Masaryk University

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

Differentiation
in Primary School ELT
Diploma Thesis

Brno 2014

Supervisor: Written by:

doc. Mgr. Světlana Hanušová, Ph.D. Bc. Radka Saundersová

 2

Declaration:
I hereby declare that I have written this thesis on my own, using only the sources listed
in the bibliography.

Brno, 29th November 2014 __________________

Radka Saundersová
 3

Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my supervisor doc. Mgr. Světlana Hanušová, Ph.D. for her
invaluable guidance, advice and kind approach as she gave direction to my work and helped
me become a better teacher.

I would also like to thank my pupils for bearing with me while I introduced many new
strategies to their lessons; their parents and my colleagues who kindly supported me in my
quest to create a more pupil centred classroom; and my family for their unfailing support and
patience.
 4

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
I. THE THEORETICAL PART ................................................................................................. 7
1 Differentiation ................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 The history of differentiation and the influences upon which it draws .................. 7
1.2 The theory of differentiation ................................................................................ 11
1.3 The reasons for differentiation ............................................................................. 11
1.3 Identifying individual differences for differentiation ........................................... 14
1.3.1 Individual differences ................................................................................... 14
1.3.2 VAK Learning Styles ................................................................................... 15
1.3.3 Multiple Intelligences Test ........................................................................... 16
2 Techniques and strategies in differentiation in ELT ................................................ 18
2.1 Learning centres ................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Types of learning centres ..................................................................................... 20
2.3 Flexible instructional groups ................................................................................ 20
2.4 Experiential learning ............................................................................................ 21
3 Situation in the Czech educational system ............................................................... 23
3.1 From exclusion to inclusion ............................................................................. 23
3.2 Current trends in basic education in the Czech Republic..................................... 24
II. THE PRACTICAL PART ................................................................................................... 25
4 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 25
4.1 The school ............................................................................................................ 25
4.2 The course book ................................................................................................... 26
4.3 The classroom ...................................................................................................... 27
4.4 The class ............................................................................................................... 27
5 Pupil assessment as part of the differentiation process ........................................... 29
5.1 VAK test ............................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Multiple intelligences test ................................................................................... 30
5.3 Revision test and speaking examination .............................................................. 31
5.4 Finding out more about the pupils........................................................................ 33
6 Creating differentiated lesson plans ........................................................................ 35
6.1 Integrating readiness, learning styles, and multiple intelligences, and adjusting for
different levels .............................................................................................................. 35
6.2 Sample lesson plans ............................................................................................. 36
Lesson 1: Introduction, class business, VAK test (4. 9. 2014) ................................ 37
Lesson 2: Vocabulary revision, Gardner’s intelligences test (8. 9. 2014) ............... 40
Lesson 12: Introduction to Learning Centres (30. 9. 2014) ..................................... 44
Lesson 17: Learning Centres – Adjectives and Comparatives (9. 10. 2014) ........... 48
Lesson 28: Halloween Party (31. 10. 2014) ............................................................. 54
7 Final assessment ...................................................................................................... 64
7.1 Results of tests and their interpretation ................................................................ 64
7.2 Conclusion and suggested course of action .......................................................... 66
8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 67
WORKS CITED ..................................................................................................................... 69
 5

Introduction

Throughout the course of my studies at the Faculty of Education and my children’s

time at Primary school I have been searching for the best way to teach English both as a
native and as a foreign language and I have come across a great variety of teaching styles and
methods. Some are old and traditional, others are old but alternative, many are new and
revolutionary. But which one is the best? Can there be just one way to satisfy the needs of all?
As a mother of children who are bilingual in Czech and English, I have always been
aware of the challenges current English teachers face in their daily teaching practice and of
the ever widening gap between the most and the least proficient English learners in their
classes. There are pupils like my children whose English is equal to or, on occasion, even
better than the teachers’; the bright and linguistically talented pupils who perform well above
the average; then there are those average pupils for whom most lessons seem tailored to; and,
lastly, the pupils who struggle with learning differences and other challenging conditions, for
whom English appears to be a burden rather than an opportunity.
However, the pupils’ level of English is not the only feature which poses possible
problems for the teachers, as there are many additional factors to consider when searching for
the best way to address all their pupils’ needs, factors which include the following: gender,
family circumstances, socio-economic situations, ethnicity, learning history, learning style,
health, learning differences, level and type of intelligence, level of aspiration and motivation,
as well as hobbies and interests. As pupils progress through the education system, they are
gradually streamed, level by level, and the older they get, the less variety the teachers
encounter. Primary school seems to be the most difficult stage in the education system where
the highest level of diversity is present and it is one of the most challenging stages for
teachers and the most life changing time for the pupils.
The creators of The Framework Education Programme for Basic Education are aware
of the pupils’ needs, and the aims and goals of education they have formulated reflect those
needs quite well. They have provided teachers with a number of tools teachers can use to
achieve these aims and goals. However, teachers appear to lack training on how to use these
tools, sufficient time both to master and to implement them in the classroom, and motivation
in the form of support from the school management as well as social and financial
appreciation. And so, each teacher is left to their own interpretation of the desired outcome
and their own way of achieving it.
 6

During my search for the best way to address these issues I was pointed in the
direction of the topic of differentiation in education which in itself appears to be a term that is
difficult to define, serving as an umbrella term for a rather specific teaching mind set.
Whitney Sherman formulated this concise but enlightening definition: “Differentiated
instruction is recognized to be a compilation of many theories and practices related to
effective teaching and its link to student achievement. It requires a departure from traditional
methods of teaching and the belief that learners vary according to readiness, ability,
motivation, and interest. … It is a teaching strategy based on the premise that instructional
approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in
classrooms.” (Sherman 28.)
As the principles of differentiation seemed to offer a solution to most of the concerns
listed earlier, I decided to devote my thesis to the theoretical study and practical application of
this approach. I have studied the topic of differentiation in education, its history and practical
application in depth and have summarised my findings on differentiation and other related
fields in the theoretical part of this work. For the practical part of the thesis, I taught a Primary
school class (Grade 5) for three months using the acquired principles of differentiation in
practice in order to determine to what extent these principles are applicable in the Czech
environment; and how effective they prove to be when the teacher’s time and effort versus the
pupils’ benefits are taken into account. After the initial testing had been carried out, I decided
to apply the principles of differentiation first through the use of learning centres, as that
appeared to be the easiest strategy to implement with that particular class, and later adding
other techniques and strategies such as choice boards, differentiated group forming activities,
and experiential learning activities. The outcome of the case study is related in the final part
of the thesis.
 7

I. The Theoretical Part

1 Differentiation

1.1 The history of differentiation and the influences upon which it draws

The history of differentiation is essentially a history of the evolution of education in

general as the principles of differentiation are based on findings endorsed by experts from a
variety of fields connected to education such as philosophy, pedagogy, psychology, biology
and sociology.
Throughout history, knowledge has been passed down through the generations to the
present day. One of the first mentions of the importance of education appears early on in the
Old Testament in the Bible where parents are told:
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou
shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest
up.” (The Holy Bible 263-264)
True to this instruction, the first teaching has always taken place, and that is true to
this day, within the walls of our homes and has been traditionally administered by parents,
relatives and carers.
As the size of population grew and the scope of the available knowledge widened, so
did the need to pass the knowledge on in a more organized, concise and increasingly selective
manner.
Individual education gradually yielded to organized schooling, and, for example, in the
United States, “the history of differentiated instruction dates back to the 1600s when one
room school houses were the staple in education. In this setting, one teacher was responsible
for educating students in a wide range of grades and ability levels. One room, one teacher, no
technology.” (Gundlach) This model can still be found today in small villages and other
places around the world where the low number of students requires the teachers to teach two
or more grades in the same classroom at the same time.
Around the same time John Amos Comenius, a Czech teacher, educator and writer,
was advocating educational reform in Europe. As far back as 1642 he recognized that “the
learning which is now taught in Schooles, is a thing too tedious” and that “things are not
presented unto the very eyes and hands of those that are learners, but rather delivered to them
in vast, and dull narrations, which make little impression upon the understanding, and are
 8

hardly retained by the memory”. He proceeded to recommend certain measures to rectify the
situation: “represent every thing to its proper sense, visible things to the eyes, things that may
be tasted to the palate” and then he suggested that “we ought according to the order of nature
to proceed from those things, which are first, to those that follow, from generalls to those
which are more speciall, from things knowne to those which are more obscure”. (Comenius
14-15) His findings are still current and are underlying some of the goals of differentiation as
defined by Diane Heacox which include the following: “to provide flexible approaches to
content, instruction, and products; to respond to students’ readiness, instructional needs,
interests, and learning preferences; to provide opportunities for students to work in varied
instructional formats” (1). Even though the learning Comenius talked about was only meant
for the select few who could afford schooling (the general public did not have access to
education for another one hundred years in our lands, not until 1774 when Marie Theresa
issued the General School Regulation) Comenius’s principles are equally pertinent in our day
and age.
These notions were further expounded upon by John Dewey, an American
philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, who felt that “education … must begin
with a psychological insight into the child's capacities, interests, and habits” and aptly
described the need for the insight in these words:
Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for
the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have
the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to
command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to
work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently. It is impossible to
reach this sort of adjustment save as constant regard is had to the individual's own powers,
tastes, and interests. … I believe that only through the continual and sympathetic observation of
childhood's interests can the adult enter into the child's life and see what it is ready for, and
upon what material it could work most readily and fruitfully. (Dewey 79)
Another step in our understanding of learning was provided by Lev Vygotsky, a
Russian psychologist, who defined the so called “zone of proximal development” which
“permits us to delineate the child’s immediate future and his dynamic developmental state,
allowing not only for what already has been achieved developmentally but also for what is in
the course of maturing”. According to his theory, it is important to assess the exact level of
the child’s capabilities, so that we can provide the child with input which is set just above the
level of his understanding as “children can imitate a variety of actions that go well beyond the
 9

limits of their own capabilities. Using imitation, children are capable of doing much more in
collective activity or under the guidance of adults.” (Vygotsky 79-91)
Vygotsky’s peer, the Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, delved deeper
into the mechanics of how children learn and formulated a theory of cognitive development
which distinguishes four developmental stages and the accomplishments children can achieve
at each stage. Then, in the early 1900s, the French psychologist Alfred Binet devised the first
intelligence text, the so-called Binet-Simon scale, which served as a means of assessing the
current intellectual development of a child and their preparedness for further academic
studies. The work of these two thinkers greatly influenced an American psychologist Howard
Gardner who at the turn of the twenty-first century, postulated his multiple intelligences
theory, one of the important factors to be taken into consideration when applying
differentiated instruction. He explained: “There is persuasive evidence for the existence of
several relatively autonomous human intellectual competencies that can be fashioned and
combined in a multiplicity of adaptive ways by individuals and cultures.” (Gardner, Frames
8-9) Gardner describes an intelligence as “a biopsychological potential to process information
in certain kinds of ways, in order to solve problems or create products that are valued in one
or more cultural settings”. (Gardner, The Theory 3) The eight intelligences that he identified
over the course of several years include linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical
intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence,
naturalistic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence.
The work of an American psychologist Abraham Maslow is also of some
consequence, his hierarchy of needs helps us understand one of the reasons why children
streamed by age and studying under the same conditions within the same classroom do not
progress at the same rate. According to his theory, it is only when our basic needs are satisfied
that we are able to aspire to higher ambitions and interests. He also specifically mentions
ways in which we learn as children and these ways are given consideration in the formulation
of the principles of differentiation:
Observation of children shows more and more clearly that healthy children enjoy growing and
moving forward, gaining new skills, capacities and powers. Healthy people have sufficiently
gratified their basic needs for safety, belongingness, love, respect and self-esteem so that they
are motivated primarily by trends to self-actualization. … Growth is, in itself, a rewarding and
exciting process, e.g., the fulfilling of yearnings and ambitions, like … the acquisition of
admired skills. The healthy infant or child, just Being, as part of his Being, is randomly, and
spontaneously curious, exploratory, wondering, interested. Even when he is non-purposeful,
non-coping, expressive, spontaneous, not motivated by any deficiency of the ordinary sort, he
 10

