Kopecka Final Version
-
Upload
nurhan-coekmez -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Kopecka Final Version
![Page 1: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Department of English Language and Literature
Differentiation Reflected in Coursebooks
Global Intermediate and New English File
Intermediate and Suggestions for Improvement
Final thesis
Brno 2013
Supervisor: PhDr. Helena Havlíčková Author: Mgr. Kateřina Kopecká
![Page 2: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Bibliografický záznam
KOPECKÁ, Kateřina. Differentiation Reflected in Coursebooks Global Intermediate and
New English File Intermediate and Suggestions for Improvement. Brno: Masarykova
univerzita, Fakulta pedagogická, Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury, 2013. Vedoucí
diplomové práce PhDr. Helena Havlíčková.
![Page 3: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Prohlášení
Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze
citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem
pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb.,
o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů
(autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
…............................................
Kateřina Kopecká
![Page 4: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank PhDr. Helena Havlíčková for her supervising, motivation during writing
my thesis, and her valuable remarks on my thesis.
Kateřina Kopecká
![Page 5: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 Theoretical background 9
2.1The definition of differentiation 9
2.2 A brief history of differentiation and its current state 11
2.3 Reasons for differentiation 12
2.4 Assessing learner needs 13
3 Types of differentiation and their advantages and disadvantages 16
3.1 Differentiation by outcome 16
3.2 Differentiation by task/ability 17
3.3 Differentiation by support 18
3.4 Differentiation by resource 19
3.5 Differentiation by process 19
3.6 Differentiation by interest 22
4 The introduction to the practical part 23
4.1 The background of my research 23
4.2 The aims of the research 23
4.3 Hypothesis, research questions and possible solutions 23
4.4 Research methods 24
![Page 6: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
5 The main body of the practical part 25
5.1 The evaluation of New English File Intermediate according to the types of
differentiation 25
5.2 The evaluation of Global Intermediate according to the types of differentiation
28
5.3 Suggestions for improvement 31
5.4 Evaluation of the results, hypothesis affirmed or disconfirmed 38
6 Conclusion 40
7 Summary 42
8 Bibliography 44
![Page 7: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
1 Introduction
There is no doubt that teachers in today’s classroom encounter students with various
needs. There are students who prefer seeing things, students who need to listen to the teacher
and one can also find students who require so-called hands-on experience and movement. To
make matters even more complicated, various combinations of the above mentioned groups
exist.
Furthermore, students whose left brain hemisphere prevails over the right side have an
outstanding stretch of the imagination and need different strategies than students who excel in
logical thinking and creating systems. Last but not least, there are also students who are more
gifted in a specific subject and students whose strengths lie somewhere else. Teachers whose
belief system comprises of differentiated instruction assess learner needs carefully and suit
their teaching to meet them.
On a personal note, I have decided to write about differentiated instruction because I
wanted to explore how I can meet my students’ needs more. I believe being a good teacher
means putting your students’ needs ahead of yours. In my opinion, differentiation usually
sounds more appealing to students than to teachers. As a student I would probably have
appreciated being given easier tasks in physics and more demanding tasks in languages. As
a teacher I realise how time-demanding this approach could be.
Nevertheless, there are some tips how to differentiate without spending a huge
amount of time on preparation. I strongly believe modern language textbooks should tackle
this current trend and use (among other things) open-ended tasks as much as possible. Also,
teacher’s books should provide extra support for mixed-ability classes. One can argue all
classes that consist of more than one student are mixed-ability ones. This approach would
encourage teachers to differentiate more without feeling overloaded with work.
As far as the structure of the thesis goes, the theoretical part consists of two main
sections: theoretical background and different kinds of differentiated instruction. The former
examines the definition of differentiated instruction, gives a short review of the history and
present of differentiation, states reasons for implementing these strategies in classroom and is
concerned with assessing learner needs. The latter discusses various types of differentiated
instruction and their advantages and disadvantages.
![Page 8: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
The practical part of the thesis is divided into the introduction and main body. The
introduction deals with the background of my research, aims, hypothesis and research
questions. The main body of the thesis is concerned with the evaluation of the coursebooks
New English File Intermediate and Global Intermediate and the respective teacher’s books.
Suggestions for improvement are given as well as the evaluation of the results and whether
the hypothesis is affirmed or disconfirmed.
![Page 9: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
2 Theoretical background
The first section of the theoretical part focuses on the introduction into the study of
differentiation. First the definition of differentiating instruction will be suggested. Then its history and
present state will be examined. The following chapter will deal with different reasons both for and
against differentiation in the classroom. In the last chapter we will look at learner needs as this is an
essential prerequisite for any differentiation.
2.1The definition of differentiation
A variety of definitions of the term differentiated instruction have been suggested.
This thesis offers a few examples shown below. Heacox (2002) claims that "differentiating
instruction means changing the pace, level, or kind of instruction you provide in response to
individual learners needs, styles, or interests (p.5)".
Cooper, Irizarry, Leighton, Morine-Dershimer, Sadker (2010) give a somewhat longer
definition: "A teacher proactively plans varied approaches to what students need to learn,
how they will learn it, and/or how they can express what they have learned in order to
increase the likelihood that each student will learn as much as he or she can as efficiently as
possible" (p.155). Last but not least Gregory, Chapman (2006, p.2) base their definition on a
more philosophical view. The authors refer to it as: "philosophy that enables educators to
plan strategically in order to reach the needs of the diverse learners in classrooms today to
achieve targeted standards" (p.2).
Gregory, Chapman (ibid.) emphasise that differentiation is not a mere set of strategies
but instead a whole belief system. Shortly, every learner matters to teachers who support the
idea. Even though the term differentiated instruction is a relatively new concept, Tomlinson
(1999) argues that a lot of teachers practice differentiation naturally without even knowing it
on a conscious level. It can be said it is one of the signs of a good teacher.
![Page 10: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
The term differentiation (also known as differentiated instruction) comes from the
1990s. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in differentiated instruction
especially in English speaking countries. Teachers and authors of coursebooks are becoming
more and more aware of the importance of helping students to reach their full potential.
However, Dillon, Maguire (2011, p. 199) argue that the concept is not new at all. They say
teachers often appreciate the fact that something they have been doing for years is now fully
acknowledged as a good teaching strategy. Dillon, Maguire (ibid.) also add that more
information about the topic helps beginning teachers to a huge extent.
Traditional teaching differs from this kind of instruction and emphasises conformation
to the norm. The teacher usually sets the same task to all students. Naturally, the level is too
low for some gifted individuals, which may cause problems with discipline as they feel bored
and demotivated. By contrast, some students struggle with the task and might feel frustrated.
Again, there is a possibility that they will misbehave to protect their feeling of worthiness.
This view is supported by Dillon, Maguire (2011, p.201) who argue that both internal
confusion and visible frustration have a negative impact on the individual.
In contrast to the aforementioned way of teaching, differentiated instruction means
that the teacher sets the bar in such a manner that more able students do not feel bored and
low-proficient students do not consider themselves a failure. Therefore, the teacher acts in
a more flexible manner.
