data collected were examined to discover to what extent teachers rely on
utilizing the strategy of differentiated instruction in their pedagogical practices.

16
Strengths
The researchers propose that this research design was advantageous in the following
ways:
Quantitative data are considered more reliable and trustworthy than qualitative data (Johnson,
2016).
Quantitative data provide more objective information on which to base our study on
differentiated instruction (Johnson, 2016).

It provides important information about the statistical testing of the teacher sampling
(Creswell, 2012, p. 197). This information can influence future pedagogical practice for
Caribbean teachers working with struggling students in the high school setting.
It affords varied representation of the extent to which differentiated instruction is used in four of
the Caribbean islands. As a result, the body of knowledge on the subject of differentiated
instructions stands to be expanded.
Limitations
While we acknowledge that there were strengths to our research design, there were also
variables that could not be controlled. The following weaknesses were considered:
Some teachers may not complete all the items on the questionnaires; hence a full representation
of the sample may not be measured.

Some variables may influence the overall findings. Intervening variables such as teacher
motivation and enthusiasm may influence and affect procedures and data collection.
The scope of this mini-research cannot provide the volume of data that are needed for drawing
conclusions and making generalizations relative to the entire Caribbean region.
Description of Research Participants
The research population under study consisted of trained and untrained teachers working
in under-performing and low-performing secondary schools in four Caribbean island nations.
Surveys were conducted in Antigua/Barbuda, the Bahamas, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and
17
Trinidad and Tobago. Research participants may or may not be familiar with the key elements of
differentiated instruction. All secondary school teachers in the selected schools were invited to
take part in the study voluntarily and had an equal chance of being selected to provide the
quantitative analysis from a sample size of thirty four participants.`
Description of Sample Size
Permission for conducting the research was sought as needed from the Ministry of
Education (MOE) in each island (see Appendix E). All participants were notified that
participation in the study was voluntary. All teachers from the selected schools invited to
participate in the study produced data for the quantitative analysis from a survey/questionnaire
which was administered (see Appendix A).
Data collected were treated with a high level of confidentiality, and only the summary
analysis was documented in the report. The names of individual participants and the schools to
which teachers are attached are not identifiable or reported in the study. The sample consisted of
thirty four trained and untrained teachers - twenty seven females and seven males - who are
employed at under-performing or low-performing secondary schools from four Caribbean
territories.
Sampling Strategy and Justification
The strategy that was employed in the research sampling design was simple random
sampling, which allowed participants to have the probability of having an equal chance of being
selected from a homogenous population (Leedy and Ormrod, 2010). The justification for the use
of simple random sampling was that it is suited to a small population, is free from bias, and it is
expected that the features of the sample size will be reflective of the population features under
investigation.
18
Description of Data Collection Instrument
A survey questionnaire was used to measure the responses of thirty four participants in
the study (See Appendix A). The survey consists of three sections. Section I, Part A:
Understanding of Differentiated Instruction is a series of questions that use a four-point Likert
scale (labelled Not important, Somewhat important, Fairly important, Very important) with
questions related to participants level of understanding about Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) six
components (student interest, assessment, lesson planning, content, process and product) of
differentiated instruction. Section I, Part B: Support for the Struggling Learner also uses a
four-point Likert scale (labelled Hardly ever/Never do this, Sometimes/Have used on a few
occasions, frequently use this, use intentionally and often) with questions related to support
given to the struggling learner using differentiated instruction in regards to the six categories
(student interest, assessment, lesson planning, content, process and product) identified by
Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010). Section II: Demographics comprise of demographic questions
such as current subject area and grade taught, age range, type of teacher (qualified/trained or
unqualified/untrained), education level, years of teaching experience and DI training experience.
Hard copies of the questionnaires were distributed to the sample population where they
were self-administered and completed by each respondent. Survey questionnaires offer
advantages in terms of economy, the amount of data that can be collected, as well as the
standardization of the data collected (Rubin & Babbie, 2011). Notwithstanding these benefits,
issues of reliability and validity must necessarily be considered and addressed. Both concepts
possess implications for the usability of the selected instrument, that is, the ease with which it
can be administered, interpreted by respondents and analysed by the researchers (Instrument,

19
Validity, Reliability, n.d.). Any factor which potentially impacts on the usability of the data
collection instrument for this study was judiciously addressed.
Validity and Reliability
Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to
measure and performs as it is designed to perform (Instrument, Validity, Reliability, n.d.).
Although it is almost impossible to guarantee that an instrument is one hundred percent valid, it
is possible to achieve high levels of content, construct and criterion validity. In content validity,
the extent to which an instrument accurately measures all aspects of a construct is brought to the
fore (Heale & Twycross, 2015). In this case of this study, content validity was assured in two
ways. Firstly, since three of the four researchers are expert educators. They were able to provide
face validity by carefully examining the instrument and bringing their collective opinions to the
fore in determining whether the instrument does indeed measure essential concepts that are
related to differentiated instruction. Secondly, the employment of Likert scales in the design of
the questionnaire offered a scientific measure of respondents opinions in terms of differentiated
instruction. The consistent method of rating responses enabled the possibility of accurate
comparisons within and between data sets, thus significantly increasing the likelihood that the
instrument collects only data that are pertinent to the research.
Heale and Twycross (2015) submit that three types of evidence can be used in
demonstrating that an instrument has construct validity. The instrument satisfied two of the three.
Firstly, homogeneity was achieved, as the instrument measured a single construct, that is, the
sample populations efforts at supporting struggling learners through differentiation. Secondly,
there must be convergence, that is, the instrument measures concepts that are similar to those of
other instruments. In this regard, although the researchers were unable to establish that particular
20
measure, the use of research-based principles from Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) as the basis for
designing the questionnaire, met the standard of convergence.
One essential factor which must be considered relates to the threat that could possibly
occur from teachers reluctance to respond truthfully to the questions, perhaps due to their fear of
being judged for their classroom practice. This threat to internal validity was adequately
mitigated against by clearly stating the purpose of the study and by assuring anonymity and
confidentiality in the treatment of data.
Reliability is an extent to which the questionnaire will consistently measure what it is
intended to measure (Instrument, Validity, Reliability, n.d.). Given the fact that this is a mini-
research study, it was decided that an approach which requires the single administration of the
questionnaire using Cronbachs Alpha should be used. Alpha coefficient ranges [MJ1] in value
from 0 to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability of factors extracted from dichotomous
(that is, questions with two possible answers) and/or multi-point formatted questionnaires or
scales (i.e., rating scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The higher the score, the more reliable the
generated scale is (Tavakol & Dennick 2011).
Data Analysis Procedure
In this study, a quantitative approach was considered to be the most appropriate design to
gather data in a non-threatening and confidential manner. A survey was used to collect and
record the responses of the participant teachers at four Caribbean secondary schools. The survey
data was then analysed to determine teachers knowledge and understanding of differentiated
instructional strategies. Emphasis was placed on the application of differentiated instructional
knowledge to support struggling learners in the classroom. These areas of understanding and
support were analysed based on Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) six components (student interest,
21
assessment, lesson plans, content, process and product) of differentiated instructions and the
demographics of each participating teacher with reference to current subject area and grade
taught, age range, type of teacher (qualified/trained or unqualified/untrained), education level,
years of teaching experience and DI training experience. The results established and measured
the extent to which differentiated instruction is used to support the struggling learners at the four
Caribbean schools.
The data analysis process involved sorting, labelling and categorising all survey
questionnaires obtained from the study. A code book that listed each variable/question name, all
the answer options and the numerical assigned to each answer option for all sections was
developed to assist with recording the data (See Appendix B - Sample Code Book - Section II).
After collecting the data, it was entered in the Microsoft Excel program for analysis. Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet program was used to analyse the different variables/questions in the data set.
Three spreadsheets were created - one for Section I, parts A and B each and one for Section II.
Each participants response was assigned a unique participant ID, and responses were organised
and tabulated by survey item/question. Frequency and percentage distributions were constructed
for each variable/question. The data were displayed in text, graphs, and tables. Descriptives and
disaggregates were used for all relevant variables. Descriptive statistics were used to describe
each sections data set. The variables were measured in terms of mean, minimum/maximum,
median and mode, as applicable. Cross tabulations were used to disaggregate the data across the
variables of the four islands and the subcategories of each variable. In particular, the data
analysis techniques employed gave an overview and insight as to the extent the struggling
learners are supported through the use of differentiated instruction.