tends to try out his powers, to reach out, to be absorbed, fascinated, interested, to play, to
Wonder, to manipulate the world. Exploring, manipulating, experiencing, being interested,
choosing, delighting, enjoying can all be seen as attributes of pure Being, and yet lead to
Becoming. (Maslow 23-24)
Robert Sternberg, an American psychologist, defined a set of thinking styles as
another way to assist teachers in understanding their students and distinguished them from
learning styles (auditory, visual, kinesthetic) which are more readily recognized. He stated:
A style of thought is a preference for using abilities in certain ways. It is not an ability itself, but
the way one likes to utilize abilities. Thus, when we speak of individual differences in thinking
styles, we are speaking only of differences, not of better and worse. Our use of the term thinking
style is distinct from the use of the term learning style that is sometimes found in the literature.
Learning styles are generally viewed as dealing with preferred ways of learning material (e.g.,
orally, visually, kinesthetically), whereas the styles of which we speak deal with preferred ways
of thinking about material. … Ideally, educators need to teach to and assess a variety of styles.
Teaching should be differentiated to help each child capitalize on strengths and compensate for
or correct weaknesses. (Sternberg 245)
It is evident that there have been numerous influences which have shaped the
phenomenon called differentiated instruction, and the next chapter explores the theory of
differentiation and what differentiated instruction consists of.
 11

1.2 The theory of differentiation

“It’s like a bar of soap … you try to grasp it and

suddenly it shoots out of your hand.” (Kershner 17)

There are two generally recognized basic forms of differentiation – external and
internal.
External differentiation includes streaming pupils into specialized classes, groups and
schools based on their ability or interest, for example math, language or sports classes;
moving talented pupils up a class; the division of pupils among basic schools, 8-year
secondary schools, and special education schools; and further streaming into various types of
higher secondary schools and universities.
Internal differentiation takes place within one class at any given school and all
teachers use it to a greater or lesser extent when they plan in their lessons for early finishers,
slower pupils, or when they adapt materials for pupils with specific learning differences. The
principles of differentiation discussed in this chapter are a summary of the many ways
teachers may differentiate and they offer some advice on how to achieve differentiation
without feeling completely overwhelmed by its complexity and increased workload (Langa
7).

1.3 The reasons for differentiation

The term “differentiation” appears to generate as many questions as it answers. The

first question when confronted with this strategy, and before delving any deeper into it, could
be: Why is it relevant? Why should I take an interest? Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson expounds on
the need for differentiation in our day in these words:
In order to teach culturally and academically diverse populations effectively, schools
will have to move from standardized instruction to personalized instruction. Our best
knowledge of effective teaching and learning suggests clearly that teacher responsiveness to
race, gender, culture, readiness, experience, interest, and learning preferences results in
increased student motivation and achievement. … An increasingly complex society in which
nearly every career and profession requires problem solving and flexible thinking means that
students must learn to be critical thinkers, problem solvers, and producers of knowledge (rather
than just consumers of knowledge).
 12

Yet too many teachers cling to the comfortable patterns of the past. Despite abundant
and mounting evidence to the contrary, our high school classes still evince the belief that
teaching is telling, that the teacher is the teller, that learning is repeating, that curriculum is
coverage, that students are unmotivated and dependent, that assessment happens at the end of
large blocks of teaching, that grades serve the purpose of “separating the sheep from the goats,”
and that “classroom management” is just a synonym for control. (Tomlinson, Strickland 1-2)
This situation will be readily recognized by the Czech teachers too – especially those
who teach at Primary and Lower Secondary schools and face the vastly diverse needs of their
numerous pupils and their proportionally decreasing interest in the educational content as they
progress through the grades.
As mentioned in the Introduction, differentiated instruction is a compilation of many
teaching theories and practices. It takes into account the students’ readiness, ability,
motivation, and interest and there is some strong encouragement to adapt instruction to the
needs of each individual in the classroom.
Tomlinson does not give us only the reason for using differentiation; she also explains
the ins and outs of the strategy. While on the one hand Tomlinson says that “what we
call differentiation is not a recipe for teaching. It is not an instructional strategy. It is not what
a teacher does when he or she has time. It is a way of thinking about teaching and learning. It
is a philosophy.” (Tomlinson, Reconcilable 6-11); on the other hand, she has created a chart
which succinctly summarizes the main points and aims of differentiated instruction and
demonstrates that it is much more than just “a philosophy” or “a way of thinking”
(Tomlinson, Differentiation):
 13

In this chart, Tomlinson lists several “general principles” which guide the
differentiation process. These are: respectful tasks, quality curriculum, teaching up, flexible
grouping, continual assessment and building community. Respectful tasks remind us that all
tasks need to be not only equally challenging but also equally appealing and attractive to the
students. If we modify a poor curriculum in brilliant ways, the outcome will still be poor – we
need to make sure the curriculum we work with is of a good quality. Teaching up refers to the
teachers’ obligation to use different methods and strategies for pupils with different
intelligences, interests and learner profiles in order to help them succeed. Flexible grouping
suggests that it is good to group students according to many varied criteria, so that they do not
become or feel labelled. Continual assessment is one of the key concepts and it includes pre-
testing which is used to find out how many students already know the curriculum we are
about to teach and to what extent; regular graded and ungraded on-task assessment which
checks on the students progress; and final assessment which summarizes the whole process.
Tomlinson also believes that building a classroom community in which the teacher and the
students feel secure and know that they can both receive and give help lends support to the
students learning.
Differentiation is a very complex approach to teaching and, as such, it faces many
challenges. Sherman summarized the main points in this manner:
The greatest challenge to differentiated instruction is time, followed by classroom management,
changing teacher expectations, and professional development (Corley, 2005). Heacox (2002)
also identified challenges as how to make grouping invisible (i.e., so that students do not feel as
if they have been placed in fast and slow groups); grading; lack of necessary budgetary
resources; and lack of a concrete and operational definition available for parent explanations.
(Sherman 28)
All of these issues are related to the actual use of differentiated instruction; however,
there is another issue which then arises: there does not appear to be much empirical evidence
that differentiated instruction as a whole improves the pupils’ performance. In 2003 Hall,
Strangman, and Meyer pointed out that “the ‘package’ itself is lacking empirical validation”.
They state that “there is an acknowledged and decided gap in the literature in this area and
future research is warranted” (5). “The proponents of differentiation” defend the use of this
strategy by claiming that “the principles and guidelines are rooted in years of educational
theory and research” and that “practices noted as central to differentiation have been validated
in the effective teaching research conduced from the mid 1980's to the present” (5). Hall,
Strangman, and Meyer close the matter with these words: “While no empirical validation of
differentiated instruction as a package was found for this review, there are a generous number
 14

of testimonials and classroom examples that authors of several publications and web sites
provide.” (5) Their views are echoed in the findings of Sherman who stated: “While numerous
testimonials, examples of differentiation in practice, and for-profit tools abound in the
literature, little empirical research exists warranting future research on the effectiveness of
differentiated instruction as measured by student achievement on assessments.” (5) In other
words, teachers who have been using differentiated instruction generally testify of its validity;
but empirical evidence lending support to their statements is still lacking.

1.3 Identifying individual differences for differentiation

“Differentiating instruction begins with knowing your students and their learning
needs.” (Heacox 26)
One of the crucial parts of differentiated instruction is getting to know the learners and
creating a learner profile for each individual. Each learner is unique and has many specific
characteristics which influence the way in which the learner absorbs, learns and reacts to the
curriculum. The most commonly tested traits are the VAK learning styles and multiple
intelligences, but there are other important differences, such as hobbies and interests and the
level of the particular field of study they have achieved.

1.3.1 Individual differences

There are many ways in which one pupil differs from another and all of these ways are
worth finding out about in order to understand the pupils’ needs better. “The goal of
differentiated instruction is to increase the likelihood that students will be successful learners.
A good way to enhance students’ chances for success is to get to know them and to
understand how they differ from one another in interests, learning preferences and pace,
readiness and motivation.” (Heacox 21)
Tomlinson and Strickland list pupils’ characteristics which influence the pupils’
perception of the curriculum and those are readiness, interest and learning profile. They
describe readiness as “the current knowledge, understanding, and skill level a student has
related to a particular sequence of learning” (6). The reason for differentiating according to
pupils’ readiness “is first to make the work a little too difficult for students at a given point in
their growth - and then to provide the support they need to succeed at the new level of
challenge” (6).
Most teachers begin by looking at the pupils’ past achievements and grades and by
assessing their current level of knowledge and skills. Heacox (21) suggests it may be a good
 15

idea to have a file or a portfolio for each pupil which would serve as an inventory of what the
pupil already achieved and to what level. It helps ascertain their level of readiness to receive
new information.
Next comes identifying the pupils’ hobbies and interests which allows for the design
of lessons that are not only engaging for the pupils but also enable them to become the experts
who know the most about certain fields and can teach others about them. Including the pupils’
interests in our planning helps improve their motivation, turning it from extrinsic to intrinsic,
and presents us with options when using flexible grouping.
It is also important to get to know the pupils on a personal level – find out about their
families and family circumstances: their nationality and native tongue, the family size and set
up, the level of education their parents and siblings have achieved and their attitude towards
learning.
Last, but not least, is finding out and preparing for the pupils’ special needs which is
currently an area of great interest but probably one of the hardest to prepare for successfully
as there are countless variables connected to and influencing each pupil with a special need.
Special needs include a wide range of needs, such as health problems, social
disadvantages, the needs of gifted pupils, and specific learning differences.
'Specific learning differences' (SpLDs) are a group of conditions that seem to be caused by
variations in the way the brain develops, leading to some individuals exhibiting a relatively
unusual way of perceiving the world and processing information. The most common SpLDs are
dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, AD(H)D and Asperger's Syndrome. (“Specific learning
differences”)
Dyslexia involves difficulties with phonological awareness and information
processing. Dyspraxia manifests itself in a reduced awareness of the subject’s surroundings
and problems with coordination of movements. Dyscalculia involves difficulty with
comprehending numeric concepts and manipulation with numbers. AD(H)D stands for
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and it manifests itself as impulsivity, hyperactivity
and inattention. Asperger’s Syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder which can cause
repetitive behaviour, difficulties with communication and social interaction, and some
favouring of stereotypical patterns.

1.3.2 VAK Learning Styles

The acronym VAK stands for visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Testing for VAK
learning styles is one of the most widely used methods for assessing the learners’ preferred
learning styles; it focuses on the learners’ sensory preferences during the learning process.
 16

“Sensory preferences refer to the physical, perceptual learning channels with which the
student is the most comfortable.” (Oxford 3)
Chapman states: “The original VAK concepts were first developed by psychologists
and teaching (of children) specialists such as Fernald, Keller, Orton, Gillingham, Stillman and
Montessori, starting in the 1920's”. (Chapman, “VAK”) The VAK test is a means to
understanding which of the styles enables us to learn most effectively: visual, auditory or
kinesthetic. Visual learners benefit from pictures, videos, books, graphs and other visually
stimulating presentations. Auditory learners prefer listening to stories and presentations rather
than reading them; what they hear is easier for them to remember and to recall than what they
see or do. Kinesthetic learners love to physically try the things they are learning about or at
least to connect them to some form of movement. From infancy each person develops a way
in which we prefer to receive or perceive information: visually – we learn best if we can see a
picture depicting the information, read about it or watch it; in an auditory manner – we benefit
most from listening to it or speaking about it, and we remember best the things we heard; and
in a kinesthetic manner – we find it easiest to learn new things if we can physically carry them
out or if we can connect them to some kind of motion, such as touching and feeling. Some
people exhibit a strong preference for only one of the learning styles, while others use all of
them in equal measure. The idea is that if we as teachers present information to the learners in
their preferred learning style or at least in a mixture of all the styles, they will be able to
assimilate it much easier and faster. However, the most common style is a combination of all
three of these (Chapman, “VAK”) which means that all teachers should make an effort to
provide materials for all of the styles on a regular basis.