Heacox (2009, p.103) claims that the key to this lies in putting students into groups in
a clever manner. She points out that the teacher should change strategies often enough in
order to create diversity. Heacox (ibid.) stresses that students should not work in the same
groups all the time. Possible strategies might be: random groups, groups of own choice,
homogenous groups and mixing more able students with less able ones while offering enough
support. It is obvious that the aforementioned approach requires a lot of thinking on the part
of the teacher before their lessons.
Westphal (2007, p.1) also stresses the importance of choice. She argues that most
adults when asked whether they prefer being given an option or being told what to do choose
the former. Westphal (ibid.) claims that students feel the same way even though they may not
be as explicit when it comes to their wishes. It might also be said that being given the
opportunity to choose what suits them most encourages motivation and autonomy. Therefore,
being given a choice can accelerate their learning. To conclude, being given a choice and
enhancing motivation seem to be closely linked.
![Page 11: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
2.2 A brief history of differentiation and its current state
Chen (2007, p. 24) claims that the term differentiation is quite recent in the school
environment but at the same time he adds that teachers have been trying to differentiate in the
classroom for a very long time. In the past village teachers taught students of various ages
and abilities in one single classroom. The teacher was forced to act in a flexible manner and
prepare thoroughly to help all the pupils. These days the term differentiated instruction is
connected especially to the name Carol Tomlinson, who has written fifteen books on the
topic. She is considered to be one of the most influential pioneers. However, the idea of
differentiation was mentioned even earlier back in the nineteenth century.
Tomlinson’s predecessor was, among others, Preston Search (Washburne, 1953,
p. 139-140), who opposed to grade-repetition and letting students fail his subjects. Search
tried to change the views of the public but faced indifference. Washburne (1953, p. 140)
points out that the need for differentiated instruction became more intense at the beginning of
the twentieth century when intelligence tests showed people are not equal when it comes to
their mental abilities. Washburne (ibid.) stresses that this is when the era of self-instructive
coursebooks commenced.
Another important figure in the field of differentiated instruction and alternative
schools is Carleton Washburne, who is known as the superintendent of schools in Winnetka
in the United States. In his famous article called Adjusting Program to the Child, which has
been quoted on several occasions above, Washburne (1953, p. 138-139) states that children
vary in their mental ages. Let us assume we have two pupils – Andy and Jesicca, who are
both 15 years old (i.e. chronological age). Their mental age might be, though, lower or
higher.
Andy might be better at grammar (above his chronological age) whereas Jesicca
prefers speaking. Nonetheless, Washburne (ibid.) disapproves of grouping children according
to their mental age. He claims more able children would not fit in the class of older pupils
because there are other elements to consider (physical development, psychological maturity
etc.). Contrarily, a less able student would probably feel awkward and self-conscious with
younger pupils, which is a problem of grade-repetition in general.
Nowadays differentiated instruction is experiencing its boom. Both teacher trainees
and practising teachers learn the theory of differentiation and how important it is to build it
into their lessons. We all agree one needs to differentiate, however, implementing
![Page 12: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
differentiation seems quite challenging. There appear to be more books dealing with the
theory than with practical and easy suggestions.
There is no doubt in my mind that differentiated instruction as such is slowly getting
more and more vital in Czech classrooms. Yet when it comes to putting theory into practice
a CELTA trainer and lecturer (who does not want to be named) claims that the Czech
educational system lags behind compared to the United States and United Kingdom. But as
one cannot hinder the progress, it seems very likely one day Czech teachers will be obliged to
implement differentiation to a greater extent.
2.3 Reasons for differentiation
Gregory, Chapman (2006, p.4) argue that students differ when it comes to the way
they learn and the teacher should take the fact into consideration. The theory of multiple
intelligences has been proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 and remains valid.
Differentiation by activities takes into account his model of multiple intelligences and will be
discussed further.
Cooper, Irizarry, Leighton, Morine-Dershimer, Sadker (2010, p.156) stress that
differentiated instruction helps to tackle diversity in the classroom. They also argue that
learning only happens when a student is challenged to a reasonable degree. When a student
finds the task too easy, learning does not take place. Instead, this student only revises what
has already been learnt. On the other hand, being given a task beyond one’s ability is not
helpful either. Without somebody helping the learner can feel demotivated and possibly even
upset. Considering different ability is called (among other terms) differentiation by task. To
sum up, differentiation helps students to develop to the fullest potential and that is its most
fundamental purpose.
On the other hand, it needs to be said that students will encounter situations in their
life which will be challenging. One cannot rely on the fact that the world will always suit
their needs as that is far from reality. In my opinion, a certain level of discomfort is necessary
to overcome personal barriers and develop to the fullest potential. Getting out of our comfort
zone helps us to gain self-confidence and self-respect. Moreover, it broadens our horizons.
Furthermore, Morgan, Neil (2001, p. 49) argue that differentiating every single activity seems
![Page 13: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
to be impractical and, therefore, rather unrealistic.
Another reason for being hesitant when it comes to differentiated instruction is that
the current system is based on traditional assessment and teachers have to prepare their
students for passing tests. Would it be fair to prepare three sets of tests according to ability?
A typical test does not reflect principles of differentiated instruction much. Consequently,
different kinds of assessment would be necessary. Therefore, differentiated instruction
strategies are linked with modern assessment methods. More information on assessing learner
needs can be found at the end of the theoretical part.
When considering both advantages and disadvantages of differentiated instruction it
becomes clear that a balance between the two needs to be sought in order to prepare students
for their life to be. To conclude, principles of differentiation should definitely be
implemented but to a reasonable degree.
2.4 Assessing learner needs
In order to differentiate effectively we need to assess learner needs. The teacher ought
to find out not only who is more and who is less proficient but also where their learner
strengths and weaknesses lie. This can be done in various ways. The teacher should assess
continuously as learners might get better or worse during the course due to the various
reasons (e.g. illness, problems at home etc.). Let us discuss some of possible ways of needs
assessment.
The teacher ought to asses by means of constant observation. The educator should,
therefore, focus both on whole class activities and group work. A way of doing so is a
discreet monitoring when students are working in pairs or groups and noting down some of
the students’ good and bad points. I learnt a useful tip when attending a methodology
seminar: The teacher pretends to listen to a pair while actually listening to another one close
by. This way there is no shyness on the part of those actually being observed as they do not
even realise it.
Another way of assessing learner needs is looking at their written work.
Unfortunately, writing as a language skill tends to be neglected in the classroom. Some pupils
say they will not need to write later in life – all they want to do is practise speaking. It is
![Page 14: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
a shame as writing enables students to reflect on grammar use and vocabulary in the context.
Moreover, it helps the teacher to see the level of students English very easily.
Thanks to its durability assessing written work helps when the educator does not feel
sure whether a student makes a mistake or (more serious) error. Recurrent problems with the
language become more obvious and, therefore, easier for remedial work. Personally, I like
giving feedback to individual students after a lesson and sometimes during individual work in
class. I always mention what I liked about their piece of writing as well to balance it.
For lower levels I use Czech for giving feedback about written work for two reasons.
First, I want to be sure my explanation is clear enough and second, it creates a less
threatening atmosphere. In my opinion, giving students their written work just with notes and
corrected sentences does not suffice and does not help to raise the motivation level either.