22
Evaluation of Findings
Presentation of Findings
A two-section printed questionnaire was utilized to ascertain data from the thirty four
teachers who volunteered for the sample. Section I comprised of part A and part B. Section I,
Part A asked teachers to identify, using a 4-point Likert scale, their understanding of the
philosophical framework of differentiated instructions. Section I, Part B asked teachers to
identify, using a 4-point Likert scale, their use of differentiated instructions in support of the
struggling learner. Section II sought to capture demographic data such as subject taught, grade
taught, age, qualification, length of service, highest education level attained and type of training
in differentiated instructions.
Demographics
Thirty-four respondents completed and submitted the survey, hence tabulating a 100%
response rate. As a result, the responses were then inputted and coded on a google spreadsheet
for further analysis. The following tables and graphs represent the demographics of the sample
population that is considered essential, based on the research questions. Table 1 illustrates the
distribution of the sample population across the four islands.
Table 1: No. of Teachers (%) Surveyed Based on Location
Country No of Teachers (%)
Antigua/Barbuda 10 29.5%
Bahamas 8 23.5
St. Vincent and the 8 23.5

Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago 8 23.5

23
The respondents specialised in one or more subject areas. Subjects taught included
Mathematics, English Language/Literature, French, Social Sciences (Social Studies, Geography,
History), Natural Sciences (General Science, Biology, Integrated Science, Chemistry), Technical
Vocational (Metalwork Engineering), Business Studies ( , Principles of Business, Information
Technology), Arts (Visual Art, Clothing & Textile).
Teacher were asked about their teaching status. Table 2 illustrates the status of teachers
in the sample. Teacher status reflects whether the teacher has received teacher training or is
qualified as a teacher.
Table 2: Teacher Status

Qualified/Trained Unqualified/Untrained
Number % Number %
26 76 8 24
It represents the number/percentage of teachers who are qualified/trained as teachers and
those who are not qualified/trained as teachers. Most participants (76%) surveyed, are
qualified/trained teachers.
Figure 1 represents the grade level taught based on number and relative frequency. The
data gathered demonstrated that a number of teachers (68%) taught more than one grade level.
Figure 1: Count/Relative Frequency (%) of Grade Taught

24
The graph illustrates that 19 teachers surveyed teach Form1/Grade 7 with a relative
frequency of 20%. 13 teachers surveyed teach Form 2/Grade 8 with a relative frequency of 14%.
17 teachers surveyed teach Form 3/Grade 9 with a relative frequency of 18%. 19 teachers
surveyed teach Form 4/Grade 10 with a relative frequency of 20%. 20 teachers surveyed teach
Form 5/Grade 11 with a relative frequency of 22% while 4 teachers surveyed teach Form
6/Grade 12 with a relative frequency of 5%.
The composition of respondents from the survey indicated that the demographics
consisted of 27 (79%) females and 7 (21%) males. Figure 2 illustrates the age range of the
teachers surveyed. It represents the age-range selected based on number and percentage. Two
teachers, 6% were between the ages 21 - 25. Two teachers, 6% were between the ages 26 - 30
while ten teachers, 29% were between the ages 31 - 35. Nine teachers, 26% were between the
ages 36 - 40, Eight teachers, 24% were between the ages 41 -45. One teacher, 3% was between
the ages 46 - 50 while two teachers, 6% were between the ages 51 - 55.
25
Figure 2: Ages
Ages
12
10
10 9
8
8
4
2 2 2
2 1
6% 6% 29% 26% 24% 3% 6%
0
0 0%
Number %
Figure 3 below represents the education level attained by teachers surveyed. The
response rate for this question was 97%. There are 35% teachers surveyed who possess more
than one academic qualification. The chart illustrates that 14 teachers surveyed possess a
Bachelors Degree (no education courses) with a relative frequency of 26%. 12 teachers
surveyed possess a Bachelors in Education with a relative frequency of 23%. Seven teachers
surveyed possess a Postgraduate Diploma in Education with a relative frequency of 13%. Six
teachers surveyed possess a Certification in Education with relative frequency of 11%. Five
teachers surveyed possess a Masters Degree with a relative frequency of 9%. Four teachers
surveyed possess a Masters in Education with a relative frequency of 8%. Two teachers surveyed
possess Diploma in Education with a relative frequency of 4%. Two teachers surveyed possess a
26
Certificate in Education with a relative frequency of 4%. One teacher surveyed possesses a
Doctoral degree with a relative frequency of 2%.
Figure 3: Count/Relative Frequency of Education Level
Figure 4 below indicates the number of years in the teaching service.
Figure 4: Teaching Service (years)

27
The data indicates that four teachers, 12% have 1-3 years teaching experience. Nine
teachers, 27% have 4-10 years teaching experience. Eight teachers, 23% have 11-15 years
teaching experience. Eight teachers, 23% have 16-20 years teaching experience, two teachers 6
% have 21-25 years teaching experience, two teachers, 6% have 26-30 years teaching experience
and one teacher, 3%, has 30+ years teaching experience.
Figure 5 below illustrates the differentiated instruction experience the teachers surveyed
possessed.
Figure 5: DI Experience
28
Sixteen teachers, 47 % have little experience with DI. Ten teachers, 29% have moderate
experience with DI. Six teachers, 18% have much experience with DI and two teachers, 6%
had very much experience with DI. Figure 5 illustrates the representation of this data.
Figure 6 below demonstrates what type of differentiated instruction the respondents
received.
Figure 6: Count/Relative Frequency of DI Training