1.3.3 Multiple Intelligences Test

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed by the American psychologist
Howard Gardner, who, through the study of the nature of artistic talent in young people and
aphasia patients in a veteran hospital, came to the realisation that there is more to intellect
than the IQ test is able to tell us. He studied “which areas of human skill and competence
were localized in which areas of the brain; … created a working definition of intelligence and
… delineated eight factors of what counts as intelligence and what does not.” He defines an
intelligence as “a biopsychological potential to process information in certain kinds of ways,
in order to solve problems or create products that are valued in one or more cultural settings”
(Gardner, The Theory 3); and describes the process of selection in these words: “I reviewed
many sample candidates and, after considerable weighing of evidence, delineated seven
 17

candidate intelligences. I now believe that the total number of intelligences is somewhat
larger, but would be surprised if it came to more than 10 or 12. The original seven were
linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal and
intrapersonal. Some years ago I added an eighth or naturalist intelligence.” (Gardner, The
Theory 3) He further states that “the most important educational implications of MI theory …
can be captured in two words: Individuation and Pluralization. Human beings differ from one
another and there is absolutely no reason to teach and assess all individuals in the identical
way. Rather, in the future, good practice should particularize the modes of presentation as
well as the manner of assessment as much as feasible; and that individuation should be based
on our understanding of the intellectual profiles of individual learners.” (Gardner, The Theory
6) Here is a brief description of each intelligence:
Linguistic intelligence denotes sensitivity to the spoken and written word and the
ability to learn languages and use them for achieving our goals.
Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the ability to think logically, to induce and
deduce, and to sort into various categories and patterns.
Musical intelligence is demonstrated in the ability to recognize and produce various
melodies and rhythms and in sensitivity to and appreciation of different kinds of music.
Spatial intelligence is based on the perception of surroundings and images and the
ability to think in pictures.
Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is associated with highly developed coordination skills
and fine motor skills, the need to feel, touch and express things physically through the body.
Interpersonal intelligence involves people skills, the ability to communicate effectively with
other people and to relate to them.
Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability of a person to understand themselves and their
feelings.
Naturalist intelligence is defined by the ability to understand, classify and find patterns
in the natural world.
All of us possess all of these intelligences in some measure but the stronger ones are
those that determine how we approach the world and grasp its context. Adjusting educational
content according to learners’ intelligences can deepen their understanding and influence their
attitude to learning.
 18

2 Techniques and strategies in differentiation in ELT

In her book, Differentiation in Practice, Tomlinson describes the ways in which

teachers can differentiate instruction and according to what criteria (Tomlinson, Strickland 6):
There are five classroom elements that teachers can differentiate — or modify —to
increase the likelihood that each student will learn as much as possible, as efficiently as
possible:
• Content - What we teach and how we give students access to the information
and ideas that matter.
• Process - How students come to understand and “own” the knowledge,
understanding, and skills essential to a topic.
• Products - How a student demonstrates what he or she has come to know,
understand, and be able to do as a result of a segment of study.
• Affect - How students link thought and feeling in the classroom.
• Learning environment - The way the classroom feels and functions.
All of these five elements are closely linked together and it is not necessary to try and
differentiate every one of them in each lesson.
Content can be modified by using materials of varied levels; by presenting the same
material in different formats, for example visual and auditory; or by attaching different tasks
to the same material.
Differentiating the process involves preparing activities in which pupils receive a
different level of support and the tasks have varied difficulty, but the core knowledge and
skills which are taught remain the same for all pupils. In this context interest centres, flexible
grouping, and shorter or longer time on task are all useful.
Products may appear to be the easiest part to differentiate as there are so many
options: for example, pupils can choose to demonstrate their newly acquired or enhanced
ability by writing a story, singing a song, citing a poem, creating a poster, making a book,
performing a dance or a sketch, doing a puppet show, conducting interviews, or producing a
PowerPoint presentation. The challenge here is to develop a way of assessing all the products
that would be fair and equitable.
The learning environment can be varied by having quiet places in the classroom where
pupils can work alone, allowing certain pupils to move around the classroom at certain times,
having areas designated for group work or other specific tasks. It also includes cultivating a
mutually helpful and respectful atmosphere among the class members.
 19

All of the elements mentioned above can be implemented through and complemented
by the use of instructional strategies, such as learning centres, flexible instructional groups
and experiential learning.

2.1 Learning centres

One of the many instructional strategies that Tomlinson suggests for implementing
differentiated instruction is the use of learning centres. Martha M. McCarthy explains what
learning centres are and how to use them in her article The Why and How of Learning
Centers:
Learning centers are special areas designed for individual and small-group learning experiences.
… The learning center tries to deal with the reality that pupils learn at different rates, have
different interests and needs, and are motivated when they are permitted to make choices based
on these unique needs and interests. … Learning centers are an instructional strategy, and they
must be viewed as part of the total school program. (292-293)
When teachers want to start using learning centres in their teaching, they need to be
aware of a number of basic requirements. First of all, it is important to introduce learning
centres gradually and start with simple and fairly structered tasks and options. McCarthy says:
The teacher may want to start with three centers and have every child attend each center for a
certain period of time daily. For a while, the options in each center should remain limited. Later,
the child can be allowed to choose the center he or she wants to attend and decide how long to
stay there. … . (294)
Secondly, teachers need to assess their students’ needs and preferences in order to
prepare suitable activities for each centre according to the individual student’s level, learning
style and hobbies and interests; and to devise a way in which they will keep their instructions
and objectives clear:
A variety of options should be available at the centers. Activities should fit into various levels
and learning styles. … All activities in the learning center should have objectives, directions for
use, and a record-keeping system easily understood by the pupils. (McCarthy 295)
It is important to make sure the students understand that they will be held accountable
for the work they do in the centres and to think of some way to check on the students’ work
and progress achieved at the centres. In her article, McCarthy lists the following options:
Pupils need to know exactly what options are available to them, and they must be accountable
for their activities. … For each learning center activity that involves the acquisition of facts or
specific skills, a short quiz or test should be developed to learn whether the pupil has mastered
the objective set for that activity. … For other activities that cannot be directly measured, the
teachers should develop some method for the pupil to demonstrate that the objective has been
attained. (297)
 20

2.2 Types of learning centres

There are many different types of learning centres. They can be aimed at different
subjects (such as Maths, English, Science, Art); skills in a subject (such as reading, writing,
listening, speaking); divided according to how students work at the centre (alone, with a
partner, as part of a group or led by a teacher); assigned a time limit or given unlimited time
within one or more lessons (Collins, Vojtková 2); but generally speaking, they can be divided
into three basic types: enrichment centres, skill centres, and interest centres.
Enrichment centres are used for further practice and the wider application of materials
already studied in the lessons, and, according to Frederics, they are meant “to provide students
with opportunities to enrich and enhance their appreciation and understanding of the topics
through individual experiences“ (Frederics 221).
Skill centres are also providing further practice of previously acquired material but
focus mainly on strengthening the acquired knowledge and skills through repetition and
memorisation, and based on their individual needs, “students are assigned particular areas in
the center as opposed to having free choice of the topics they want to pursue“ (Frederics 224).
Interest centres serve as a means of affording the students an opportunity to delve
deeper into a subject of interest in a manner that best suits them and their learning
preferences. “These types of centers can be set up throughout the classroom, with students
engaging in their own selection of activities during free time, or … as a “free-choice” activity
during the day.” (Frederics 225)

2.3 Flexible instructional groups

When we intend to use learning centres, it is necessary for us to divide the pupils into
several groups, and that can be achieved in many ways. Heacox sees flexible instructional
grouping as “a critical management strategy in a differentiated classroom”. She believes it
provides “a better instructional match between students and their individual needs” (85).
Many teachers use flexible grouping intuitively when they group pupils according to
their hobbies and interests; when they let pupils choose who they want to work with; or when
they arrange groups based on their academic or other abilities. Heacox specifies that flexible
grouping also gives us “time to provide additional instruction or extended learning experience
to particular students or groups” (85). She states:
Flexible grouping does this without taking away from a classroom’s sense of community.
You’ll find, in fact, that students feel more involved, engaged, and confident when they’re
involved in activities tailored to their learning needs and preferences. Your instructional time is
 21

better used because you’re able to address appropriate learning goals for all students. (Heacox
85)
This type of grouping is not used every day and it is not permanent. Teachers can vary
the size of the groups as well as the time and the purpose (personal progress, aptitude or
learning preferences) for which the groups stay together.
Other types of grouping include tracking (based on talents or limitations), ability
grouping (based on aptitude, intelligence or ability), performance grouping (accelerated,
enriched or advanced), and cooperative grouping (for collaborative work). (Heacox 86)

2.4 Experiential learning

Experiential learning is a philosophy and methodology which promotes the idea that
pupils should be involved in direct experiences in order to learn. This type of learning
involves action, experience, doing, discovering and exploring (“Experiential Learning” 1).
The theory of experiential learning was formed by David A. Kolb, an American
psychologist and educational theorist, who based his theory on the works of Dewey, Lewin
and Piaget. In his work, Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development, he proposes that “ideas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought but are
formed and re-formed through experience” (28). Then he goes on to explain:
The fact that learning is a continuous process grounded in experience has important
educational implications. Put simply, it implies that all learning is relearning. How easy and
tempting it is in designing a course to think of the learner’s mind as being as blank as the paper
on which we scratch our outline. Yet this is not the case. Everyone enters every learning
situation with more or less articulate ideas about the topic at hand.
Thus, one’s job as an educator is not only to implant new ideas but also to dispose of
or modify old ones. In many cases, resistance to new ideas stems from their conflict with old
beliefs that are inconsistent with them. If the education process begins by brining out the
learner’s beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, an then integrating the new, more
refined ideas into the person’s belief system, the learning process will be facilitated. (29)
Kolb defined four elements which every learning situation must contain:
concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active
experimentation (30).
Instruction in experiential learning is “designed to engage students in direct
experiences which are tied to real world problems and situations in which the
instructor facilitates rather than directs student progress” (“Experiential learning” 2). It
is important to ensure that every learning situation contains all four elements; gives the
 22

pupils ample opportunities for hands-on experience, experiments and engagement;

relates to real life situations; and involves the pupil both intellectually and emotionally.
 23

3 Situation in the Czech educational system

3.1 From exclusion to inclusion

The Czech educational system has been undergoing many significant changes, one of
them being the effort to transform it from a excluding educational system to an inclusive one.
Traditionally, pupils with special needs were more or less automatically streamed to schools
specializing in the care of these pupils. Membership in the European Union brought with it
pressure to change this tendency and to adopt the equal opportunities system of inclusion, in
which as many pupils as possible (there is a limit to the inclusion of the severely disabled in
the mainstream education system) are educated in mainstream schools. As these efforts began
to take place before the educational system and all concerned had an opportunity to prepare
and adjust for these changes, most schools have struggled and still struggle with providing the
level of inclusion expected of them. There is a consistent effort to provide integration for
these pupils, which is better than complete exclusion, but it still requires the pupils themselves
to adapt in order to fit into the system instead of being the other way round. There are many
issues that make inclusion difficult; however, many of these are gradually being dealt with,
such as the lack of special education specialists in mainstream schools, the physical
accessibility of schools to pupils with physical disability, financial support for schools
practising inclusion, the process of the elimination of racist tendencies amongst both teachers
and pupils, and preparing teachers for coping with even greater diversity in their often large
and already diverse classes.
On this issue, The Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education
(hereinafter the FEP EB) suggests a number of adjustments, methods and principles designed
to assist “the successful education of pupils with health disabilities and physical
disadvantages” as well as the “exceptionally gifted pupils” both in special and mainstream
schools. Among these principles are the following: “apply the principle of the differentiation
and individualization of the educational process when organizing activities and determining
educational content, forms and methods;” (FEP EB 116) and “the form of instruction …
should consistently observe the principles of individualization and internal differentiation.”
(FEP EB 120) Further “examples of pedagogical-organizational adjustments” are “individual
education plans; complementing, expanding and deepening the educational content; assigning
specific assignments; and internal differentiation of pupils in certain subjects.” (FEP EB 120)
 24

Internal differentiation (rather than external differentiation which essentially leads to

exclusion) appears to be a key strategy for the successful implementation of these changes.