Another way of assessing learner needs is giving the students a needs analysis
questionnaire. Murray, Christison (2010, p.11) claim that the educator might design their
own questionnaire and give it to students even before the first lesson. Also, Murray,
Christison (ibid.) argue that the teacher could send it via email if the students cannot be
reached easily.
What should a questionnaire like this contain? We could ask about past experience
with learning the English language, skills which the students find especially
important/demanding etc. Murray, Christison (2010, p.12) also stress the importance of
talking about learner goals. It is essential to know what our students intend to achieve and
whether it corresponds to the requirements of the course.
Furthermore, the educator could ask about the students’ interests and hobbies to tailor
the content of the course to the majority and increase motivation. Making adjustments to suit
the majority is stressed by Dubin (1986, p.102), who points out that it is impossible to
completely fulfill the needs of each and every individual in the class. Nevertheless, it does
not mean we should overlook them.
It ought to be mentioned that the educator could also give their students
a questionnaire based on learning style preferences. A nice example is given by Berman,
Belak, Rimmer (2011), who adapted Christison’s questionnaire published in the journal
MEXTESOL. This topic will be discussed further in the subchapter called Differentiation by
process. It seems obvious that asking about attitudes and learning styles cannot possibly
suffice. The teacher could also give their students a diagnostic test examining their level of
English. The test could contain listening as well as this skill tends to be omitted in tests. Of
course, the test should not be marked as it serves as a purely diagnostic tool.
![Page 15: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
To sum up, knowing what our learners need is essential as it helps the teacher to
differentiate effectively. There are many ways of assessing learner needs, some of which
have been mentioned above and the educator ought to aim to use a variety of them.
![Page 16: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
3 Types of differentiation and their advantages and
disadvantages
It needs to be said that a wide range of classification of differentiation exists. For our
purposes, Dillon and Maguire’s system (2011, p. 203) has been used for its relative
simplicity. The authors distinguish differentiation by outcome, task (also known as
differentiation by ability), support and resource. Dillon, Maguire (ibid.) mention that the first
two types are considered to be the most crucial ones.
Another two categories have been added to make the list more complete. Heacox
(2002, p. 11) argues differentiation by process should also be taken into account. This means
the teacher ought to consider different learning styles of his or her students. The latter
additional type of differentiated instruction is differentiation by interest (Pachler, 2001,
p. 180), which basically means a learner is given a choice when it comes to their learning.
It might be interesting to note that Morgan, Neil (2001, p. 49) mention also
differentiation by timing, which is not going to be dealt with further in the thesis because of
the high number of various types included and its marginal character. To put it simply,
differentiation by timing means the teacher acts in a flexible manner when it comes to setting
time limits.
3.1 Differentiation by outcome
Anstee (2011, p. 47) argues that definition by outcome means the teacher sets the
same task but his or her expectations of the outcome are varied. For instance, the teacher tells
students to write a story beginning with the phrase Once upon a time… Obviously, there will
be pupils good at writing a narrative and students who will produce a worse piece of writing.
What is crucial is that the teacher does not expect weak students to write an extraordinary
narrative. The educator does their best to help less able students to make their piece of
writing as good as possible.
At the same time the teacher should challenge the best students to write an even better
![Page 17: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
fairy tale. Anstee (2011, p. 48) points out that the teacher can show the students some
examples of a decent piece of writing. Especially when practising writing, that seems to be
a very useful strategy.
The key to differentiation by outcome is, therefore, giving students open-ended
exercises. Differentiation by outcome seems to be especially practical when it comes to
productive skills. As far as advantages go, differentiation by outcome is considered pragmatic
and time-saving. Concerning disadvantages some might argue that differentiation by outcome
may slip into no differentiation at all. The teacher may just say that they expect from students
different results and that is how they approach differentiated instruction. A possible solution
to this issue can be using differentiation by outcome after careful planning and not
exceedingly. However, open-ended tasks will definitely carry on playing a key role in
differentiated instruction.
3.2 Differentiation by task/ability
Another kind of differentiated instruction is differentiation by task (also known as
differentiation by ability). It takes into account that students vary in their ability when it
comes to learning a foreign language. Also, one cannot dismiss the fact that some students
excel in grammar and some are better at speaking. This means the first group will need to
practise speaking by concentrating more on fluency and the other ought to focus on accuracy.
Out of all types of differentiated instruction this one appears to be the most time-demanding
for the teacher and, therefore, the least popular.
When doing my bachelor thesis, it has been found out that one of causes of stress for
educators is preparing extra materials for pupils with learning difficulties (Kopecká, 2010,
p. 39). Therefore, a considerable amount of preparation is required on the part of the teacher
who intends to embrace differentiation by task. Furthermore, one should consider the fact that
students might get worse or better during the course itself due to the various reasons. Thus,
constant assessment seems to be essential.
Differentiation by task involves developing extra materials. When preparing handouts
or flashcards, more versions are usually needed (at least two). Of course, there are teachers
who enjoy preparing materials and spend a lot of time creating them. On the other hand, there
![Page 18: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
are also teachers who feel aversion toward even more work. Nowadays, teachers often
complain about being overburdened by administrative tasks, preparation, teaching itself and
many more duties related to the profession. The question is how realistic it is to prepare this
way for every lesson while having a busy schedule.
Furthermore, a possible problem with differentiation by task/ability is that students
might find it unfair. The teacher basically divides students into the strong, average and weak
ones (alternatively, he or she divides the class into two groups). The weak ones might feel
inadequate because of this label. They may want to try the same task as the strong ones,
which could be motivating for them.
Washburne (1953, p. 141) claims that what students need is a plenty of
encouragement. It goes without saying that creating a positive atmosphere in the classroom is
essential as students need a safe, non-threatening environment. No judgment ought to be
passed on weaker students. Another possible solution can be using the same task while
offering extra support and resources to less able students.
3.3 Differentiation by support
A high number of teachers implement this type of differentiated instruction naturally
without knowing they are doing it. It basically means offering more help to weaker students.
The teacher could easily put differentiation by support into practice by monitoring students
when they are, for instance, working on exercises on their own. Students might ask some
questions if they feel the need and more importantly, the teacher could serve as a guide to less
able pupils. It also shows to the students that the teacher cares deeply about their progress.
We could also support weaker students by giving them extra materials which are on their
level (i.e. differentiation by resource).
Even though it might seem that differentiation by support is done by the teacher, in
my opinion it might as well be done by students themselves. In the best case scenario, this
system works naturally after (or even during) the class when a weaker student asks a stronger
one for help. The aforementioned cooperation between students needs to be encouraged by
the teacher. A possible way of doing it is applying this strategy whenever possible and
working on a positive atmosphere in the classroom
![Page 19: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
3.4 Differentiation by resource
Differentiation by resource means the teacher gives different kind of materials and
resources to various groups (or individual students). To illustrate, let us have a look at how
this type of differentiation might work in the classroom. The teacher assigns creating a
project as homework. The topic of the project could be, for instance, practical ways of saving
the environment. The teacher would divide students into groups of three or four according to
their ability. More able students would work with recommended literature and websites
suitable for their needs and so would less able students. Weaker students could be given
articles in simplified magazines for EFL learners.