29
The data revealed that 21 teachers out of 34, 62% have experienced more than one type of DI
training. 17 teachers received DI training from a course offered at college/university with a relative
frequency of 26%. 12 teachers received DI training from their own readings with a relative frequency of
18%. Four teachers received DI training from a mentor with a relative frequency of 6%. 11 teachers
received DI training from in-service activity with a relative frequency of 17%. 19 teachers received DI
training from conferences, meetings or workshops with a relative frequency of 29%. Two teachers
received DI training from other forms of training with a relative frequency of 3%.
When respondents were asked to expand on their DI training, some stated that they
engaged in an overview of differentiated instruction , its practices and theory while others stated
they trained in implementing DI in content area subjects. A few attended school based
workshops. Those attending university or college received training from an in class teaching or
assignment. These assignments included DI for students of varying abilities and utilizing
technology to support DI. The respondents stated that they will recommend the implementation
of DI, because it supports academic success, it can accommodate a variety of learning styles, it
can help to motivate students, it can cater to students needs, abilities and interests. However, one
respondent indicated that they would not recommend DI because schools do not have adequate
resources and teachers are not adequately trained to make differentiated Instruction a success.
Understanding of Differentiated Instruction
In Section I, Part A, Understanding of Differentiated Instruction, the researchers utilised
descriptive statistics to examine the variation in teachers responses to 26 items. The following
values were assigned to the response categories: 1 - Not important, 2 - Somewhat important, 3 -
Fair important, and 4 -Very important. Individual item responses were summed across the 26
questions to find a total score of understanding. Total scores ranged from 96 to 130 with a
30
median of 116. The mean score on Understanding was 115 with a standard deviation of 9
overall. There was variation in understanding of DI concepts among the participants.
In addition to the teachers overall level of understanding of DI, tests were conducted to
examine the level of understanding in the major subcategories - student interest, assessment,
lesson planning, content, process and product.
The Six Components of DI: Understanding
The six components were analysed in depth to understand the level of understanding per
component. The categories were listed by order of highest understanding. Table 3 illustrates the
data for each component.
Table 3: The Six Components of DI: Understanding
The Six Components of DI: Understanding
Rank Components Average Mean Standard Median Mode

per Item Deviation
Rating
1 Assessment 3.53 17.65 2.10 18.00 20.00
2 Content 3.50 13.88 1.77 14.00 16.00
3 Student Interest 1.46 13.85 2.02 14.00 16.00
4 Lesson Plan 3.36 16.79 2.48 17.00 19.00
5 Product 3.24 12.85 2.28 13.00 16.00
6 Process 3.19 12.76 2.58 13.00 12.00
Assessment. Overall, assessment was rated the highest meaning teachers understand this
area the best. Assessment is a key component of DI. There are several aspects of assessment
Tomlinson (2010) highlights are important such as conduct pre-assessments, provide formative
and summative assessments and assess learning styles.

31
There were five survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible score total of 4 to
20. There were 34 teachers who responded to the five items related to assessment. Of those 34,
there was a mean score for understanding assessment of 17.65 out of 20.00, a standard deviation
2.1, a median score of 18.00 and a mode of 20. Out of the six components of DI, assessment
scored first with an average item rating of 3.53 out of 4.00.
Content. Another component of DI analysed was content and there were four items the
teachers were surveyed on. Teachers were asked to rate their level of understanding regarding
what their curriculum is based on, if they articulate what they want students to know, use a
variety of materials and if they provide a variety of support materials. Tomlinson (2010) defines
content as, the knowledge, understanding, and skills we want students to learn (p. 15). DI
focuses on using varied methods to achieve the same content.
Overall, content was rated the second highest area that teachers understand. The content
category contained four survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to
16. Given the 34 teachers who participated in this section, there was a mean score of 13.88, a
standard deviation of 1.77, a median score of 14.00 and a mode score of 16.00. The average item
rating for content was 3.50. This mean that participants on average chose 3 or higher, which puts
content in 2nd place for understanding. According to Tomlinson and McTighe (2006), we use
content to make sense of our world and as we grasp the key concepts and principles of any
subject, it helps to better understand ourselves, our lives, and our world.
Student Interest. Using student interest when teaching is a vital component of
differentiated instruction. DI suggests teachers understand student culture, individual student life
situations and students learning abilities and disabilities.

32
There were four survey items rated on a one to four score of 1 to 16. The 34 teachers
survey responded to the four items related to student interest. Of those 34, there was a mean
score for understanding student interest of 13.85 out of 16.00, a standard deviation of 2.02, a
median of 14.00 and a mode of 16.00. By looking at the six components of DI, student interest
came in 3rd with an average item rating of 3.46 out of 4.00.
Lesson Planning. Another category on the survey which teachers were asked to rate
their level of understanding was lesson planning. There were five items including teaching up to
all learners, having varied materials, scaffolding, having learners take a role in designing
learning activities, and providing assessment which requires students to apply skills.
There were five survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 5 to
20. There were 34 teachers who answered questions related to lesson planning and of those 34
there was a mean score of 16.79, a standard deviation of 2.48, a median score of 17.00 and a
mode of 19.00. Of the six components, lesson planning scored fourth in understanding DI with
an average item rating of 3.36 out of 4.00.
Product. The survey asked teachers to rate their level of understanding of the product
category. This category had four items for teachers to rate, which asked if they provide multiple
mode of expression, provide students with the choice to work along, in group or pairs, if the
product connects to student interest and if a variety of assessments are used.
There were four items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to 16. Of
of the 34 responses, product had a total mean score of 12.85 out of 16.00, a standard deviation
2.28, a median score of 13.00 and a mode score of 16.00. By looking at the six components of
DI, product came in 5th with an average per item rating 3.24 out of 4.00. This indicates product
is on eth the least understood components of DI according to the survey results.

33
Process. Process addresses the rate of instruction, using learner preference groups,
grouping students based on readiness and setting up a structured classroom environment.
Process can be referred to the sense-making activities students engage in order to retain,
apply, and transfer content (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010, p. 15).
The category of process placed last, sixth, for teachers ability to understand. This is
concerning because it will suggest that teachers not creating a conducive environment for
learning in turn possibly denying the learner from advancing his/her own thinking. There were
four survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to 16. Of the 34
responses, process had a total mean score of 12.76 out of 16.00, a standard deviation 2.58, a
median score of 13.00 and a mode score of 12.00. There was an average per item rating of 3.19
out of 4.00.
Overall, teachers have a general understanding of differentiated instruction, but there are
components teachers understand more thoroughly based on the categorical statistics. In
descending order the following components were understood best by respondents to the survey:
assessment, content, student interest, lesson plan, product and process.
Support for the Struggling Learner
The researchers utilised descriptive statistics to examine the variation in teachers
responses to 26 items in Section I, Part B, Support for the Struggling Learner. The following
values were assigned to the response categories: 1 - Not important, 2 - Somewhat Important, 3 -
Fair important, and 4 -Very important. Individual item responses were summed across the 26
questions to find a total score of understanding. Total scores ranged from 103 to 129 with a
median of 119. The mean score on support for the struggling learner was 117 with a standard
34
deviation of 7. Overall. There was variation in the support of the struggling learner of DI
concepts among the participants.
In addition to analysing the overall scores for using DI to support struggling learners,
tests were conducted to examine the level of support in the major subcategories - student interest,
assessment, lesson planning, content, process and product.
The Six Components of Differentiated Instruction: Support
Understanding differentiated instruction is important but the researchers next purpose
was to determine if teachers understand DI, are they able to use it to support struggling learners
in the classroom.
Table 4: The Six Components of DI: Support for Struggling Learner
The Six Components of DI: Support for Struggling Learner
Rank Components Average Per Mean Standard Median Mode