3.2 Current trends in basic education in the Czech Republic

The FEP EB states that the current trends in education should include the following:
• Take into account pupils’ needs and potential when attaining the objectives of basic
education.

• Apply variable organizational patterns and individualization of the educational process

respecting pupils’ needs and potential; apply differentiation to education.

• Offer a broader range of obligatory optional subjects for the development of pupils’
interests and individual potential.

• Create a favourable social, emotional and working atmosphere based on effective

motivation, cooperation and on engaging methods of education.

• Gradually accomplish changes in the assessment of the pupils towards diagnostics on an

ongoing basis, individual assessment of pupils’ achievements and a wider use of verbal
assessment.

• Maintain, as long as possible, naturally diverse pupil groups and weaken the reasons for
separating and sending pupils to specialized classrooms and schools. (7-8)
All of these principles are worthy and greatly needed, and, for many of them, the
teachers currently practising and in the process of gaining their qualifications are being
prepared in specialised courses at universities and other educational centres.
However, the principles of differentiation, when perceived as a “package”, seem to
appear in the teaching practice of Czech teachers as fragmented attempts rather than a well-
rounded strategy as they are proving hard to grasp without having seen them in practice first.
The universities themselves still tend towards providing their students with lecturing rather
than differentiated teaching, so the students, future teachers, lack any practical example to
follow in this matter.
 25

II. The Practical Part

4 Introduction

The theoretical part of this thesis described and summarised the principles of
differentiation, its origin, parts and structure, and the reasons behind the Czech educational
system’s need for it. The aim of the practical part of this thesis - the case study - is to use the
principles of differentiation in practice, to describe the process, the perceived benefits and
challenges and to discern to what extent these principles are applicable in the Czech
environment; and how effective they prove to be when the teacher’s time and effort versus the
pupils’ benefits are taken into account.
Perhaps it may be beneficial to explain here that the original plan for the thesis had
much grander aims which included teaching two groups of pupils – one with the application
of the principles of differentiation and the other taught by conventional methods and used as a
control group for comparison – in order to determine whether there are any measurable
benefits to using this strategy. However, that would require an ability to teach or carry out
teaching practice at a school with at least two classes or groups of the same grade. Also, such
an experiment may stand on a precarious ethical ground though, as teaching one group of
pupils in a presumably “better” way than the other could cause concern and discord not only
among pupils, their parents, and educational authorities, but it may also present an ethical
dilemma for the teacher. However, as the only place available for this teaching practice was a
small village school with only one small class in each grade, this kind of experiment was not
possible anyway.

4.1 The school

The school is placed at one end of a small village with a population of about 1600. The
school building looks spacious from the outside but as it also houses the local kindergarten, it
does not afford sufficient space for all the desired specialised classrooms. There are 10
classrooms placed on the first and second floors of the building, two of which also double up
as an after-school club facility, so the pupils who regularly study there (namely grades 8 and
9) have to move to different classrooms after the fourth class of the day. There is a computer
lab, a gym, a dining hall, four small staff rooms and one large one which also serves as a
library. There are also sanitary facilities on each floor. Unfortunately, there are no outdoor
 26

sports facilities or language, art or music labs. The teaching of English takes place in regular
classrooms which are equipped with a projector, a pull-down screen, a blackboard, a notebook
and a CD/tape player. Three of the classrooms also have an interactive board but it has proven
somewhat difficult to arrange a classroom swap in order to be able to use them.
The staff consists of a head and thirteen teachers of whom two share the teaching of
English between them.

4.2 The course book

I teach English in four classes at the school – grade 3 (22 pupils), grade 5 (originally
22 pupils but as of the 21st October 21 pupils), grade 6 (11 pupils), and grade 8 (11 pupils).
Grades 3 and 5 have four 45-minute lessons a week and grades 6 and 8 have three 45-
minute lessons a week.
The course book all the grades use is Hello, kids (Angličtina pro ... ročník základní
školy – one assigned to each grade) by the Czech author Marie Zahálková. The set includes a
teacher’s book, a student’s book, a workbook and a CD. The advantages of these books
include the following: the content of each book faithfully follows the Framework Educational
Programme for Basic Education; they provide detailed instructions for the teachers; and they
suggest quite a few TPR and experiential activities for the students. They use both Czech and
English for instructions and grammar explanations; and new vocabulary also appears in both
Czech and English. The recordings of the listening exercises included on the CD are done by
children bilingual in Czech and English and by the Czech author of the book. They try to
accommodate the Czech learner to such an extent that it results in some pitfalls: for example,
some supposedly authentic rhymes and songs are simplified - probably for vocabulary and
grammar reasons – and as a result, do not follow the natural rhythm, flow and intonation and
fail to fulfil the objective of the activity. Also, there are mistakes in all the books across the
grades but they appear to be the most plentiful in the grade 3 book, which is surprising as that
one is not even a first edition: incorrect names in the picture stories and listening exercises,
missing or repeated words in “match the word to its transcription” exercises, spelling mistakes
and others. The books do repeat topics and grammar points periodically but there seems to be
too much grammar too early. For example, the present perfect is introduced in year 6 in these
books whereas in the Project series, as they are used at a non-specialized lower secondary
school, it does not appear till year 8. The course books were selected four years ago by an
English teacher who was at the time qualified to teach Czech, Latin and Music, and who
 27

found this book very helpful for a novice English teacher with limited understanding of
English.

4.3 The classroom

The classroom itself is light but crowded. There is a teacher’s desk and chair, 12 desks
for two pupils each and 24 chairs; the pupils sit mostly in pairs, with a couple of exceptions.
The desks and chairs are quite new and modern and they are adjusted to fit the size of their
occupants. There is not enough space to arrange the desks and chairs in a horseshoe shape, as
is often preferred in a language classroom, but it is possible to join two or more desks together
to create a centre for a varied number of pupils. It is rather difficult to move among the
centres though.
The classroom faces the main road and there is often a lot of noise coming from the
traffic passing through the village when the windows are open. The pupils prefer to have the
windows closed but at times it gets too hot in the classroom for that.
There are a few cupboards in the classroom in which the pupils store their art supplies
and magazine binders for their work. The walls are decorated with the examples of pupils’
work from various subjects. The lighting is good and there are blinds in the windows to block
out the sun when needed. There is a traditional blackboard at the front of the class and a large
TV at the back of the class. Unfortunately, it is not easy to access and operate, and as it is
situated at the desk level, the pupils cannot see it very well when it is used. Over time I gave
preference to using either my own notebook or the class notebook for showing videos and
other visual presentations, and got the pupils to come and sit in a huddle on the floor in front
of the blackboard by the teacher’s desk – the cable connecting the notebooks to the power
source and the internet lead are quite short, so the notebooks have to stay at the teacher’s desk
or in its near vicinity.

4.4 The class

I decided to carry out the case study in grade 5 as it appeared to be the most suitable
class for the purpose of the thesis; it has the highest number of pupils and a fair variety in the
achieved level of English and specific learning difficulties. I have, however, also used some
of the principles of differentiation in all of the other classes I teach when I felt they were
needed for the benefit of the pupils. Pupils of grade 5 have been studying English since they
were in grade 3, so they have been learning it for just over two years.
 28

As was already mentioned, there were originally 22 pupils in grade 5 – 17 boys and 5
girls. After the first two months one pupil, a boy, left to start attending a school in Brno which
specializes in teaching pupils with severe specific learning differences, namely dyslexia and
dysgraphia. He changed schools at the request of his parents who felt he would benefit from
studying in a class of 12 rather than 22 pupils, and with 2 teachers and an assistant rather than
just one teacher. The educational counselling facility the parents consulted decided that he did
not qualify for an assistant at his original school. It is worth considering that if his differences
were severe enough to qualify him to attend the specialized school, they should have qualified
him for an assistant in a regular school in the first place – a prime example of how inclusion is
not always supported the way it should be.
There are four pupils diagnosed with specific learning differences, all boys: D. –
dysgraphia, dyslexia; D. – dysgraphia, dyslexia, ADHD; T. – weak motoric skills and visual
discrimination; M. – dysgraphia, minor brain dysfunction.
One of the pupils is bilingual in Czech and Slovak, so his perception of English is
filtered through the mixture of those two languages.
The class is boy dominant and the girls struggle to build a good relationship with one
another due to their uneven number and the fact that there are so few of them. None of the
girls has been allowed to sit next to another girl due to various issues within the class – some
pupils are deemed too talkative, others too distracted, some need supervision, and some need
isolation. According to the year tutor, who has been very helpful and supportive of my efforts
in her class, one of the girls exercises a strong (and not always desirable) influence over
another of the girls in particular and many of the boys. However, I have not witnessed that yet
in the English classes.
While many of the pupils like to chat among themselves in the English classes,
especially in Czech, I have not yet experienced any undue behavioural difficulties and I would
describe the overall class atmosphere as positive, friendly and cooperative, and a credit to
their year tutor who clearly works with them regularly on maintaining a good working ethic
within a friendly framework.
 29

5 Pupil assessment as part of the differentiation process

As explained in part 1.2 of this thesis, assessment forms a crucial part of the
differentiation process. We cannot effectively differentiate if we do not know our learners and
are not aware of their needs. In order to learn more about grade 5, I gave them a written
revision test, a VAK test, a multiple intelligence test and they also undertook a speaking
examination carried out by an external examiner experienced in Cambridge standardized
testing. I have also gained further insight into the pupils’ lives and mindset from in-class
observation and tasks, such as an assignment to create a family tree of their family and to
write one or two sentences about each member of their family.
Even though I thought I was well prepared for this stage, I did not fully anticipate the
amount of time the testing would ultimately take. In my initial planning I only allowed for
about 5-10 minutes for each test but after implementing the first test I quickly realized that
each of the tests would take the pupils much longer. As a result, I tried to make sure the pupils
took only one test per lesson and got opportunities to be active both before and after each test.
The testing took place over four lesson periods of 45 minutes each. This may not sound like a
long time but I felt it set back both the revision and the fulfilment of the monthly thematic
plan.