When reading a novel as long-term homework, stronger students would be given a list
of more demanding books whereas weaker students could be offered easier authors or
simplified readers. Personally, I find simplified readers worthwhile as students may start
reading from the very beginning and progress quickly. Thus, simplified readers could be less
daunting for EFL learners. Moreover, simplified literature is usually divided into more levels,
which makes differentiating by resource (and task) even easier (e.g. level 2 for weaker
learners and level 3 for stronger ones).
Of course, authentic books could be used as soon as it is possible. Consequently, we
can see a strong relationship between differentiation by resource and differentiation by task.
This kind of differentiated instruction supports learner autonomy and, therefore, raises
self-confidence. Students take learning into own hands and depend less on the teacher, which
seems very useful in the long term.
3.5 Differentiation by process
Differentiation by process (also known as differentiation by variety/activities)
basically means that the teacher takes into account leaner preferences and learning styles.
This kind of differentiation can easily be done by adding variety to lessons. Lessons should
be balanced enough so that all learners may get most of it. The problem is the teacher cannot
satisfy everyone all the time. The solution appears straight forward – it is not necessary to
![Page 20: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
always please everybody. A good teacher ought to structure a lesson in a way so that all the
students can profit from an activity which suits their needs.
When it comes to offering variety to students, one cannot omit the name Howard
Gardner, who works as a professor of psychology at Harvard University. He presented his
theory of multiple intelligences in the book called Frames of Mind back in 1983. In his
introduction Gardner (1983, p. 3-4) comments on narrow-mindness of current intelligence
tests and their possible negative impact on one‘s self-esteem and future.
In the aforementioned book Gardner distinguishes eight kinds of intelligence:
logical-mathematical, spatial, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal,
interpersonal and naturalistic. Campbell, Campbell (1999, p.2) point out that Gardner himself
felt surprised by public acceptance of his work. Campbell, Campbell (ibid.) claim that he had
not expected his theory to be used in educational context but rather in psychology. Let us
look at practical implications of the theory in EFL contexts. Possible activities which are
aimed at developing a respective intelligence are:
Logical-mathematical: systematical explanations (e.g. of grammar), logical puzzle,
crosswords
Spatial: timelines, visual cues, drawing
Linguistic: word games (e.g. the game Countdown), working with a dictionary, writing
activities
Bodily-kinesthetic: miming, total physical response
Musical: songs, rhymes, action songs
Intrapersonal: choosing own homework, keeping a journal, independent study
Interpersonal: cooperative games, peer teaching, role plays
Naturalistic: environmental studies, projects about nature
Of course, developing one intelligence may include acquiring another one. To
illustrate, writing activities develop linguistic intelligence. If the teacher encourages peer
teaching (e.g. exchanging pieces of work), this could help to build interpersonal intelligence.
Thus, it becomes obvious that intelligences are also related and one cannot treat them as
separate.
![Page 21: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
When talking about different needs, one needs to mention learning style preferences.
Three main types are distinguished: visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Wong (2011, p. 5)
claims that the majority of people prefer one channel to the others. On the other hand, most
people do not tend to fall into the categories as easily. Their style is a unique combination of
the aforementioned learning styles. Wong (ibid.) argues that learning style preferences begin
in our childhood, however, later in life we are able to adapt to learning which does not reflect
our learning style preference.
Of course, the educator could give out questionnaires on learning style preferences
which might be easily found on the Internet and in various books. There is no doubt that
knowing one’s learning style preference helps especially with effective learning strategies
and independence of the teacher. It is essential to note, though, that the best strategy is
offering enough variety in the lesson by involving as many channels as possible.
Furthermore, the teacher should give the learners a choice (see differentiation by
interest). To illustrate, visual learners might need to have a handout in front of their eyes to
get their bearings in the presentation phase (e.g. a grammar section). Also, they tend to make
notes. On the other hand, auditory learners could find the aforementioned learning strategy
distracting. Consequently, the teacher who is visually oriented should not force their students
to make notes whilst listening to him or her. It goes without saying that being flexible is the
key. Now let us have a look at some teaching aids and activities which could be beneficial for
learners who tend to have a channel much stronger than the others.
Visual learners: pictures, photos, timelines, graphs, handouts for making notes,
drawing and drawing games, phonemic chart
Auditory learners: lectures, songs, poems, limericks, tongue twisters, pronunciation
drills and games (e.g. bingo)
Kinesthetic learners: TPR (total physical response), action songs, games involving
movement (e.g. clapping associations), miming, theatre etc.
To make the list more complete, one needs to mention the so-called Brain Dominance
Theory. The human brain is divided into two halves – the left hemisphere and the right
hemisphere. Wong (2011, p.16) argues that according to the research each hemisphere has
specific functions. Wong (2011) claims that "the Brain Dominance Theory suggests that
people tend to have a preference for initially processing information through the left
hemisphere (also referred to as the left brain) or the right hemisphere (the right brain)" (p.16).
![Page 22: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Bernstein, Nash (2008, p.70) state that so-called left-brain learners are analytical
when it comes to thinking, they prefer structured information, words and numbers. They also
prefer predictability. Contrarily, according to the authors right-brain learners excel in
visualisation, creativity and intuition. The educator ought to, therefore, consider also learners
whose learning style differs from his or hers. In the classroom left-brain learners are often
favoured as the whole system is based more on logic than imagination.
Of course, there are more classifications of learning styles. Due to the lack of space
here, though, they are not going to be discussed.
3.6 Differentiation by interest
If one intends to motivate students, giving them a choice seems to be one of the best
ways of doing so. For instance, when the educator sets a speaking task for homework, the
learners could choose from the following options:
1) tell a longer joke
2) prepare a short sketch with one or two classmates
3) tell a piece of news
4) recite a longer poem by heart
5) organise and lead a whole class discussion
It goes without saying that the strategy of giving options can and ought to be
implemented to a greater extent. Not only can students be given options when it comes to
homework, they can also opt for the order of tasks, group, the topic of research and the like.
Giving a choice empowers students and helps them enjoy instruction more. As a result, they
learn more in the end.
![Page 23: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
4 The introduction to the practical part
4.1 The background of my research
Two modern coursebooks were chosen to be analysed and adapted. New English Files
seem to be a very popular textbook among teachers and I have had personal experience with
it for almost three years. It is a textbook I would highly recommend. In a teaching seminar
the teacher trainer mentioned Global coursebooks which seem to meet demanding needs of
modern learners. After browsing in the teacher’s book I came to a conclusion that it is worth
working with. Also, it needs to be pointed out that analysing a textbook is definitely
a worthwhile activity. However, I wanted to base my practical part on not only analysing but
also adapting. There are many theses that focus on teachers’ opinions but not many that
concentrate on concrete examples how to adapt exercises.
4.2 The aims of the research
The main purpose of the thesis is to explore what kinds of differentiation could be
found in both student’s books and teacher’s books of New English File Intermediate and
Global Intermediate. It is worth pointing out that the analysis is based on the theoretical part
of my thesis. Another aim is to attempt to adapt some exercises to suit differentiation more
and to show the reader how it can possibly be done.
4.3 Hypothesis, research questions and possible solutions
The hypothesis which is going to be explored says: Modern textbooks take
differentiation into account but not sufficiently. To find out whether the hypothesis will be
confirmed or disproved the following research questions are used:
![Page 24: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
What kinds of differentiation can be found in the two coursebooks?