Item Rating Deviation
1 Content 3.51 13.97 1.96 15.00 15.00
2 Assessment 3.51 17.18 3.39 18.00 20.00
3 Student Interest 3.45 13.79 2.40 14.50 16.00
4 Product 3.44 13.76 2.22 14.00 16.00
5 Process 3.41 13.65 2.32 14.00 16.00
6 Lesson Planning 3.39 16.94 2.83 17.00 20.00
Content. Content as well as assessment tied for first place in the area of support for
struggling learners, with four items to be assessed by 34 teachers. The category content
contained four survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to 16.
There was a total mean score of 13.97, a standard deviation of 1.96, a median score of 15.00 and
a mode score of 15.00. Teachers had an average per rating of 3.51, which puts content as the
35
highest component of DI used to support struggling learners. There was a difference per item
rating of 0.01 (marginal when compared to understanding). While content was rated number 1
here, it was rated second in Understanding.
There were two categories that tied for first place: content and assessment.
Assessment. Assessment tied for first place with Content as DI components used to
support the struggling learner. The component was assessed by 34 teachers. There were five
survey items to be assessed on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to 20.
Assessment scored a mean score of 17.18 out of 20.00, a standard deviation of 3.39, a median
score of 18.00 and a mode score of 20.00. Teachers had an average item rating of 3.51 (same as
Content). Assessment was rated 0.02 higher in understanding than in support.
Student Interest. Another category on the survey to be assessed was student interest.
The student interest component had a total of 34 responses across the four items. The student
interest category contained four survey items rated on a one to four scale for a possible total
score of 4 to 16. Student interest has a total mean score of 13.79 out of 16.00, a standard
deviation of 2.40, a median score of 14.50 and a mode score of 16.00. The average per item
rating was 3.45 out of 4.00. Given these numbers, student interest was rated as the third most
component used to support the struggling learner. Student interest had a difference of 0.1 higher
in understanding. But student interest tied for third place in both understanding and the support
for the struggling learner.
Product. There we 34 teachers who responded to the category of product. There were
four items to rate on a one to four scale for a possible total score of 4 to 16. There were 34
responses with a total mean score of 13.76 out of 16.00, a standard deviation of 2.22, a median
score of 14.00 and a mode score of 16.00. Teachers had an average per rating item of 3.44 out of
36
4.00 which place product as the fourth most component used to support the struggling learning.
Product is ranked higher in support than understanding with a difference of 0.20 more per item
rating.
Process. Process placed fifth and ranked as one of the least used component in support
of the struggling learner. The category was assessed by 34 teachers. This question asked how
often they used process, such as pace of instruction, learning preference groups, grouping
students based on readiness and if they have a structured classroom environment to support a
variety of activities. This category contained four survey items rated on a one to four scale for a
possible total score of 4 to 16. The mean score across the four items was 13.65 out of 16.00,
with a standard deviation of 2.32, a median score of 14.00 and a mode score of 16.00. The
average per item rating was 3.41 out of 4.00. There was an average per item rating difference of
0.22, used for support higher than understanding.
Lesson planning. Lesson planning placed last, sixth as a component least used to
support the struggling learner. Lesson planning had five items to rate on a one to four scale for a
possible score of 4 to 20. There was a total mean score of 16.94 out of 20.00, a standard
deviation of 2.83, a median score of 17.00 and a mode score of 20.00. Teachers had an average
item rating of 3.339 out of 4.00 making lesson planning the least used component of
differentiated instruction. There is an average rate per item difference of 0.03 for lesson
planning, with support for the struggling learner scoring higher than understanding.
Overall, teachers generally use DI in support of the struggling learner. In descending
order of support for the struggling learner, teachers rated the six components as follow: content,
assessment, student interest, product, process and lesson planning. The data reveals that they
37
understood and use the components of content, assessment and student interest more than the
components of lesson planning, process and product in support of the struggling learner.
Analysis of Individual Responses: Understanding
Section II of the survey, Part A analyzes the participants understanding of differentiated
instruction.
Student Interest: 62% of teachers surveyed indicated that student interest was very
important, 29% of teachers surveyed stated it was fairly important and 9% of teachers surveyed
identified student interest as somewhat important.
47% of teachers surveyed indicated that knowledge of students culture was very
important, 41% of teachers surveyed stated it as fairly important and 12% of teachers surveyed
stated somewhat important. In response to the importance of the knowledge of students life
situations and how it may impact their learning, 56% of teachers surveyed stated it was very
important, 41% indicated it as fairly important and 3% stated somewhat important. Moreover,
62% acknowledged that awareness of students learning disabilities and handicaps and how to
38
address them in lessons to support instruction as being very important, while 23% viewed it as
fairly important, 12% somewhat important and 3% not important.
Assessment. With reference to assessment, 59% of teachers stated that pre-assessing
students prior to instruction is very important, 26% of teachers stated fairly important, 12% of
teachers stated somewhat important and 3% of teachers stated not important.
Additionally, 50% deems pre assessing readiness to adjust the lesson as very important,
26% of teachers stated fairly important, 20% stated somewhat important and 3% stated not
important. 82% view assessing during the unit to gauge understanding as very important, and
18% as fairly important. Additionally, 76% deem assessing students at the end of the lesson to
determine their acquisition of knowledge as very important and the other 24% view it as fairly
important. Determining students learning style is viewed as very important by 47% of the
respondents, fairly important by 47% and somewhat important by 6%.
Lesson planning. In reference to lesson planning, 59% regard teaching to ensure each
student works towards their highest potential as very important, 30% as fairly important and 11%
39
as somewhat important.
56% agree that it is very important to vary and adjust materials to suit students reading/interest
abilities, 32% as fairly important and 12% as somewhat important. 26.5% acknowledge that it is
very important for learners to play a role in designing or selecting learning activities, 44% regard
it as fairly important ,26.5% some what important and 3% as not important. 50% view utilizing
40
tiered instruction, scaffolding and providing student choice as very important, 32% fairly
important and 18% somewhat important. Moreover, 65% regard providing tasks that require
students to apply and extend their understanding as very important, 32% fairly important and
18% somewhat important.
Content. Based on the analysis of the participants views on content 41% indicated that is
very important that the curriculum is based on major concepts and generalizations, 41% also
stated that it was fairly important, 15% claimed that it is somewhat important and 3% did not
41
indicate a response.
68% indicated that they think clearly articulating what they want students to know,
understand and be able to do is very important, 29% fairly important and 3% somewhat
important. The use of a variety of materials other than the standard text is very important for
79% of the participants, fairly important for 18% and 3% somewhat important. 41% deem it
42
very important to provide a variety of strategies, while 41% also deem it fairly important and
12% deem it somewhat important. The provision of a variety of support strategies was indicated
as very important by 44% , 38% fairly important and 18% somewhat important.
Process. With regards to the process 65% indicated that it is very important that the pace
of instruction varies based on individual learner needs, 29% stated fairly important, 3% stated
43
somewhat important and 3% stated not important.
24% indicate that using learner preference groups and or learning preference centers is very
important, 38% somewhat important, 35% somewhat important and 3% not important. Grouping
44
students for activities based on readiness, interests and or learning preferences is very important
for 44%, fairly important for 41% and somewhat important for 15%. It is very important that the
classroom environment is structured to support a variety of activities including group and or
individual work for 41%, fairly important for 35%, somewhat important for 15% and not
important for 9%. 41% deem the classroom environment as being structured to support a variety
of activities including group and or individual work, fairly important for 35%, somewhat
important for 15% and not important for 9%.
Product: Respondents state that providing multiple modes of expression in the final
product to 41% of them, fairly important to 41%, and somewhat important to 18%. 35% indicate
that it is very important to provide students with a choice to work alone, in pairs or small group,
45
29% fairly important, 21% somewhat important and 15% not important.
46
41% agree that it is very important for the product to connect with student interest, 50% fairly
important and 9% somewhat important. It is very important to provide a variety of assessment
task for 56%, 38% fairly important, 3% somewhat important and 3% did not respond.
Analysis of Individual Responses: Support
Section I, Part B of the survey identifies the respondents viewpoint on utilizing
differentiated instruction to support the struggling learner.
Student Interest: 53% indicate that it is very important relate interest to instruction,
44% fairly important and 3% not important.