5.1 VAK test

The VAK test I used in grade 5 was in Czech (the pupils’ English is not advanced
enough yet for them to be able to answer it effectively in English) and was created
specifically for pupils of Czech primary and lower secondary schools (projekt MIP
CZ.1.07/1.2.00/14.0125).
In general, all the learning styles proved to be reasonably well balanced within the
class: with visual learning style being the strongest by a very small margin for 14 pupils, the
kinesthetic style was, by a very small margin, the strongest for 3 pupils, and the auditory
learning style was the strongest by a very small margin for 1 pupil (see table 1).
There were only a few pupils whose preferences were significantly higher or lower in
one of the three styles, and therefore, my conclusion is that I should cater for all three learning
styles in equal measure, but always try to have a visual element available when focusing on
the other two styles.
 30

Table 1: VAK learning styles

Pupil number Auditory Visual Kinesthetic
1. D. 6 8 4
2. D. 8 10 5
3. 7 7 6
4. 10 11 9
5. 6 9 8
6. 9 10 6
7. 8 9 6
8. 9 8 9
9. 10 10 8
10. T. 8 11 9
11. 6 5 10
12. 9 10 4
13. 6 6 7
14. 9 8 7
15. 6 9 8
16. M. 11 12 8
17. 8 7 8
18. 7 10 6
19. 8 10 4
20. 8 9 5
21. 6 9 5
22. 6 8 9

5.2 Multiple intelligences test

Gardner’s multiple intelligences test makes it possible for us to learn which of the
eight intelligences Gardner defined are our strongest: linguistic, logical-mathematical,
musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligence.
For use in grade 5, I translated a free Multiple Intelligences test for young people by
Alan Chapman (“Multiple Intelligences”). As it lacked the eighth or naturalistic intelligence, I
followed the pattern of the statements provided for the other seven intelligences and created
five statements for this intelligence myself. However, the popularity of this intelligence
among the respondents was so strong as to suggest that I have inadvertently made the
statements suggestive in favour of this intelligence (this appears in Table 1 in italics).
Alternately, the fact that these pupils live in a small village could mean that they are more in
touch with nature, and that is why their naturalistic intelligence has blossomed. There is no
way to ascertain the truth, so I decided to base my lesson adjustments mainly on the results of
the original test; but to also take into account the possibility that for some of the pupils this
 31

may be their strongest intelligence, and for that reason I would try to include more nature
related materials in the lessons anyway.
The table below shows the division of intelligences among the pupils. The two most
common intelligences are in bold print.
Table 2: Multiple intelligences in the class
Types of No. of pupils for No. of pupils for No. of pupils for Total of pupils
Intelligences whom this is the whom this is the whom this is the for whom this is
strongest second strongest third strongest a strong
intelligence intelligence intelligence intelligence
Linguisti 3 2 3 8
c
Logical- 2 1 2 5
math.
Musical 0 1 5 6
Bodily- 7 5 6 18
kin.
Spatial- 1 2 4 7
visual
Interper 4 4 5 13
sonal
Intrapers 2 1 3 6
onal
Natural 8 5 2 15

It is evident that bodily-kinesthetic intelligence runs very strong in this class and
together with interpersonal intelligence, the second strongest, makes for a very lively and
interactive class. The low number of logical-mathematical intelligence perhaps explains why
the pupils simply laughed when I asked them which of them would say about themselves that
they are intelligent. I explained to them that everybody is intelligent in some way, but their
belief that there is only one type of intelligence, and that it is the one which involves being
good at maths, seemed very strong. I hope I have managed to plant seeds of doubt in their
minds with regards to this matter, so that they can grow in self-confidence and belief in their
own unique intelligence and personality. As musical intelligence ranked relatively high
among the third strongest intelligences, I decided to combine it with bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence and use songs accompanied by movements and TPR at the start of every lesson.
Linguistic intelligence is the third most common intelligence in the class.

5.3 Revision test and speaking examination

In order to prepare an effective lesson plan, we need to find out how much our pupils
retained from their previous studies; how well they can express themselves in writing, and
 32

how proficient they are at speaking. This testing took part over the course of two consecutive
lessons of one day in order to offer all the pupils the same conditions.
For the written part I used a test taken from the teacher’s book of grade 4 which they
took at the end of last school year.
The speaking test was carried out by an external examiner, qualified as a Cambridge
examiner and an examiner trainer, who used the speaking part of the Cambridge YLE Starters
test with them. The Cambridge English website describes it as a test “aimed at children in
primary and lower secondary education.” (Cambridge English) This speaking examination is
one of the lowest ones offered by the examining bodies and it was suitable with regards to the
vocabulary and grammar that was covered by their previous two course books. As there is no
fail grade, all the pupils passed but some of them achieved scores (some significantly higher
than expected and some lower than expected) that were surprisingly different to those of their
written test and/or last year’s final mark.
Table 3: YLE Starters Test 1
Pupil Listening Language Pronunciation Overall Last year’s Revision
number and score mark test 1
Interaction
1. D. 2.5 2 2.5 7 2 3
2. D. 1.5 1.5 2 5 2 3
3. 1 1.5 1.5 4 1 2
4. 1.5 2 2 5.5 2 1
5. 2 2.5 3 7.5 1 2
6. 2 2 2 6 3 2
7. 2.5 2 3 7.5 2 3
8. 2.5 3 3 8.5 1 2
9. 1.5 1.5 2 5 2 2
10. T. 3 2.5 3 8.5 1 2
11. 1.5 2 2 5.5 2 2
12. 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 2 2
13. 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 3 3
14. 2 2 2.5 6.5 1 3
15. 2 2 2.5 6.5 1 2
16. M. 2.5 2.5 3 8 2 3
17. 2.5 2 2.5 7 1 1
18. 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 2 2
19. 1.5 1.5 2 5 3 3
20. 3 2.5 3 8.5 1 1
21. Not allowed - - - 1 2
22. Absent - - - 1 3
 33

In the test, the first mark (Listening and interaction) is awarded for receptive skills –
how well and fast the pupil reacts, and understands and follows instructions. The second
(Language) and third (Pronunciation) marks are awarded for the production of language –
how well the pupil uses the language. The highest mark is 3 and the lowest mark is 1 (0 is
only awarded to those who make no attempt to respond).
In the initial testing, 20 out of the 22 pupils took part in the speaking test; one pupil (a
girl) was absent and one pupil’s (a boy) mother did not give her consent. Pupils with a
number and an initial are those who were listed as having specific learning differences.
Table 3 shows that the lowest speaking score was 4, and it was obtained by a student
who had mark 1 last year. It was a girl who could be described as “a straight A pupil”. It
would seem that while she is capable of learning prescribed data very well, she is not able to
use the language in practice. The highest score, 8.5, was achieved by 3 students. The second
highest score, 8, was achieved by a student with a specific learning difference who had mark
2 last year. I was told by his year tutor that he had to work very hard to get that mark but the
speaking exam would suggest that while he may have difficulty with written English, he is
capable of communicating and using the language in practice rather well.
Other inconsistent results were highlighted in the table.
Many of the pupils achieved much lower scores in the speaking test than could be
expected when judged by their mark from previous year, so I decided to focus on listening
and speaking skills over the next two months.
The written test was only marked for the purpose of pre-assessment and the pupils
knew that when they took it, so that could be the reason why many of them achieved a much
lower mark than could be expected.
While the written test gave me a general idea of what level to expect from the pupils
where written work is concerned, it did not achieve its full purpose and potential, as I did not
have time to use the results for a differentiated revision period. As a novice teacher, I felt the
need to proceed with what was in the course book (in order to keep to the thematic plan) and
only revised the materials the course book offered. Hopefully, this experience will help me
plan better next time.

5.4 Finding out more about the pupils

In order to learn more about the pupils and about their families, I asked them to create
their family tree and to describe each of their family members in a couple of sentences. From
 34

this task I learnt not only how large or small, complete or incomplete their families were, but
also the age difference between siblings, their nationality and housing situation.
It proved useful in understanding the pupils better: for example, one of the pupils got
distraught in one of the first lessons that she got mark 2 and told me that she is not allowed to
have mark 2. The family tree revealed that this girl is considerably younger than her siblings
and that she is growing up among adults who, judging from her reaction, have very high
expectations of her. Another pupil showed inconsistent results in his performance which made
more sense once I learned from his tree that he has Slovak parents and spends a great deal of
his life in a Slovak speaking environment, so English is his third language and it is filtred
through the other two languages.
 35

6 Creating differentiated lesson plans

The first two weeks of teaching were filled with testing, marking and evaluating the
data gathered, so not much time was left for using differentiation strategies in the lessons.
Once the testing was finished, I started incorporating various methods and strategies, one by
one, in approximately one lesson a week. Starting gradually was important not only for the
sake of the pupils who had to get used to a new teacher and a new teaching style, but also for
my sake, so that I would not burn out after just a couple of weeks. Some of the changes
involved only slight adjustments to the lessons for a small group or an individual; others were
more complex and involved changing the entire lesson format.

6.1 Integrating readiness, learning styles, and multiple intelligences, and adjusting
for different levels

At the start of the school year, I made a list of all pupils with spaces for entering all the
information I might need to know about them: last year’s mark, marks for a variety of
products, learning styles, multiple intelligences, pre-assessment and speaking tests, specific
educational needs, and possible grouping options. All this information is constantly being
adjusted and reassessed as I am learning more about the pupils and as the pupils themselves
are changing and developing.
More details on how this information was used in lesson planning and in the lessons
can be found in the post-lesson reflections which follow every presented lesson plan.
Some of the smaller adjustments are not presented in the lesson plan section as that
would take too much space, for example the changes I made for M. who needed altered test
and homework materials (those included Czech instructions and grammar explanations, and
staged tasks). As M. left the school in the middle of October, this side of lesson planning
disappeared altogether as no other pupil with specific learning differences requires this level
of adjustments.
I make a conscious effort to use materials which are suitable for pupils with specific
learning differences for everybody, so that I eliminate the feeling that some pupils get special
treatment. I also always try to allow all pupils to take as much time as they need for work on
their tasks, so that they do not feel pressured. As I usually have a fairly attractive post-test or
post-task activity prepared (for example: reading authentic books, working with reusable
drawing cards, using activity and game cards), most pupils try to finish their tasks fast.
 36

One of the first adjustments I made was the decision to start each lesson with a song
that would involve some movement or TPR. The reason for that was the high number of
pupils with kinesthetic preferences and intelligence, and the knowledge that in some lessons
they are expected to literally sit still for the duration of the entire lesson. In various lessons I
have also incorporated practising new vocabulary through chants and actions, demonstrated
new grammar by getting the pupils to physically represent parts of structures and sentences
and other TPR methods.
I also use a lot of pictures and visual presentations in order to cater for the high
number of visual learners.
The intelligences are worked into the lessons in more subtle ways; for example, I try to
plan tasks and grouping in such a way so as to give the intrapersonal learners opportunity to
work alone or do tasks which do not involve public presentations.