What limitations can be found in the two coursebooks?
What are possible suggestions for improvement?
The last research question focuses on finding possible solutions to the lack of
differentiation in the above mentioned coursebooks and teacher’s books.
4.4 Research methods
Regarding the research methods the analysis and adaptation of the coursebooks and
teacher’s books will be used. All six types of differentiation discussed in the theoretical part
will be examined one by one. First, New English File Intermediate (also referred to as NEF)
will be studied and then the same process will be done with Global Intermediate. For the sake
of clarity the word Intermediate will be omitted. The second part will deal with practical
examples of changing exercises to suit differentiation more. Needless to say, only several
exercises will be chosen to demonstrate some techniques. Selected exercises would vary in
terms of their type (e.g. matching, gap fill, odd one out, etc.) and focus (different skills).
![Page 25: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
5 The main body of the practical part
5.1 The evaluation of New English File Intermediate according to the types
of differentiation
By outcome:
For the authors of the textbook this basically means providing enough open-ended
tasks which Penny Ur (1981, p. 15) defines as "tasks requiring the gathering… of ideas
unlimited by one predetermined 'right' result". It seems that the coursebook offers
open-ended tasks when it comes to speaking. If there is a yes/no question, why/why not
always follows. Often, students are asked what they think of a certain topic (usually as
a warm up to an exercise).
Furthermore, when students are expected to write an email, story etc. there is enough
space for more able students as only the structure and key phrases are suggested. When it
comes to receptive skills (reading and listening) the authors use a wide range of
comprehension check exercises: true or false statements, gap fills, mixed paragraphs and also
open-ended questions. However, as far as grammar and vocabulary go, there is always one
correct answer and the teacher’s book does not suggest any ideas concerning early finishers.
There are no suggestions for early finishers in pronunciation sections either.
One of the exceptions is the vocabulary section on page 46 in student’s book in which
the student must choose between –ing or –ed (e.g. Which do you find more tir…….,
travelling by car or by public transport?). The exercise is done in the form of questions which
are personalised. Therefore, once students have finished they ask each other the questions.
This strategy enables early finishers to practise immediately in a meaningful context.
By task/ability:
The teacher’s book contains sections called Extra support and Extra challenge. The
purpose of these sections is obvious; they aim to make activities easier/harder for
![Page 26: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
weaker/stronger students. For example, unit 1A is divided into six parts: reading & speaking,
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, listening and speaking. Each part contains an extra
support apart from vocabulary (which contains none) and grammar (which contains two).
Unfortunately, as the teacher’s book proceeds, there is less and less advice for weaker
students. Also, extra challenges can be found much less than extra supports.
Let us have a look at some examples of these extra support and extra challenge
sections according to skills, vocabulary and grammar they focus on. The respective units are
in brackets, however, it needs to be said that the same piece of advice tends to be repeated
throughout the teacher’s book.
Extra supports:
Reading: reading aloud paragraph by paragraph and discussing which clues helped students
to complete the exercise (2C), students underline five words (phrases) they want to remember
from the article and then compare theirs with the partner (2C)
Speaking: eliciting the story from the whole class by asking questions (7C)
Listening: letting students listen to the tape with the transcript, asking more questions to
check comprehension (this advice is in each unit)
Pronunciation: reading a dialogue in pairs (7B), the teacher underlines stressed words on the
board (1A)
Vocabulary: demonstrating the activity by letting students ask the teacher some questions
(7C)
Grammar: translating new words or phrases (1A)
Extra challenges:
Reading: students close their books, comprehension checking questions are on the board (1A)
![Page 27: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Speaking: answering comprehension checking questions more extensively (2A)
Listening: before the second listening students in pairs try to work out the answers to the
second exercise (1C) (Note: In New English Files a listening exercise usually consists of two
different types of tasks)
Pronunciation: underlining the stressed syllables first then checking the answers with the
recording (6C)
Vocabulary: eliciting other kinds of films (6B)
Grammar: underlining more examples of the passive in the other texts (6B)
As we can see from the examples above the authors of the book use a wide array of
activities. One can find a possible drawback, though. The suggestions are usually meant for
the whole group which is either stronger or weaker than the coursebook is aimed at. The
coursebook does not tell the teacher how to help individual students who struggle or motivate
a few more proficient ones. Out of the above mentioned examples, only a few can be used for
individual students. For example, more proficient students can translate some phrases into
Czech for less proficient students. Alternatively, stronger students can underline more
examples of the grammar structure if they finish the task too early. All in all, the teacher’s
book shows the teacher how to make some activities less or more challenging and I consider
that very positive.
By support:
The teacher’s book does not state directly how differentiation by support is meant to
be done. However, this kind of differentiation is done by the teacher throughout their lessons.
Therefore, it would probably be redundant.
![Page 28: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
By resource:
Differentiation by resource seems to be especially valuable when it comes to
assigning homework. In this respect it does not have to be included in the Teacher’s book.
New English File does not suggest different sources for various groups of students.
By process:
The analysis of various kinds of intelligence is not possible due to the lack of space.
In general, it seems that the coursebook targets especially visual and auditory learners.
Kinaesthetic learners appear to be slightly disadvantaged. On the other hand, the teacher’s
book also provides communicative activities, some of which are aimed at kinesthetic learners
(e.g. a student is describing a picture, the other one is drawing the scene or mingling activities
such as Find somebody who). Also, the teacher’s book contains card games associated with
kinaesthetic learners.
By interest:
The teacher’s book provides sections called Extra ideas. Most of these ideas are
meant for the teacher. However, the teacher could ask the whole class how they would like to
approach a task (e.g. traditionally or in a new way). Giving students a choice is not stated
directly, though.
5.2 The evaluation of Global Intermediate according to the types of
differentiation
By outcome
The coursebook does not seem to offer more open-ended tasks than NEF. It might be
said that the coursebooks and teacher’s books appear very similar in this respect. On the other
hand, the teacher’s book for Global contains plenty of advice for early finishers, many of
![Page 29: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
which would fall into the category "open-ended" (e.g. preparing a short oral presentation in
the meantime p. 32 SB).
By task/ability
The teacher’s book contains advice for mixed ability classes in each unit under the
heading Mixed ability. An important point worth noting is that the authors chose to include
some advice on how to approach more challenging exercises. It is implied that not every
activity needs to be graded according to ability, which sounds reasonable and practical. The
authors recommend a wide range of solutions to problems with stronger and weaker students.
The array of approaches used by the authors might be considered above average. Here are
some concrete examples:
UNIT 1 + 2 no advice
Writing sentence stems on the board for weaker students, preparing a short oral presentation
– stronger students (UNIT 3)
A harder task for stronger students who work together with weaker ones (UNIT 4)
Not forcing students to use the target language straight away (UNIT 5)
Thinking of more collocations – early finishers (UNIT 6)
Stronger students retell a joke, weaker students listen and add details (UNIT 7)
The answers to an exercise are given to weaker students but in jumbled order (UNIT 8)
By support
The teacher’s book suggests letting stronger students work with weaker ones.
Therefore, it encourages peer help. In this respect it is more modern than New English File.
![Page 30: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
By resource
It suggests activities for homework and gives students more choices. Here
differentiation by resource blends with differentiation by interest.