47
Relating culture and expectation to instruction is very important for 50%, fairly important for
41% and somewhat important for 9%. 44% indicated that awareness of life situation and its
impact on learning is very important, 41% fairly important, 9% somewhat important and 3% not
important. Knowledge of disabilities and how to address them in lessons so as not to impair
learning is very important to 59%, fairly important to 35% and somewhat important to 6%.
Assessment. 50% deem pre-assessment before instruction very important, 32% as fairly
important, 15% as somewhat important and 3% as not important.

48
In response to pre assessing to adjust the lesson 50% indicated that it was very important, 35% as
fairly important, 9% as somewhat important, 3% as not important and 3 % did not respond. 73%
indicated that assessment during the unit to gauge the lesson as very important, while 18% stated
that it was fairly important, 6% indicated that it was somewhat important and 3% did not
respond. Assessment after the lesson to determine knowledge acquisition was very important to
70%, fairly important to 29%, somewhat important to 3% and 3% did not respond. 56% deemed
it very important to determine students learning styles, 38% fairly important, 3% somewhat
important and 3% did not respond.
Lesson Planning. As it pertains to lesson planning, 59% believe that is very important to
teach up to ensure that each student works towards their highest potential, 29% indicated it was
fairly important, 9% as somewhat important and 3% did not respond.

49
53% indicate that it is very important that materials are varied to adjust to students reading
interests/ abilities, 41% stated that it was fairly important and 6% viewed it as somewhat
important. Allowing learners to play a role in the designing/selecting learning materials was
very important for 29%, fairly important for 47%, somewhat important for 20% and not
important for 3%. 56% deemed adjusting for diverse learner needs with scaffolding, tiering
instruction and providing student choice in learning activities as very important, 26% as fairly
important, 15% as somewhat important and 6% as somewhat important. When asked about
providing tasks that require students to apply and extend understanding 62% indicated that it is
very important, 32% fairly important and 6 % as somewhat important.
Content. The respondents were also questioned based on their views as to how content is
implemented to support the struggling learner.

50
32% stated that it is very important that the curriculum is based on major concepts and
generalizations, 50% deemed it fairly important, 9% as somewhat important, 6% as not
important and 3% did not respond. 73% state that it is very important to clearly articulate what
they want they students to know , understand and be able to do, 21% state it is fairly important
and 6% as somewhat important. 79% indicated that it is very important to use a variety material
other than standard text and 21%indicated it as fairly important. Providing a variety of support
strategies such as organizers, study guides or study buddies is very important to 65% , fairly
important to 20%, somewhat important to 12% and not important to 3%.
Process. In response to how the process can support the struggling learner, 65% indicated
that it is very important that the pace of instruction varies based on individual learner needs and
35% indicated that it was fairly important.

51
38% identified the use of learner preference groups and or learner preference centers as very
important, 38% fairly important and 23% as somewhat important. In response to the importance
of grouping students for learning activities based on readiness, interests and or learning 65%
considered it very important, 26% fairly important, 6% somewhat important and 3% not
important. 53% considered it very important that the classroom environment is structured to
support a variety of activities including group work and or individual work. Additionally, 29%
considered it fairly important, 15% somewhat important and 3% not important.
Product. Respondents views in regard to how the product can be used to support the
struggling learner composed of 59% indicating that it is very to provide multiple modes of
expression in the final product, 35% indicating that it is fairly important and 6% indicating that it
is somewhat important.
52
44% view providing students with the choice to work alone, in pairs or small group as very
important, 32% as fairly important, 18% as somewhat important and 6% as not important. It was
indicated by 53% that it is very important that the product connects with student interest, fairly
important by 44% and somewhat important by 3%. Finally, 68% deemed it very important to
provide a variety of assessment task, 23% considered it fairly important and 9% somewhat
important.
Conclusions
Based on the data, one hundred per cent of the participants were knowledgeable about
differentiated instruction and had some level of DI training, whether they were mentored by a
colleague, as a part of an inservice activity, attendance at conferences, meetings and or
workshops and or on completion of a college or university course .
All of the respondents in the study possess at minimum an understanding of the basic
tenets of differentiated instruction. However, their position in regards to the importance of