6.2 Sample lesson plans

The process of differentiation requires detailed long-term and short-term planning and
frequent on the spot adjustments. In this part of the thesis I present lesson plans for some of
those lessons that played an important role in both the setting up and the running of the
differentiated lessons. The lesson plans include post-lesson reflections designed to summarize
the perceived level of success of each part of the process; to document the development and
evolution of the strategy in the class, and the development of the teacher’s skills and
understanding of the strategy and its use.
The first four lesson plans describe the process of testing, and the lesson plans that
follow contain the use of various differentiation techniques in the lessons.
 37

Lesson 1: Introduction, class business, VAK test (4. 9. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 22 (5 girls/17 boys) pupils aged 11-12, elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: pre-assessment, getting to know the pupils
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to introduce themselves and say what they like doing
Getting to know each other – I will learn the pupils’ names, and introduce course materials
and the aim of testing; learn about the pupils’ free time activities
Materials and equipment: 22 copies of the VAK test, stickers for names, exercise books and
test notebooks for each pupil, a ball, English books (first readers)
1. I will introduce myself and establish a mutual greeting (stop pupils from saying “Good
morning Mrs. Teacher”) - 2 minutes
T: Good morning. Pupils: Good morning (Mrs. Saunders). – words in brackets are
optional
2. I will collect “the agreement with a speaking test by an external examiner” form
signed by parents. I will hand the stickers out and ask pupils to write their names on
them and stick them in a visible place - 3 minutes
3. Warm-up: Pupils tell me what they like doing in their free time – brainstorm activities
on the board - 2 minutes
4. Introduction practice: pupils stand in a circle, throw a ball to each other, introduce
themselves and say what they like doing - starting with the same letter as their name. I
will start: My name is Radka and I like reading/riding a bike. I will write my sentence
on the board. - 10 minutes
5. VAK test – I will explain what it is and why it is important for me to get truthful
answers from them and not copies of what their neighbour has written; and that there
is no right or wrong answer. I will hand out the questionnaire. Early finishers can pick
an English book for children (first readers for native speakers). - 15 minutes
6. Class business – find out if pupils finished book 4 of the series and if they are used to
using the workbook. I will hand out the exercise books and test books (the school
provided those) and explain why the exercise book is A4 size – to give us enough
space for mind maps; point out the vocabulary list in the course book and in the
pupil’s book and the difference between them (one is arranged alphabetically and
 38

contains all the words from the entire book, the other one is arranged by units/lessons)
- 7 minutes
7. Find out what songs the pupils know in English and what type of work were they used
to in the English lessons (read/translate/listen/write/play
games/sing/dictation/conversation/acting) - 5 minutes
8. Summary of our arrangements and the language point
HW: revision of the last three units/lessons in book 4 for a pre-assessment written test (for
9th Sept.)
Post-lesson reflections:
2 pupils were missing (1 girl and 1 boy).
The class initially responded well, even though they were surprised by the fact I was
speaking to them in English. Overall, the class was very lively and quite noisy and unruly
during most activities but especially during away-from-desk time. The reason could be that it
is predominantly made up of boys. We will need to work out some rules of discipline.
During the ball activity I accidentally hit one boy in the head with the ball. The class
thought this was very funny and the boy was understandably upset by their reaction. I was
told that this boy has some serious learning difficulties (namely dyslexia) beforehand, and I
thought I was prepared for it, but I did not know he also suffered from minor brain
dysfunction which included physical and social difficulties too. I will have to keep that in
mind in future activities.
Another difficulty with the ball activity was that there is not enough space for 20
pupils to stand in a circle anywhere. Even after we moved some of the front desks back, there
was barely space to form a crowded, narrow oval.
The head insisted I get the parents to sign the “agreement” forms as the school seems
to have occasional difficulty with what the parents think is allowed and not allowed to happen
to their children at school. I was hoping to test the pupils in the first week of school but as I
could not get all the forms back on time, the testing got delayed to the second week.
On the whole, the VAK test took more time than I anticipated. Some pupils were done
relatively quickly but several others had not even started by that point; I had to check on every
individual pupil and help those who found some of the questions or the entire questionnaire
difficult to understand despite the fact it was written in Czech and in the form of simple
statements. For example, the boy suffering from minor brain dysfunction did not know how to
respond to several of the questions, so I took him to the staff room after the lesson and helped
him fill it in. I have not found time to share the results with the pupils yet but I plan to do so.
 39

The first readers for native speakers were very popular with the pupils. All of them
were very easy to understand as every page consists of a big picture with just one or two lines
of very simple text in large print. The text was repetitive and the pictures intuitive. The stories
were about a group of 4 children who had a special watch that could shrink them to the size of
a bug and that seemed to spark the pupils’ imagination. I had about 20 books with me and the
pupils who finished quickly managed to read several of them during the time it took the others
to complete the test. The book swap was somewhat noisy though.
I managed most of point 6 but there was no time left for point 7 or the summary.
Even after implementing the test I still had mixed feelings about spending half a
lesson on a test which is in Czech (the pupils’ English is not advanced enough) and involves
Czech instructions and feedback.
However, when I looked back at that lesson two months later, my feelings have
changed and I decided that half a lesson is not that much time when taken into the perspective
of the whole year; and that it was worth it as it gave me an insight into the pupils’ needs and
characteristics that I would not have otherwise had. Even the year tutor, who has been
teaching them since grade 3, came to ask me about some of the test results and she
commented on not being aware of some of the data I gathered from the testing.
 40

Lesson 2: Vocabulary revision, Gardner’s intelligences test (8. 9. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 22 (5 girls/17 boys) pupils aged 11-12, elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: involving pupils with varied learning styles, getting to know the pupils
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to name some school items they use in their lessons
Getting to know each other – I will learn more about the pupils by asking them to complete
Gardner’s intelligences test
Materials and equipment: 22 copies of Gardner’s multiple intelligences test, pictures of
school items (a class, a classroom, a school bag, a pencil, a pencil case, a rubber, scissors, a
sharpener, a ruler, a computer, a blackboard, a desk, a chair, a sponge)

1. Warm-up: An action song – Head, shoulders, knees and toes – pupils will sing and
perform actions under my guidance - 2 minutes
2. Class business – who is missing, write the aim of the lesson on the board, collect
remaining “agreement” forms – 3 minutes
3. Gardner’s multiple intelligences test – I will explain what it is and why it is important
for me to get truthful answers from them and not copies of what their neighbour has
written; and that there is no right or wrong answer. I will hand out the questionnaire.
Early finishers can pick an English book for children (first readers for native
speakers). - 25 minutes
4. Vocabulary practice:
- class activity – I show pictures, pupils provide words in English
- group activity – pupils stand in 2 lines going from the blackboard towards the back of
the classroom; pupils select team names; I show a picture to the first pupil in each line
and they say what it is; the one who says the correct word first gains a point for their
team – 10 minutes
5. Remind pupils that they will have 2 English lessons tomorrow during which they will
take a revision test and a speaking test – 5 minutes
Post lesson reflection:
1 pupil was missing (a girl).
This time I was better prepared for the amount of time the test would take, so I did not
plan as much for the lesson, and my plan just about worked out. On the one hand, I was happy
 41

my planning was appropriate, but on the other hand, it made me worried that I would waste all
of the time designated to revision on testing and that I would have to start teaching new
material before we even have any time to revise or delay the whole thematic plan.
A couple of weeks later I realised that the first few units of the course book were an
actual revision of what had been done in the previous book, so I need not have worried. It
shows that it is really important to not only create a thematic plan for the current year but to
find out which parts of the course book are new for the students and which parts serve as
revision.
In order to try and help pupils stay calm and quiet when taking the test, I planned for
an active pre-test activity and an active post-test activity.
Some of the pupils did not want to join in the song at the start but as I needed to make
sure they would not be fidgety during the test, and that they would not get in the habit of
refusing to join in various activities later, I made them take part in it by saying that those who
refuse do it will be asked to perform it for the rest of the class. A couple of the boys were not
joining in, so I immediately called them to join me at the front of the classroom. That helped,
and even though they pulled faces, all of the class then did the actions and sang the song.
The implementation of this test was similar to the previous one and, this time, I knew
what to expect, so I have spent a bit more time with the pupils who had experienced trouble in
the previous lesson.
There was still a lot of interest in the first reader books, even though some pupils said
they have read most of them now. I am not sure they could have managed to have actually
read all of them, so some of the pupils must have been just looking at the pictures and
guessing the story from them. That is not necessarily a bad thing as long as I can provide
more challenging materials in the future, so that they keep being challenged.
The activity in 2 lines was a little bit difficult because of the lack of space; the
walkways between the rows of desks are narrow and obstructed by the pupils’ bags hanging
on the sides of the desks. Also, having 10-11 pupils in each row was not ideal as they had to
wait for quite a while for their turn, and as a result, they chatted among themselves a lot again.
If there was more space I could try it with 3 lines but there really is nowhere to put another
line. However, once they got into the competitive spirit, they seemed to enjoy the activity.
The pupils seemed nervous about the speaking test tomorrow and one of the pupils
said he did not bring the agreement form because his parents did not give their permission.
His year tutor was surprised anyone should say no to that opportunity and encouraged me to
call the boys mother.
 42

Lessons 3 and 4: Pre-assessment test, speaking test; following simple instructions (9. 9.
2014)
Pupils: Grade 5, up to 22 (5 girls/17 boys) pupils aged 11-12, elementary level, two
consecutive 45-minute lessons.
Differentiation: pre-assessment, getting to know the pupils
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to communicate with a native speaker and have their
speaking level assessed
Listening practice – pupils will be able to understand a native speaker and to follow simple
class instructions
Getting to know each other – I will learn what the pupils retained from last year’s English
classes and what is the level of their spoken English
Materials and equipment: 22 copies of the last test in book 4 (two one-sided A4 pages),
pictures for the speaking test, an external examiner, a desk and 2 chairs in a quiet open area

1. Warm-up: Simon says – pupils follow instructions (stand up, sit down, come to the
board, go to the window, open your book, show me your pencil case/bag/red
pencil/pen/…) - 2 minutes
2. Class business – who is missing, write the aim of the lesson on the board, collect the
remaining “agreement” forms – 3 minutes
3. Written revision test (1st page) and speaking test – all pupils start working on the
revision test but one by one they get called out for a 4-minute conversation with an
external examiner; I will give marks for the written test only to those who do well in
it; early finishers can pick an English book for children (first readers for native
speakers). - 30 minutes
4. New song – pupils will watch a Tweenies version of “Hockey, Cokey” on the
computer at the front of the class; then I will sing it and do the actions and the pupils
will follow – 10 minutes
5. A break between the two lessons
6. New song practice - 2 minutes
7. Written revision test (2nd page) and speaking test – continues as before 30 minutes

Post lesson reflection:

One pupil was missing (a girl).
 43

The pupils really enjoyed “Simon says” and responded very well.
The boy who said his parents did not want him to take part in the speaking
examination brought a signed form confirming it today.
The first part of the written test was a bit more difficult for them than the second part
and they got fractious towards the end of the second lesson as they had had to focus for two
consecutive periods. They were also relieved that they survived the native speaker experience,
so that made them somewhat giddy.
Some of the pupils felt the speaking exam was really easy and others came back
saying they did not understand a word. For many of them, the level of their understanding
(whether high or low) came as a surprise, and for me too: for example, there was a girl who
has A’s in all the subjects including English and she ended up with the lowest speaking score
of all the pupils; then there was the boy suffering from minor brain dysfunction who had to
work very hard last year to get a B in English, and who was not expected by the other pupils
to do well, and his speaking score was the fourth highest one. I did not share all the results
with the pupils, I only let them know that all of them would have passed the speaking part of
the YLE Starter’s test and that this particular boy had the 4th best score. That surprised the
pupils very much and I believe it helped him earn a little bit more respect from his
schoolmates. When I told him his result he said that that was not possible and that it had to be
some mistake but he was pleased.
I divided the written revision test into two parts: the first page to be done in the first
lesson, and the second page to be done in the second lesson, as I did not want to overload the
pupils when they had to do both the speaking and written exam on the same day. At the end of
the second lesson we talked about the pupils’ feelings and impressions of the speaking part of
the test.
The Tweenies video did not go down as well as I had expected. None of the pupils had
ever seen Tweenies before and they found them very strange. In their own words, they were
“strangely coloured figures with huge heads”. On the other hand, this then led to a discussion
about why they think the figures have such strange colours and what it could mean (tolerance
of other races, cultures).
 44