By process
Interestingly enough, Global introduces learning styles on p. 17 in the coursebook by
giving students a questionnaire (the included types are global x analytical, visual, auditory or
kinaesthetic and impulsive x reflective). The section is called study skills and students are
encouraged to discuss their answers in small groups. In the teacher’s book it is stated that the
teacher cannot meet all the learning styles in each lesson but they should vary their teaching
methods to approach more students.
The authors themselves classify as activities suitable especially for kinaesthetic
learners the following ones: activities which involve moving around, activities which involve
cards or objects and doing a variety of activities. Similarly to NEF, there are some exercises
aimed at kinesthetic learners (e.g. drawing according to the partner’s instructions (p. 69 in
SB), Simon says (p. 69 in TB) etc.). The teacher’s book contains plenty of game like
activities usually under the heading Extra activity. These activities do not tend to target
kinesthetic learners much, though. Regarding activities involving cards or objects there are
very few.
By interest
It offers more options especially concerning homework (e.g. write a memo or
complaint p. 57, choose a video clip of any of the English films mentioned this lesson p.55).
The authors tried to include modern and more interactive ways of assigning homework.
![Page 31: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
5.3 Suggestions for improvement
Only differentiation by outcome, task/ability, process and interest will be dealt with in
this section. Differentiation by resource would be very difficult to include due to the
unpredictability of individual differences and it would probably make the teacher’s book too
long and cluttered. As far as differentiation by support is concerned, that is rather a rule than
something that ought to be stated directly in the teacher’s book. It is worth mentioning that
the thesis contains only some ideas about implementing differentiation. Only a few exercises
were chosen to demonstrate how it could possibly be done. It goes without saying that more
skills and exercises could have been adapted. Even though Global uses tips for mixed ability
classes and personally, I do not think the section should be extended in the Teacher’s book
due to the practical reasons, some exercises were adapted as well in order to be more
balanced. As far as differentiation by process goes I do not assume that there should be
a much higher amount of activities for kinaesthetic learners.
Differentiation by outcome:
Woodward (2001, p. 216) claims: "Although very helpful to students, any approach
which involves giving different materials to different students dramatically increases your
preparation time. It is more time and energy efficient to use the same material for all students
and then vary the demands on different students by leaving tasks open-ended." Furthermore,
Penny Ur (1999, p. 138) argues that using only open-ended tasks is not the aim. She only
stresses the importance of increasing the amount of exercises like that. Here are some ideas
which could be used.
Conditionals are often tested by matching exercises (NEF unit 7A). Here the first
column begins, for example, by if sentences. To achieve an open-ended task, the teacher may
tell students to ignore the second column and come up with own examples. This would
involve more writing, creativity and less controlled practice.
![Page 32: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Example:
If you hadn’t reminded me, I would have forgotten. (the correct version)
If you hadn’t reminded me, I would not have remembered.
If you hadn’t reminded me, I would have left without paying.
Similarly, in unit 6C students are asked to complete the sentences by relative
pronouns. To open up the task, the teacher might ask students to ignore the second halves and
complete the sentences using their creativity and possibly a sense of humour. Weaker
students may use the second half as a model changing, for instance, just the verb. More able
students could, though, come up with a completely different relative pronoun.
Example:
We drove past the house …………….. we used to live. (where)
We drove past the house where my mother grew up.
We drove past the house whose roof had blown away.
As we can see, making a task open-ended might entail deleting parts of sentences. In
the student’s book some words can be left out to make it easier for the teacher (e.g. the
exercise on conditionals) but not necessarily always. Whole exercises could serve as a model
(e.g. the exercise on relative pronouns). The teacher’s book could include some advice on
how to make a task more open-ended. As for open-ending vocabulary exercises in New
English File that proved to be more challenging as one correct answer is usually needed. Still,
the same principles used when transforming the grammar exercises above might be applied.
On page 152 the book tests the knowledge of work-related expressions. A common
exercise is included – matching words to their definition. A good point about the exercise is
having the words in the context. An open-ended follow-up to the exercise could be using
some of the words in personalised sentences. As there are 12 words, the instructions could be:
Write at least eight sentences using a word from above in each sentence. Students would
![Page 33: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
then compare and discuss the sentences in pairs or small groups. Students would also be
encouraged to ask for details.
On page 44 in Global there is a section on vocabulary which makes up a matching
exercise focused on spoken English expressions. Students are supposed to match a comment
to its proper reaction.
Example:
1: I don’t have anything nice to wear. A: So what? You always look lovely.
The purpose of the exercise is to learn/revise the phrases in the second column (i.e.
letters – here A). Therefore, open-ending could mean students coming up with the first (and
less important) halves (i.e. numbers – here 1). An important thing to bear in mind, though, is
that deleting as a teaching strategy should be always pre-planned not haphazard.
Example:
I have put on ten pounds. B: So what? You always look lovely.
My hair is thinning out. B: So what? You always look lovely.
Alternatively, students could expand on the original or newly created dialogues and
come up with a sketch.
On page 29 Global gives an example of "find the odd one" kind of exercise.
Example:
1 colleague acquaintance fiancée great-grandfather
![Page 34: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
The instructions are: Which word or phrase is different in each group? Why? The
authors included the word why, which is a very positive feature. On the other hand, here
students could be encouraged to come up with as many various reasons as possible using
their creativity. This way it could be easily turned into a game.
a) great-grandfather - the rest are not relatives (teacher’s book)
b) great-grandfather - the oldest one
c) great-grandfather - the only word which does not come from Latin
d) fiancée – the only person you want to spend your life with, the closest person
e) fiancée – the only person who has to be a woman
etc.
Differentiation by task/ability
The adaptation according to ability basically means having tasks ready for early finishers and
offering extra support to less proficient students. In my opinion it all depends on the percentage of
more and less able students. If a teacher has only one or two students who need help then it may
appear redundant to state directly what less proficient students should do and differentiation by
support should be implemented (i.e. the teacher ought to help a struggling student out while the rest
are working on a task). Also, the teacher could consider reducing the amount of work for weaker
students occasionally. Alternatively, the instructions might be changed by saying: Do at least…
On the other hand, if there are five weaker students an extra help in the teacher’s book might
be included. Furthermore, the teacher could consider letting stronger students sit next to weaker ones.
This way the second type of differentiation by support would be encouraged. Of course, this may be
impossible unless there is a non-threatening atmosphere in the class. It is necessary that the teacher
shows empathy as in some classes the very same strategy could backfire. Alternatively, the teacher
could group students in a clever manner so that the division by ability is not so obvious at first sight.
This section will focus on tasks for early finishers as more able students need less help of the teacher.
Interestingly enough, when adapting exercises tasks for early finishers proved to be easier to design
than the other way round.
![Page 35: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
On page 24 in Global there is a vocabulary exercise testing the knowledge of prepositions.
There is a picture in which a princess is looking out of a window of the castle. The instructions say:
Look at the picture and complete the description with the prepositions in the box. The text with gaps
is short and easy to understand. The teacher can make the task harder by telling the strongest students
to cover the options first. At the same time the teacher could tell weaker students where to find help if
needed (e.g. their exercise book, handout etc.). Prepositions could be easily demonstrated by the
means of pictures which could appear at the end of the coursebook.