53
comprehending differentiated instruction in reference to student interest, assessment, lesson
planning, content, process and product ranks these components as being fairly important.
Furthermore, it can be deduced that their belief systems about how important differentiated
instruction is for supporting the struggling learner in reference to the above mentioned principles
is very important for most of the respondents while tethering amongst being fairly important,
somewhat important and in some instances not important for the remaining respondents. Thus
indicating that there is a need to institute further training to support teachers in the
implementation of differentiated instruction
Recommendations
The data analyzed in this study indicates that teachers have a fundamental understanding
of differentiated instruction and how DI can be used to support the struggling adolescent learner.
As a result, they are armed with general knowledge about how to implement and foster a
differentiated classroom environment. Despite this knowledge there are still areas that hinder
effective implementation of the strategy to support struggling high school students. To this end,
the following recommendations are to be considered based on the data indicated.
Differentiated instruction should be a whole school focus. To accomplish this administrators
must first be trained in the tenets, guiding principles and implementation of DI so that they can
be knowledgeable about the practice, capable of making informed decisions along with the
practitioners and armed with knowledge to monitor and provide support when needed.
Teachers should be provided with continued training and support in differentiated instruction in
order to effectively and efficiently implement it to support struggling students. It should be
promoted as an effective strategy to support struggling students in all content areas. All teachers
should engage in in-depth training. Training should extend beyond two to five day workshops;
rather, teachers should be actively engaged in ongoing professional development so that they
54
can gain an understanding of the six guiding principles of differentiated instruction, identified
throughout the literature by proponents of DI (Manning, 2010; Reis et al., 2011; Tomlinson,
2013; Hamdan & Mattarima, 2012; Reeves & Stanford, 2009; Hertberg-Davis, 2009). In short,
there is the need for the application of the tenets of these principles to teachers pedagogy to
effectively support the struggling learner in the high school classroom. The dominant themes
identified include:
Awareness and comprehension of students
Establishing a conducive learning environment
Provision of researched-based dynamic and motivating curriculum
Promotion of high expectations
Variation in assessment procedures
Encouragement of sharing responsibilities
Additionally, teachers from each subject area should be identified as key persons as
mentors to support teachers throughout the year and serve as a resource persons for the
implementation of DI. These DI gurus or champions should be responsible for conducting
further professional development throughout the year and demonstrating best practices in DI
when necessary.
Teachers should also be encouraged to keep a repertoire of strategies and practices that they have
found to be effective, thus promoting the successful implementation of DI in reference to
student interest, assessment, lesson planning, content process and product. This compilation can
be used as a resource to assist current and future teachers at their schools and throughout their
respective countries.
In summary, it is evident that the teachers who made up the sample population are in
possession of philosophies which support the implementation of differentiated instruction.
However, much work is needed in moving beyond mere head knowledge, towards the practical
55
application of the principles and tenets of differentiated instruction for the support of struggling
learners among the teachers surveyed.

56
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
psychological association (6th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association
Bender, W. N. (2013). Differentiating math instruction, K-8 common core mathematics in the
21st century classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Browne, L. (2007). St Vincent and the Grenadines: Caribbean symposium on inclusive
education.
UNESCO International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Inclusive_Education/Reports/kingston_07/stvi
ncent_grenadines_inclusion_07.pdf
Butler, R. (2014). Major teacher training under US $13.4 million CDB project. Antigua Observer
Newspaper. Retrieved from http://antiguaobserver.com/major-teacher-training-under-us-
13-4-million-cdb-project/
Conkin, W. (2011). Activities for a differentiated classroom: Standards & research based.
Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education
Creswell, J. W. (2008a). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches, London: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012b). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated Instruction,
57
Professional Development, and Teacher Efficacy. Journal for The Education Of The
Gifted, 37(2), 111-127. doi:10.1177/0162353214529042
Doubet, K. & Hockett, J. (2015). Differentiation in middle and high school: Strategies to engage
all learners.
Hamdan, A. R., & Mattarima, K. (2012). Flexible differentiated instruction in heterogeneous
classrooms as a destination of congruent curriculum. International Conference on
Education and Management Innovation, 30(4), 280-285.
Hamm, M. & Adams, D. (2013). Differentiated instruction for K-8 Math and Science: Ideas,
activities and lesson plans. New York, NY: Routledge
Harman, P. (2014). Experiences and challenges of middle and high school teachers who
implement differentiated instruction (Order No. 3613280). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1511456730). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1511456730?accountid=42537
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach
all learners. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing Inc.
Heale, R. & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. doi:
10.1136/eb-2015-102129
Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to
gifted programs and is sufficient. Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to
differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253. doi:
10.1177/0016986209346927
Instrument, Validity, Reliability. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://researchrundowns.com/quantitative-methods/instrument-validity-reliability/)
58
Hobgood,B. & Ormsby. Inclusion in the 21st century classroom: Differentiating with technology.
Learn NC. Retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/every-learner/6776
Johnson, S. (2016). Advantages & Disadvantages of Positivism | eHow. eHow. from
http://www.ehow.com/info_12088541_advantages-disadvantages-positivism.html
Joseph, S. (2013). Differentiated Instruction: Experiences of preservice and in-service trained
teachers. Caribbean Curriculum. 20, 31-51. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Joseph9/publication/276058138_DIFFERE
NTIATING_INSTRUCTION_Experiences_of_Pre-Service_and_In-
Service_Trained_Teachers/links/554f65a208ae93634ec86665.pdf?
origin=publication_detail
Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated
Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. International
Journal of Higher Education, 2(3).
Kendrick-Weikle, K. (2015). Illinois high school teachers' understanding and use of
differentiated
instruction (Order No. 3713728). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1698462973). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698462973?
accountid=42537
Kiley, D. (2011). Differentiated instruction in the secondary classroom: Analysis of the level of
implementation and factors that influence practice (Order No. 3455173). Available from
ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (868148473). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/868148473?accountid=42537
Least, S. K. (2014). Differentiated instruction: Its effect on proximal development. Education

59
and Human Development, New York. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1512&context=ehd_theses
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Planning and design.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping
every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas 81 (4), 161-164. Retrieved from:
http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/images/c/c1/Di_unit_1b.pdf
Magazine, R. (2015). EDUCATION Antigua International School - Revue Magazine. Revue
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.revuemag.com/2015/10/education-antigua-
international-school/
Manning, S., Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2010).Valuing the advanced learner: Differentiating up.
The Clearing House, 83, 145-149. doi: 10.1080/00098651003774851
Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., & Gowlett, C. (2014).
Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3),
331-348. doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.911725
OREALC/UNESCO Santiago. (2012). Background and criteria for teachers policies
development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile.
Positivism & Post-Positivism. (2016). Socialresearchmethods.net. Retrieved from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
Reeves, S., & Stanford, P. (2009). Rubrics for the classroom: Assessments for students and
teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(1), 2427.

60
Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. (2011). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Cengage
Learning
Spencer-Ernandez, J. & Edwards-Kerr, D. (2012). Review of Montserrats primary and
secondary schools organisation and instructional practices in curriculum delivery.
Stanford, B. & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit
framework, and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,
5(6).
Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R., 2011. Making sense of Cronbachs alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, pp.5355.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205511/
Tomlinson, C. (2013, March). Differentiating instruction using common core standards.
[PowerPoint research presentation]. Presented at Best Practices Institute spring workshop
conducted at the Institutes on Academic Diversity, Curry School of Education, University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom.
Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by
design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
UNICEF Eastern Caribbean, (2015). An introduction to effective school principles for secondary
schools. UNICEF Eastern Caribbean Office.