Lesson 12: Introduction to Learning Centres (30. 9. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 22 (5 girls/17 boys) pupils aged 11-12, elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: learning centres (differentiation of process) with activities adjusted to
different learning styles, intelligences, and levels; centres offer a choice of products;
individual care for a pupil with SLD (adjusted content and process); learner autonomy
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to ask for an item and to respond appropriately
Writing practice – pupils will be able to write the names of classroom objects
Vocabulary practice – pupils will be able to name basic classroom objects
Listening practice – pupils will be able to recognize food vocabulary and the verbs “like” and
“don’t like” in a dialogue performed by native speakers
Learning to work as a part of a group
Materials and equipment: one task sheet for each centre, sheets with the right answers for
tasks no. 1 in centres 1 and 2, notebook with the downloaded video/song for centre 5, a scarf
for centre 3

1. Set up the classroom before the lesson starts. Create 5 stations by pushing 2 desks
together and placing chairs around them. Place needed materials in each centre. –
break time
2. Find out who is missing. Explain how the learning centres work; divide pupils into
groups of 4-5 and explain that they will be held accountable for the work they do in
the centres; task 1 is always compulsory, task 2 is always optional; clockwise rotation
of groups every 5 minutes - 5 minutes
3. 5 Learning Centres:
Centre 1 – Task 1 (compulsory): Workbook 8/1. Task 2 (optional): Write a short story
using these words or make matching cards for matching pairs game (one word + one
picture)
Centre 2 – Task 1 (compulsory): Workbook 8/2/ Task 2 (optional): Learn the poem
from Workbook 8/2 by heart.
Centre 3 – Student’s book 8/4. Use these sentences to play a game – find what is
missing. (Compulsory)
 45

Centre 4 – Student’s book 9/5. Practise the dialogue. You will be tested on it.
(Compulsory)
Centre 5 – Watch a video. Write down what the animals like and what they do not
like. (Compulsory)
– 30 minutes
4. Help pupils get started, answer possible questions.
5. When the work is well underway, take one of the pupils with specific learning
differences aside to test him orally (he failed the written test)
6. Summary: Ask pupils to present their written work, drawings or to do their speaking
presentation – 10 minutes
7. HW: Practice the poem and the dialogue.

Post lesson reflection:

One pupil was missing (a boy).
For work in the centres, the pupils were grouped by ability (similar level together), so
that they would be more likely to finish work on the first task at the same time and could work
in pairs or as a group on the second optional task. There were four groups of 4 pupils and one
group of 5 (the most advanced pupils). As I tested one of the pupils orally for most of the
activity, the group of the least advanced pupils had only 3 members.
Differentiation: The centres were designed as a means to accomplish a lot of diverse
activities satisfying the needs of various learning styles and intelligences in a relatively short
timeframe, while giving the advanced pupils the opportunity to do more, and giving me one-
on-one time with one of the pupils.
Centre 1 – pupils practiced writing new vocabulary. It was an easy and quick task for
most pupils, so they had an option to do either a writing task or to draw afterwards. All the
pupils who finished the first task before the time limit drew pictures and nobody chose to
write a story. That did not come as a complete surprise as the linguistic intelligence is the
strongest one for only 3 pupils, but it was worth finding out. They also perceived it as harder
work than the drawing task.
Centre 2 – some pupils found the first task easy and managed to learn the poem; many
struggled; and some did not even understand that the text they were completing was a poem
(practice of have/has got).
Centre 3 – the game was essentially a drill (vocabulary practice and sentence structure
practice) but the pupils enjoyed it a lot and did really well with it. Many of them have strong
 46

bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (for 18 pupils this is one of their 3 strongest intelligences)

and/or a kinesthetic learning style, so this activity was well suited to those with these
inclinations.
Centre 4 – the dialogue (speaking practice) was easy, so most pupils succeeded at it. It
was especially suited to the high number of pupils with a strong interpersonal intelligence (for
11 pupils this is one of their 3 strongest intelligences).
Centre 5 – this task was intended to be easy and entertaining to provide a respite from
hard language work while still engaging the pupils in the English language (listening task and
vocabulary practice). The video was easy to understand, had simple language and an
entertaining twist in the short story. Most groups willingly watched it more than once which is
consistent with their strong preference for visual learning style; it turned out to be the
strongest or at least one of the two strongest styles for 16 of the pupils, so most of the class
responds very well to visual stimuli. The activity also catered to the 6 pupils with strong
musical intelligence.
The pupils helped me prepare the centres during their break, so we were able to start
the centre work as soon as the lesson began. They were not very happy about the way I
divided them but they worked in those groups quite well.
At the start they had more questions than I had expected as the instructions for all the
centres were both in English and Czech, so their lack of understanding stemmed mostly from
the fact that they did not read the instructions.
At the start they were given a five-minute time limit for each centre to let them know
they had to work reasonably fast but it was always extended to at least 7- 9 minutes as I did
not have an alarm ready to let me know when the limit passed. I often called for a centre
change too late as I was busy with either examining or helping pupils out.
The pupils seemed to enjoy the work they were given at the centres and did even the
less interesting tasks willingly but they seemed to be especially looking forward to working in
centres 3 and 5.
The one-on-one time I had with one of the pupils took longer than expected as I had to
answer questions of the other pupils at the same time. The testing proved fruitful though, as
the pupil was able to fulfil most of the written test tasks orally and got “2-“ instead of “5”.
When the testing was finished I moved from centre to centre to see how the work was
progressing. Most pupils did their work well, some were trying to do as little as possible and
just have fun, but overall they seemed to be happily involved in their tasks.
 47

The lesson finished before I had time to do a summary, so I asked them to bring their
products and to present their dialogues and poems in the following lesson, and I made sure
they knew they were going to be marked on it.
Considering this was both my and the pupils’ first experience with this type of
activity, it went well and they responded well too. They accomplished more than they usually
do in a non-differentiated lesson, and I had an opportunity to work with individuals in a way
that did not impede anybody else’s progress. I need to work on timing though.
The follow-up took 2 more lessons in which I was collecting drawings, and marking
pupils on their dialogues and the poem. I have completely underestimated how long that
would take but it felt worth it in the end, as it helped me see exactly how much the pupils
managed to learn, and allowed me to speak with each pupil (individually or in pairs).
 48

Lesson 17: Learning Centres – Adjectives and Comparatives (9. 10. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 22 (5 girls/17 boys) pupils aged 11-12 , elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: learning centres (differentiation of process) with activities adjusted to
different learning styles, intelligences, and levels; centres offer a choice of products; learner
autonomy; support of individual pupils within the group framework
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to ask questions with comparatives and to respond
appropriately
Writing practice – pupils will be able to write adjectives and compare two people in writing
Vocabulary practice – pupils will be able to use a wide range of adjectives and comparatives
Learning to work as a part of a group
Materials and equipment: one task sheet for each centre; sheets with the right answers for
tasks no. 1 and 2 in centre 1, and task no. 1 in centre 3; notebook with the matching game for
centre 2

1. Set up the classroom before the lesson starts. Create 6 centres by pushing 2 desks
together and placing chairs around them. Place needed materials in each centre. –
break time
2. Find out who is missing. Explain that the layout of the learning centres is different
than last time (all 3 centres appear twice but the two centres no. 2 contain two
different tasks); divide pupils into groups of 3-4; task 1 is compulsory in centres 1 and
3, task 2 is optional in centre 1 and 3; centre 2 has two separate tasks at two desks,
both of which should be managed; clockwise rotation of groups every 10 minutes
(rotation between the two no. 2 centres every 5 minutes) - 5 minutes
3. 3 Learning Centres:
Centre 1
Task 1 (compulsory):
Comparatives
nice – nicer happy – happier big – bigger (good – better, bad – worse)

good ____________ heavy ____________

sad _____________ old ______________
dirty ____________ bad ______________
short ____________
 49

Task 2 (optional): Play a matching game – find opposites (words on orange cards are the
opposites of words on blue cards) or draw pictures of opposites.

Centre 2.1: Match words and pictures on the computer. Listen to the correct
pronunciation. (Dej do páru slova s obrázky.)

Centre 2.2: Student’s book 11/5. Guess my number. (Uhodni mé číslo.)

Centre 3
Task 1 (compulsory): Workbook 11/7.

Task 2 (optional): As a group show some examples of adjectives. (Jako skupina

předveďte nějaké příklady přídavných jmen.) OR Do exercises 3 and 4 in Workbook on

page 10.

– 30 minutes
4. Help pupils get started, answer possible questions. Observe pupils while they work.
5. Summary: Ask pupils to present their written work, drawings and sketches – 10
minutes
6. HW: Prepare for a test on adjectives and comparatives.
Post lesson reflection:
2 pupils were missing (2 boys).
The reason for having only 3 centres (last time there were 5 centres), each lasting
about 10 minutes, was to allow the pupils to have more time in each centre and on each
activity in order to increase retention, and to make sure there is enough time for summary at
the end (which did not happen last time). One centre was different in that while it contained 2
tasks like the other two centres, they were divided across two different places, and both tasks
were compulsory. These tasks were shorter and more entertaining than the others.
Having only 3 centres would lead to having 6-7 pupils in each group, so we set the
classroom up into 6 centres: two centres no.1 with identical tasks (10 minutes), two centres
no. 3 with identical tasks (10 minutes) and two centres no. 2 with two different tasks (2x5
minutes). The two groups of pupils assigned to work in centres no. 2 swapped places halfway
through their time at centre no. 2.
I encountered several difficulties this time. First of all, pupils did not understand how
to move between the centres despite the fact I explained it (in English) and drew a diagram of
it on the board, so when I said “Stop work and move to your next centre”, many of them
aimed for the same centre and argued over whose turn to be there it was.
 50

Swapping between the two centres no. 2 also led to confusion among pupils as when I
said to them that it is time to swap, they thought I meant all the groups were supposed to swap
and they caused disturbance in all the centres.
I will have to think of better ways to explain the structure at the beginning next time;
and also perhaps allow more time for centre swap. I should also make sure all pupils pay
attention while I give them instructions on where to move to. I would prefer not to have to
resort to Czech but that could also solve the problem.
Once settled in the centres, they seemed to find it harder to work out what to do. One
reason could be that this time I wrote some of the instructions only in English and they felt
they were not sure what was expected of them. Another reason could be the smaller size of
the groups, and the fact that some groups did not have anybody really confident among them
to lead them, despite the fact I tried to create balanced mix-ability groups.
The second task in centre one allowed pupils to choose between a language/memory
game and drawing. Most pupils opted for the game, only a couple drew pictures instead.
Those who played the game occasionally struggled as they were not able to tell if they had a
match when they did not know the meaning of one or both of the words they turned over. I
encouraged them to use a key I prepared for this activity but perhaps I should have
encouraged the use of a dictionary instead, as knowing how to match two unknown words
will not be of much use to them.
Only one of the six groups chose to act out some comparatives in centre 3 – one of the
members of this group was the most advanced pupil in the class and he was the only one
confident or interested enough to initiate it.
The pupils enjoyed both activities in centres no. 2 but the one in centre 2.2 seemed
more popular and from my point of view, it gave them more in terms of English use too.
Guessing a number somebody else is thinking was an entertaining challenge for them, even
though some tried to get to the result without using the prescribed sentences (Is it higher
than…? Is it lower than …?).
Overall, I felt this learning centre experience was less beneficial for the learners than
the last one as there was more confusion; the mixed-ability groups did not match personality-
wise, so the grouping did not work as well as it should; I still ran out of time and did not
manage any summary at the end of the lesson due to the issues with swapping and lack of
understanding; and there was only one assessment method for all the varied tasks – a written
test in the following lesson. It would be good to have more speaking assessment.
 51