Similarly, on page 12 in Global there are sentences about Australia. Students are supposed to
make questions, the beginnings of which are shown. Even though the beginnings are clear, the authors
left the task to be quite open-ended. The exercise is based on subject/object questions.
Example:
The most popular sports Australians watch on television are Australian football and cricket.
What sports…?
Stronger students could come up with more variations of the questions. Weaker ones could
consult their notes as working with materials helps them to become more autonomous. Also, an
example of subject/object question could be written on the board to serve as a guide. Furthermore, the
following word (here do, are…) could be revealed to those that struggle with the task.
What sports do Australians watch the most?
What sports are the most popular ones to watch in Australia?
What sports do Australians prefer watching?
A common exercise in each unit in New English File consists of dividing words according to
their phonemes. For instance, in unit 1B students are supposed to divide the words ball, serve, caught,
world, draw, fought, hurt, score, sport, shirt, warm up, worse, court into two groups – i.e. words
sounding like a horse [ɔ:]and bird [ɜ:]. A possible task for early finishers could be: Think of more
words containing the same sound as horse/bird. The instructions could be stated explicitly in the
student’s book or they could appear as a suggestion in the teacher’s book.
![Page 36: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
When adapting exercises a possible problem sprang to mind; the teacher cannot guarantee that
stronger students will not "cheat" and use the help meant for weaker students in order to finish the
task as soon as possible and perhaps misbehave. One needs to rely on their motivation and possibly
even pride.
Also, the teacher should be prepared for students who would rather complete what the
majority were told to do and then "relax". I have been once told by a gifted student: "Why should I be
punished for being quick?". Of course, when a student feels that extra work is a punishment, it raises
questions. Should the teacher convince the student to do the task anyway? Or should they let it be? In
my opinion, such students should not be forced to do extra work. The teacher might try to think of
something more interesting for the student or (provided that the student does not disturb the others)
focus on the rest.
Differentiation by process
It has been established that the aim is to increase the number of activities for kinaesthetic
learners. One should not overdo it as the target group is young adults and adults, therefore, it might
look too childish to have too many kinaesthetic tasks.
An awareness raising activity which worked well both with children and teenagers is similar
to TPR (i.e. total physical response). The teacher distributes cards with words which are repeated in
the song (it works particularly well with the chorus). Once a student hears their word on the card they
raise their hand. In the second round students have to stand up and sit down quickly. Personally, I
have tried this activity with the carol Jingle Bells. The class enjoyed it very much despite the initial
reluctance.
New English File contains many songs which can be adapted this way. For instance, the song
Sk8er Boi by Avril Lavigne, the words on the cards being: skater, boy, pretty, face, space, earth,
sorry, good, obvious etc. The words should be familiar to the students and the teacher could help lost
pupils to identify the word by drawing attention to it (or confirming) it. The third round could be
possibly done with the lyrics if necessary.
In both textbooks there are many pair work activities. To suit kinaesthetic learners
more, it might be a good idea to get students to talk in pairs and then swap a partner telling
a new person about the previous one’s talk. Let us have a look at a speaking exercise on page
83 in Global. The instructions are: You are going to tell a story about a time you were very
motivated to do something. First, look at the questions and think about your answers. There
are eight questions (e.g. What were you motivated to do? Was it something difficult?).
![Page 37: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
A mingling activity like that might increase motivation as not only kinaesthetic learners need
to take a break from sitting.
Example:
Petr and Vanda work in a pair. Petr talks about an important exam, Vanda about giving up
cigarettes. Then they find a new partner. Petr talks with Hana about Vanda’s smoking and
Vanda talks to Iveta about Petr’s exam. Hana and Iveta share the stories they learnt the first
time. As a follow-up another round might be possible – Petr telling Vanda’s and Iveta’s
stories to Lukáš and vice versa.
Differentiation by interest
Differentiation by interest (choice) seems to be easier to do in productive skills (i.e.
speaking and writing) as feedback could be more varied. On p. 7 in NEF there is a speaking
exercise in which students should either agree or disagree with six statements about eating
habits. The teacher could tell students to choose which statements they want to discuss. It
needs to be stressed that as long as English is spoken students could even talk about only one
of the statements. It depends on the attractiveness of sentences. Personally, I use this strategy
every time there are more statements to discuss as it empowers students.
In Global on p. 117 we can find a writing exercise, the purpose of which is to write
a thank you email. The instructions say: You have received a hand-knitted sweater from an
aunt as a present. Write a letter and thank her. The coursebook provides four useful phrases
students could use to improve their style of writing. In the following task students are
supposed to read each other’s letters so peer teaching is encouraged. This exercise could be
easily adapted by telling students they could choose which present they received and from
whom. Also, they could choose the tone of the email (being grateful, rather disappointed,
amused etc.). The teacher could encourage students to write a thank you email for "crazy
gifts" by bringing some pictures from the internet to class (e.g. a scary ashtray). Of course,
students who lack ideas could write a thank you email as it is stated in the coursebook.
![Page 38: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
5.4 Evaluation of the results, hypothesis affirmed or disconfirmed
Both coursebooks and teacher’s books use modern methodology. As far as
differentiation by outcome is concerned, the two coursebooks seem very similar. Global gives
more information, though, concerning mixed ability classes (i.e. differentiation by task).
Whereas NEF gives advice on generally stronger or weaker classes, Global suggests various
tasks both for early finishers and less proficient students. New English File Teacher’s Book
tends to repeat what has already been said regarding the categories extra challenge and extra
support. Concerning differentiation by support Global (unlike NEF) mentions grouping
students according to their ability. Differentiation by process seems to be better handled in
NEF even though the difference is not a huge one. The teacher’s book does not state it
directly unlike Global’s but it seems to support kinaesthetic learners to a larger extent thanks
to its marvellous communicative activities.
Differentiation by resource seems to be basically at the same level in both
coursebooks. Furthermore, Global tells the teacher what kind of homework can be given and
mentions giving students a choice (i.e. differentiation by interest). NEF tells the teacher
which pages from the workbook could be used as homework. Therefore, NEF uses a
traditional and for some students a rather boring approach to giving homework. It is worth
noting that NEF contains more communicative activities (both in the coursebook and
teacher’s book).
All in all, NEF contains a greater amount of communicative activities, which makes it
more attractive in this respect. The teacher’s book is clearly written and suitable for teachers
beginners. Judging just by the student’s book it seems that NEF is better. However,
differentiation wise Global wins over NEF especially thanks to advice for mixed ability
classes. Also, it suggests more attractive and motivating homework.
Let us summarise the data by responding to the research questions. NEF contains all
kinds of differentiation but differentiation by support, resource and interest. Global only does
not include differentiation by resource. NEF’s main limitation might be not including
differentiation by task aimed at individuals not whole classes, which is considered to be
crucial in modern teaching. Both NEF’s and Global’s limitations could be a lower number of
open-ended tasks and virtually no support for teachers beginners when it comes to adapting
the tasks to be more open-ended. Possible solutions are outlined in detail in the chapter
Suggestions for improvement. To conclude, it is advisable for the authors of the two
![Page 39: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
coursebooks to include more open-ended tasks. Ideas for mixed ability classes in Global
teacher’s book seem to be extremely useful and worth taking into account.