61
Valiande, S. & Koutselini, M. (2009). Application and evaluation of differentiation instruction
in mixed ability classrooms. Retrieved from
https://ucy.ac.cy/release/documents/Publications/English/DifferentiationInstructionInMixedAbili
tyClassrooms.pdf
Whipple, K., (2012). Differentiated Instruction: A Survey Study of Teacher Understanding and
Implementation in a Southeast Massachusetts School District, ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
62
Appendix A
Differentiated Instruction Survey
Part A: Teacher Survey on Differentiated Instruction (Sections A & B)
Part B: Background Demographics Data Figure
The purpose of the following survey is to investigate the knowledge secondary school teachers
possess in using differentiated instructions and to what extent it is used to assist the learners who
are struggling.
Participation in this survey is voluntary. In choosing to complete the following survey you agree
to participate in the following study. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to
complete. Confidentiality is assured. Returns of the survey to the research act as the
participants consent for their responses to be compiled with others.
Please read each question carefully and accurately answer the following items by circling the
number in the left column indicating the level of importance for each item in Section I. In
Section II, circle the number indicating the level of use. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
63
Section I Part A: Understanding of Differentiated Instruction

(1) Not Important (3) Fairly Important
(2) Somewhat Important (4) Very Important
Student Interest
I know individual student interest and can relate it to

1. 1 2 3 4 instruction.
I know individual student culture and expectations and can

2. 1 2 3 4 relate to instruction.
I know individual student life situations and how it may

3. 1 2 3 4 impact their learning.
I am aware of student's learning disabilities and handicaps and

how to address them in lessons so as not to impair their
4. 1 2 3 4 learning.
Assessment
5. 1 2 3 4 I pre-assess students before instructing.
6. 1 2 3 4 I pre-assess readiness to adjust the lesson.
7. 1 2 3 4 I assess during the unit to gauge understanding.
I assess at the end of the lesson to determine knowledge

8. 1 2 3 4 acquisition.
9. 1 2 3 4 I determine students learning styles.
Lesson Planning
10 I teach up by assuring each student works towards their

. 1 2 3 4 highest potential.
11 Materials are varied to adjust to students reading/interest

. 1 2 3 4 abilities
12
. 1 2 3 4 Learners play a role in designing/selecting learning activities.
64
13 I adjust for diverse learner needs with scaffolding, tiering

. 1 2 3 4 instruction & provide student choice in learning activities.
14 I provide tasks that require students to apply and extend

. 1 2 3 4 understanding.
Content
15
. 1 2 3 4 The curriculum is based on major concepts and generalizations
16 I clearly articulate what I want students to know, understand

. 1 2 3 4 and be able to do.
17
. 1 2 3 4 I use variety of materials other than the standard text.
18 I provide a variety of support strategies (organizers, study

. 1 2 3 4 guides, study buddies).
Process
19 The pace of instruction varies based on individual learner

. 1 2 3 4 needs.
20 I use learner preference groups and/or learning preference

. 1 2 3 4 centers
21 I group students for learning activities based on readiness,

. 1 2 3 4 interests, and/or learning preferences.
22 The classroom environment is structured to support a variety

. 1 2 3 4 of activities including group and/or individual work.
Product
23
. 1 2 3 4 I provide multiple modes of expression in the final product.
24 I provide students with the choice to work alone, in pairs or

. 1 2 3 4 small group.
25
. 1 2 3 4 The product connects with student interest.
65
26
. 1 2 3 4 I provide variety of assessment tasks.
Table 1: Differentiated Instruction: A Survey Study of Teacher Understanding and
Implementation in a Southeast Massachusetts School District (Whipple, 2012).

66
Section I Part B: Support for the Struggling Learner

(1) Not Important (3) Fairly Important
(2) Somewhat
Important (4) Very Important
Student Interest
1. 1 2 3 4 I know individual student interest and can relate it to instruction.
I know individual student culture and expectations and can relate

2. 1 2 3 4 to instruction.
I know individual student life situations and how it may impact

3. 1 2 3 4 their learning.
I am aware of student's learning disabilities and handicaps and how

4. 1 2 3 4 to address them in lessons so as not to impair their learning.
Assessment
5. 1 2 3 4 I pre-assess students before instructing.
6. 1 2 3 4 I pre-assess readiness to adjust the lesson.
7. 1 2 3 4 I assess during the unit to gauge understanding.
I assess at the end of the lesson to determine knowledge

8. 1 2 3 4 acquisition.
9. 1 2 3 4 I determine students learning styles.
Lesson Planning
10 I teach up by assuring each student works towards their highest

. 1 2 3 4 potential.
11
. 1 2 3 4 Materials are varied to adjust to students reading/interest abilities
12
. 1 2 3 4 Learners play a role in designing/selecting learning activities.
13 I adjust for diverse learner needs with scaffolding, tiering

. 1 2 3 4 instruction & provide student choice in learning activities.
67
14 I provide tasks that require students to apply and extend

. 1 2 3 4 understanding.
Content
15
. 1 2 3 4 The curriculum is based on major concepts and generalizations
16 I clearly articulate what I want students to know, understand and be

. 1 2 3 4 able to do.
17
. 1 2 3 4 I use variety of materials other than the standard text.
18 I provide a variety of support strategies (organizers, study guides,

. 1 2 3 4 study buddies).
Process
19
. 1 2 3 4 The pace of instruction varies based on individual learner needs.
20
. 1 2 3 4 I use learner preference groups and/or learning preference centers
21 I group students for learning activities based on readiness,

. 1 2 3 4 interests, and/or learning preferences.
22 The classroom environment is structured to support a variety of

. 1 2 3 4 activities including group and/or individual work.
Product
23
. 1 2 3 4 I provide multiple modes of expression in the final product.
24 I provide students with the choice to work alone, in pairs or small

. 1 2 3 4 group.
25
. 1 2 3 4 The product connects with student interest.
26
. 1 2 3 4 I provide variety of assessment tasks.
68
Table 2: Differentiated Instruction: A Survey Study of Teacher Understanding and
Implementation in a Southeast Massachusetts School District (Whipple, 2012).
Section II: Background Demographics Data
Please complete the following questions
1. Caribbean island your school is located
o Antigua/Barbuda o Bahamas o St Vincent o Trinidad
2. Current subject area taught:
____________________________________________________________________
3. What type of teacher are you?
o Qualified (Trained) Teacher o Unqualified (Untrained) Teacher
4. Current grade taught
o Form 1/Grade 7 o Form 2/Grade 8 o Form 3/Grade 9
o Form 4/Grade 10 o Form 5/Grade 11 o Form 6/Grade 12
5. . Gender
o Male o Female
6. Your age range
o 21-25 years o 26-30 years o 31-35 years o36-40 years
o 41-45 years o 46-50 years o 51-55 years o 56-60 years
7. Education Level (check all that apply)
o Certificate in Education o Bachelors Degree