As far as the hypothesis is concerned, it was confirmed only partly. It is true that NEF
could consider the principles of differentiation more but on the other hand, Global appears to
be very close to meeting all the demanding criteria regarding the implementation of
differentiation.
![Page 40: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
6 Conclusion
Differentiated instruction proves to play a significant part in modern EFL teaching.
The thesis aimed to explore what kinds of differentiation are used in the two student’s books
and teacher’s books and more importantly, how exercises can be adapted to differentiate
without too much preparation on the part of the teacher. The hypothesis said: Modern
textbooks take differentiation into account but not sufficiently. It was only partly confirmed as
Global Intermediate met almost all criteria concerning differentiation. The reason for this
might be the fact that Global Intermediate came out in 2011 whereas New English File
Intermediate in 2006. On the other hand, New English File aimed at kinaesthetic learners
more than Global and offered more communicative games and activities.
As far as the answers to the research questions go, the conclusions will be
summarised here very briefly. Global does not include differentiation by resource whereas
NEF does not deal with differentiation by support, resource and interest. The main limitation
might be the lack of open-ended tasks and regarding NEF not enough support for teachers
when adapting exercises.
When adapting exercises I focused especially on differentiation by outcome,
task/ability and process. Open-ending exercises is not always possible but it needs to be
emphasised that the goal is not to open-end every single task. One of the techniques used was
careful deleting of chosen parts of the exercises. As far as differentiation by task goes,
adapting exercises to make them easier proved to be more demanding than adding tasks for
early finishers. Tasks for more able students tend to be more repetitive, which might be
a plausible explanation. As to differentiation by process, I included more exercises aimed at
kinaesthetic learners as this group often tends to be neglected when teaching older students.
Furthermore, some movement and game-like activities are beneficial and motivating for all
learners.
All in all, writing about differentiated instruction was definitely a worthwhile activity
as it showed me ways of adjusting to students’ needs better. Some principles of adapting
exercises are easy enough to implement in the class without too much preparation.
Furthermore, the conclusions of the thesis could be useful to students (and teachers) who feel
the need to explore differentiation in greater depth. One could develop the topic further and
![Page 41: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
come up with more ideas how to adapt exercises in coursebooks to suit more pupils in the
class.
![Page 42: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
7 Summary
The thesis has dealt with exploring the notion of differentiation and its
implementation in modern coursebooks. It is divided into the theoretical and practical part.
In the theoretical part basic concepts regarding differentiation are explained. Its
history and present state are explored as well as various reasons both for and against
differentiation in the classroom. Then learner needs and the relationship with differentiation
are examined. The theoretical part is concluded by types of differentiation and their
advantages and disadvantages.
In the practical part two coursebooks New English File Intermediate and Global
Intermediate and their teacher’s books are analysed according to the types of differentiation
suggested in the theoretical part. Furthermore, suggestions for improvement including
concrete examples of adapting exercises are given. As far as some of the conclusions go, it
has been found out that both coursebooks implement rules of differentiation but they differ in
terms of the amount of advice given to teachers. Global offers more teaching tips and
strategies whereas New English File focuses on communicative tasks. Both coursebooks do
not seem to include enough open-ended tasks.
Resumé
Závěrečná práce se zabývá zkoumáním pojmu diferenciace a tím, jak se zavádí do
moderních učebnic. Práce je rozdělena na teoretickou a praktickou část.
V teoretické části jsou vysvětleny základní pojmy týkající se diferenciace. Líčím její
historii, současný stav, ale také rozličné důvody pro a proti jejímu zavedení ve třídě. Poté se
zabývám potřebami žáka a jejich vztahem k diferenciaci. Teoretická práce je zakončena
vyjmenováním typů diferenciace a jejich výhodami i nevýhodami.
Podle typů diferenciace načrtnutých v teoretické části práce jsou pak podrobeny
analýze dvě učebnice New English File Intermediate a Global Intermediate a jejich verze pro
![Page 43: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
učitele. Dále uvádím návrhy na zlepšení včetně konkrétních příkladů adaptace cvičení. Co se
týče závěrů práce, zjistila jsem například, že v obou učebnicích lze najít aplikovaná pravidla
diferenciace, učebnice se ale liší v množství rad určených pro učitele. Global nabízí více tipů
a strategií pro učitele, zatímco New English File se zaměřuje na komunikační aktivity. Zdá
se, že žádná z učebnic neobsahuje dostatečné množství otevřených otázek a úkolů.
![Page 44: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
8 Bibliography
Anstee, P. (2011). Differentiation Pocketbook.UK: Management Pocketbooks.
Berman, M., Belak, M. & Rimmer, W.(2011). English Language Teaching Matters:
A Collection of Articles and Teaching Materials.US: John Hunt Publishing.
Bernstein, D.A. & Nash, P.W. (2008). Essentials of psychology (4th ed.) Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement:
Success Stories from Six Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Chen, Y. H. (2007). Exploring the Assessment Aspect of Differentiated Instruction: College
EFL Learners’ Perspectives on Tiered Performance Tasks. University of New Orleans:
ProQuest.
Clandfield, L. & Robb Benne, R. (2011). Global Intermediate Student’s Book. US:
Macmillan Education.
Clandfield, L. & Robb Benne, R. (2011). Global Intermediate Teacher’s Book. US:
Macmillan Education.
Cooper, J.M., Irizarry, J.G. Leighton, M.S. Morine-Dershimer, G.G. & Sadker, D. (2010).
Classroom Teaching Skills. US: Cengage Learning.
Dillon, J. & Maguire, M. (2011). Becoming a Teacher: Issues in Secondary Teaching. UK:
McGraw-Hill International.
![Page 45: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Dubin, F. (1986). Course Design: Developing Programs And Materials For Language
Learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). The Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gregory, G. H. & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated Instruction: One Size Doesn’t Fit All.
US: Corwin Press.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. US: Free Spirit
Publishing
Heacox, D. (2009). Making Differentiation a Habit: How to Ensure Success in Academically
Diverse Classrooms. US: Free Spirit Publishing.
Kopecká, K. (2010). Příčiny stresu u učitele ZŠ. Masaryk University, Brno.
Morgan, C. & Neil, P. (2001). Teaching Modern Foreign Languages: A Handbook for
Teachers. London: Routledge.
Murray, D.E. & Christison, M. (2010). What English Language Teachers Need to Know.
London: Routledge.
Oxendon, C. (2006). New English File Intermediate Student’s Book. UK: Oxford University
Press.
Oxendon, C. (2006). New English File Intermediate Teacher’s Book. UK: Oxford University
Press.
Pachler, N. (2001). Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the Secondary School:
a companion to school experience. London: Routledge.
![Page 46: Kopecka Final Version](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022020308/5695cfc71a28ab9b028f81fc/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All
Learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that Work: Task-centred Fluency Practice. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ur, P. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching. UK:Cambridge University Press.
Washburne, C. (1953). Adjusting the Program to the Child. Educational Leadership, 11 (3),
139-140.
Westphal, L. E.(2007). Differentiating Instruction with Menus. Austin, US: Prufrock Press
Inc.
Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, L. (2011). Essential Study Skills. US: Cengage Learning.