69
o Bachelors in Education o Diploma in Education
o Post Graduate Diploma in Education o Masters Degree
o Masters Degree in Education o Doctoral Degree
o Other (please specify) ______________________________________________________
8. How many years have you been teaching?
o 1-3 years o 4-10 years o 11-15 years o 16-20 years
o 21-25 years o 26-30 years o 30+ years
9. I would describe my differentiated instruction experience as:
o Very little o Little o Moderate o Much o Very much
10. If you have been trained in differentiated instructions, how did you receive your training
(click all that apply)?
o Course from College or University
o Teleconference
o Learned on my own through readings
o Mentored by a colleague
o In-service activity
o Conferences, meetings, or workshops
o Other: Please specify _____________________________________
11. Please expand on the training you had
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
70
12. Will you recommend the use of differentiated instruction? State why.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. I sincerely appreciate your time, effort and
honest responses.
71
Appendix B
Teacher/DI Survey Code Book
Section II: Background Demographics Data
Participant ID:
Ranges 10001 10008 20001 20008 30001 30008 40001 - 40008
Q1. Caribbean island your school is located
1= Antigua/Barbuda 2= Bahamas 3= St Vincent 4= Trinidad
Q2. Current subject area taught: Subject Name
Q3. What type of teacher are you?
1 = Qualified (Trained) Teacher 2 = Unqualified (Untrained) Teacher
Q4. Current grade taught
1 = Form 1/Grade 7 2 = Form 2/Grade 8 3 = Form 3/Grade 9
4 = Form 4/Grade 10 5 = Form 5/Grade 11 6 = Form 6/Grade 12
Q5. Gender
1 = Male 2 = Female
Q6. Your age range
1 = 21-25 years 2 = 26-30 years 3 = 31-35 years 4 = 36-40 years
5 = 41-45 years 6 = 46-50 years 7 = 51-55 years 8 = 56-60 years
Q7. Education Level (check all that apply)
1 = Certificate in Education 2 = Bachelors Degree

72
3 = Bachelors in Education 4 = Diploma in Education
5 = Post Graduate Diploma in Education 6 = Masters Degree
7 = Masters Degree in Education 8 = Doctoral Degree
9 = Other : Qualification Name
Q8. How many years have you been teaching?
1 = 1-3 years 2 = 4-10 years 3 = 11-15 years 4=16-20 years
5 = 21-25 years 6 = 26-30 years 7 = 30+ years
Q9. I would describe my differentiated instruction experience as:
1 = None 2 = Some 3 = Extensive
Q10. If you have been trained, what type of training have you had (click all that apply)?
1 = Course from College or University
2 = Teleconference
3 = Learned on my own through readings
4 = Mentored by a colleague
5 = In-service activity
6 = Conferences, meetings, or workshops
7 = Other: Please specify _____________________________________
Q11. Please expand on the training you had: Statement on training
Q12. Will you recommend the use of differentiated instruction? State why. Justify
recommendation.
73
Appendix C
Letter to MOE in Survey Participating Islands

Date:
Address:
To:
From:
Subject: Request for permission to conduct a study on use of differentiated instructional
strategies in Caribbean secondary schools
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am an instructional design/literacy student currently pursuing studies at the University of the
West Indies Open Campus. I am seeking permission to conduct a survey/questionnaire to add to
the body of knowledge in the region about approaches to instruction that can help struggling
students to succeed.
Presently, we are engaged in exploring topics of interest in Education in the Research
Methodology course to discover if differentiated instruction is used by secondary school
teachers, and to what degree use of differentiated instructional strategies impacts and influences
the success of the struggling student in the Caribbean classroom. Participation of 8 teachers is
being sought as a fraction of the representative sample in the survey in participating islands.
I will be happy to meet with you soonest to discuss the above, as the conduct of the survey is
expected to be completed by November 15th to facilitate analysis of the data before the end of
the semester on 30th November for submission of the research study findings.
Yours faithfully,
Name
74
Participation Report
Dr Jameson, all members committed fully to the assignment. We had no issues, no hiccups, no
bad blood. This was a group of mature ladies who knew what they were about.
Thank you however, for always extending courtesies when we needed them the most.
It has been a pleasure and we wish you a Merry Christmas and a bright and prosperous New
Year!

Group5 Edls6507 Assignment3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group5 Edls6507 Assignment3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: EVIDENCE OF ITS USE

EDLS 6507 Research Methods

Differentiated Instruction: Evidence of Its Use

to Support the Struggling Learner at Four Caribbean Secondary Schools

Donnette Abbott-Ferdinand 308003507

Genevieve Cox 315102220

Kendia Ferguson-Simmons - 315104547

Brehaniea Wight 309101654

Email Addresses: genevieve.cox@my.open.uwi.edu

University: University of the West Indies (UWI) Open Campus

Group Facilitator: Dr. Madgerie Jameson-Charles

Course Coordinator: Dr. Madgerie Jameson-Charles

The Aim/Purpose of the Research................................................................................................6

The Research Setting...................................................................................................................7

Identification of Research Problem..............................................................................................8

Significance of the Research........................................................................................................9

The Case for Differentiated Instructions....................................................................................11

Benefits of Differentiated Instruction to the Teacher.................................................................11

Challenges with Implementing Differentiated Instruction.........................................................12

Research Design and Methodology...............................................................................................14

Description of Sample Size........................................................................................................17

Sampling Strategy and Justification...........................................................................................17

Description of Data Collection Instrument................................................................................18

Validity and Reliability..............................................................................................................19

Data Analysis Procedure............................................................................................................20

Differentiated Instruction Survey..................................................................................................58

Letter to MOE in Survey Participating Islands..............................................................................69

Table 1: Number of Teachers Surveyed Based on Location.27

Table 2: Teacher Status..28

Table 3: The Six Components of DI: Understanding29

Figure 1: Count/Relative Frequency % of Grade Taught....24

Figure 3: Count/Relative Frequency of Education Level.26

Figure 4: Teaching Service....27

Figure 6: Count/Relative Frequency of DI Training..28

knowledge to inform their pedagogy to support their struggling learners.

Keywords: differentiated instructions, struggling learner

Differentiated Instruction: Evidence of Its Use

to Support the Struggling Learner at Four Caribbean Secondary Sls

Teachers occupy an irreplaceable position in transforming education and enhancing

experience of Caribbean secondary schools, then an alternative instructional philosophy must be

The Aim/Purpose of the Research

The Research Setting

professionally trained and specialize in the various disciplines.

their diverse students.

The research advanced a new understanding of the acceptance and presence of

widespread the practice of differentiation is at the secondary schools studied.

not offer much flexibility and variation in supporting struggling students.

supporting struggling learners using differentiated instruction. Additionally, the principles of

use of Differentiated Instruction?

Significance of the Research

embedded in differentiated instruction.

Differentiated Instruction affords teachers the opportunity to implement research-proven

implementation within the wider Caribbean context.

further investigations can be established.

to the student (Kiley, 2011).

The Case for Differentiated Instructions

self-efficacy beliefs were important to teachers in the process of differentiating instruction

the needs of the learner to improve the student's academic performance.

Benefits of Differentiated Instruction to the Teacher

change, enrich and perfect their practice as they do so.

needs (Joseph, Thomas, Simonette, & Ramsook, 2013).

Notwithstanding these documented benefits, many teachers argue that differentiation

Christie, Geelan, & Gowlett, 2014).