Lesson 27: Introduction to Choice Boards (30. 10. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 21 (5 girls/16 boys) pupils aged 11-12 , elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: choice boards (differentiation of content and product) with activities
adjusted to different learning styles, intelligences, and levels; pupils choose two out of six
tasks, whether they will work alone or in pairs, and how much time they spend on each task;
support of individual pupils within the group framework (process)
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to ask general questions and to answer them
Writing practice – pupils will be able to write vocabulary related to seasons and weather;
write a letter to a friend about a book they read
Reading practice – pupils will gain confidence in their ability to read a simple book and to
reflect on it in some way
Time management – pupils will be learning to manage their time effectively and to be
responsible for the use of their time
Materials and equipment: 25 first reader books, choice board cards (3 orange, 3 green),
paper for drawing pictures and for writing a letter

1. Find out who is missing. Hand out marked tests from the previous lesson. Write marks
in pupils’ report books. - 5 minutes
2. Explain how choice boards work: each pupil will choose one orange task and one
green task. Some tasks are to be done in pairs. They need to find a partner for those
tasks. They will get about 10 minutes for each task. Read all tasks together to make
sure pupils understand and to give them more time to decide what to choose. – 10
minutes
3. Display tasks on a magnetic board and give pupils time to choose. They are to come to
me to tell me the number and the letter they have selected. – 5 minutes
4. Choice boards
Tasks on an orange paper:
1. Draw a picture of the 4 seasons – summer, winter, spring, autumn. Write the names of things
in the picture. Use a dictionary if you need help.
2. Write a story about a red kite. Use some of these words: glue, cousin, light, yellow, windy,
computer.
3. You are a journalist. Ask a friend to be an alien. Ask the alien questions about his/her planet.
What is the weather like? Do they have autumn on their planet? What do they do?
 52

Tasks on a green paper:

A. Read a book and write a letter about it to your friend.
B. Read a book and draw an illustration for the book.
C. Read a book and act it out with someone.
– 20 minutes

5. Write down pupils’ choices. Help pupils get started, answer possible questions.
Observe pupils while they work.
6. Summary: Set homework. Collect books back. - 5 minutes
7. HW: Finish work on tasks you did not manage to finish in the lesson.

Post lesson reflection:

Nobody was missing.
Tasks 1, 2, and 3 focused on revising material the pupils have studied in the previous
two weeks; tasks A, B, and C were an encouragement to read a book in English and to reflect
on the reading in some way; I tried to present the revision and the book reading in three
equally attractive options which would appeal to different learning styles and intelligences –
linguistic (writing a letter, reading a book, an interview), logical-mathematical (reading a
book with numbers), bodily-kinesthetic (drawing and acting), spatial-visual (drawing and
acting), interpersonal (an interview, acting), intrapersonal (all tasks to be done alone), natural
(picture of the 4 seasons, book about nature). The pupils were told they would get a mark
from both tasks in order to encourage them to take the work seriously.
I used this type of activity in order to encourage them to learn to be responsible for
their own learning and performance and for choosing their own tasks. While I knew I wanted
that, I did not actually say so to the pupils, so I missed an opportunity to help them understand
an important principle.
Inasmuch as I thought I was well prepared and the instructions were simple and clear,
and even though I got a couple of the pupils to translate all the instructions for the rest of the
class in order to avoid any possible misunderstandings, the pupils got confused by the
instructions again and did not work the way I expected them to. I am beginning to see a
pattern here – getting instructions across appears to be by far the most challenging part of any
differentiated activity. For some reason, the pupils assumed they are to do all the activities in
pairs, even though I wanted them to work alone and do pair work only when working on tasks
3 and C. They eventually accepted that but some time was lost by idle chatting among the
happy pairs. The hope is that they benefited from the opportunity to consult their tasks with a
 53

partner regardless of the fact that some of them were clearly hoping they would not have to do
anything at all.
Their choice of tasks ( 1 – draw a picture, 11 pupils; 2 – write a story, 1; 3 – interview
an alien, 9; A – write a letter, 1; B – book illustration, 16; C – act it out, 4) was probably more
influenced by what they thought would mean the least work for them rather than what they
could most excel at, but that was to be expected as training pupils to become responsible for
their own learning and growth takes long-term diligent effort. I was disappointed that only
one pupil was willing to do a piece of creative writing but it taught me that I should devote
some time to introducing creative writing and presenting it as fun. Some of the pupils
produced very good pictures; others chose to do as little as possible. I awarded a mark to each
of the picture based on how well it fulfilled the criteria of the task. Some pupils were not
happy with their result, so I gave them a chance to work on it some more at home and present
it to me in the following lesson. I hope they will learn to take the creative tasks as seriously as
written tests. The interviews with an alien were quite basic but the two pairs who chose to act
out a scene from a book did a really good job. It also helped fulfil my goal to devote more
time to speaking assessment. The assessment of the pupils’ products took another lesson but I
accounted for it this time.
 54

Lesson 28: Halloween Party (31. 10. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 21 (5 girls/16 boys) pupils aged 10-12 , elementary level, 45-minute
lesson. Grade 8, up to 11 (4 boys/7 girls) pupils aged 13-15, elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: Experiential learning (process) – involving pupils in direct experiences
which involve action, experience, doing, discovering and exploring; working on higher levels
of Bloom’s taxonomy (especially grade 8); engagement of varied learning styles and
intelligences
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to ask questions in order to clarify instructions
Listening practice – pupils will be able to guess the meaning of new vocabulary from visual
clues and context; they will be able to follow instructions
Peer support between grades – older pupils will assist younger pupils
Materials and equipment: a picture of a witch, a blue tack wart, apples, a large bowl, towels,
30 donuts, some string, a pole, flour, sweets, a small bowl, a tray, a knife, a plate, a camera

1. Find out who is missing. Move grade 5 class into the classroom of grade 8 which is
prepared for the party. - 5 minutes
2. Introduce the activity, show a video “This is Britain – Halloween”, discuss it briefly
(http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=this+is+britain+halloween) and
divide pupils into groups of 5 – 15 minutes
3. Do the activities. Pupils from grade 8 are divided into pairs and each pair runs one
activity 4 times. Pupils from grade 5 follow instructions and rotate in groups of 5
around the four activity centres. Each activity takes about 5 minutes. – 20 minutes
• Pin the wart on the witch – pupils get blindfolded one by one and try to pin the
wart on the witch’s nose
• Bobbing for apples – pupils take turns putting their hands behind their back and
getting an apple out of a basin full of water with just their mouth
• Eating donuts – there are 5 donuts hanging on a string from a pole held up high;
pupils stand in line under the donuts and try to eat them without using their hands
• Do not knock the sweetie down – there is a heap of flour with a sweetie on top;
pupils take turns cutting away parts of the heap; the pupil who knocks the sweetie
 55

down or causes it to fall of the top has to retrieve it from the flour with just their
mouth
4. Set homework. Tidy up the room. - 5 minutes
5. HW: Write about the Halloween party.
Post lesson reflection:
The preparation for the party started in the previous lesson in grade 8. The pupils came
dressed up in Halloween costumes and some of them got changed into it and put some make
up on during the lesson. I demonstrated all the activities to the class (9 pupils – 2 were
missing), they tried them out and then they were divided into pairs. Each pair chose one
activity to run. They prepared simple instructions to give to the pupils of grade 5 and they got
their activity centre ready. I helped them set it up and to form simple sentences the younger
pupils would be able to understand. One pupil volunteered to be in charge of playing music
during the activity as I only needed two pupils per centre. During the activity, 2 pairs worked
very well and tried hard to communicate in English only; one pair said very little; and one pair
and the pupil in charge of music spoke Czech continually and I had to spend most of the time
with them to make sure the younger pupils get some English input from them. The pair who
spoke Czech all the time was a result of my mistake – the pupils asked if they could choose a
partner and as all the pairs seemed to be reasonably balanced, I allowed it. However, the more
advanced pupil in this pair is very good in writing but weak in speaking, so she was not strong
or motivated enough to resist the weaker pupil. Aside from the issue of speaking English, the
pupils of grade 8 seemed to appreciate and enjoy the activity and they worked really well with
the younger pupils.
There were 20 pupils from grade 5, one girl was missing. The pupils were also dressed
in costumes, even though they were not sure what to expect as they knew very little about
Halloween beforehand. They seemed a bit vary of joining grade 8 in their classroom at first.
All the pupils watched the video, answered some of my questions and reported on what they
knew about English and American Halloween customs. Then I divided them into four groups
of five; they were mixed-ability groups. Most of the groups worked well and tried to
communicate in English. Some individuals spoke Czech a lot, so I pulled them out of the
activity for one turn and then they could return but they ended up missing that particular
activity. That worked well and one of the pupils who got pulled out then went out of his way
to say lots of very simple phrases in English which I appreciated.
 56

This activity was designed as an experiential activity aimed at communication, giving

instructions, and following them, in a culturally enriching environment where there is an
actual need and natural desire to communicate.
While there were things that could be improved upon, overall it worked very well in
that it helped pupils produce more English than usual, and it allowed them to experience a
British Halloween party and not just read about it. For once, the timing was appropriate.
 57

Lesson 31: What do you need for …ing? Vocabulary revision. (6. 11. 2014)
Pupils: Grade 5, up to 21 (5 girls/16 boys) pupils aged 10-12 , elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: invisible tiering (content) according to pupils’ level with activities adjusted
to different learning styles (visual support for memorizing a written text) and intelligences;
support of individual pupils within the group framework (process)
Aims:
Speaking practice – pupils will be able to ask and answer questions about their needs
Vocabulary practice – pupils will be able to group vocabulary by meaning and make new
connections
Flexibility in group work – pupils will learn to work with different partners and as a part of a
flexible group
Learning to learn – pupils will be able to create a visual aid for memorizing some text
Materials and equipment: vocabulary set (7 groups of 3 words), verb set (cut, play football,
listen, read, write, draw), CD player, CD

1. Find out who is missing. Sing a song. Check HW. - 10 minutes

2. Group forming activity: Each pupil gets a word card (cousin, aunt, uncle; pencil,
glue, sharpener; sad, fast, short; cloud, fog, snow; spring, summer, autumn; screen,
monitor, keyboard; Christmas, Easter, Halloween) and has to find 2 more people with
words that belong to the same group. – 10 minutes
3. Group work: Pupils sit at desks in groups of 3. Each group has a set of verbs. One
pupil picks a card and the other two ask him/her questions (Do you need
glue/paper/ball?) in order to find out what verb the pupil has (page 17/ex.3). – 10
minutes
4. Pair work: I call half the class to the front (the weaker half) and allow them to select a
partner for this activity. They sit in pairs; we read a dialogue together (page 17/ex.4)
and work on pronunciation. Then they start learning it by heart (picture support). – 10
minutes
5. Summary: Revise the question format. Set homework. - 5 minutes
6. HW: Learn your part of the dialogue by heart. Draw pictures to help you memorize it.

Post lesson reflection:

Two pupils were missing (2 boys).
 58

In this lesson I wanted to try to differentiate without the use of centres. The
differentiation process started with a group forming activity. The words were colour coded, so
that each set consisted of three different colours (blue, pink, yellow). When I was handing the
word cards out to pupils I made sure I gave the same colour to those pupils whom I did not
want to have in the same group (the ones who were weaker or did not work well when
grouped together). The pupils did not seem to realize there was any system to the way the
cards worked out and once the group forming was done, they sat in their groups without
protest. The group work went well; I walked among the groups and offered support as some
groups did not quite get the instructions. Some groups came up with some variations of the
activity which was fine by me but it showed me that my instructions were not clear enough to
be interpreted in just one way. When all the pupils had a few turns, I stopped the activity and
called half the class to the front. I asked for volunteers but of those that put their hand up I
selected primarily the less proficient pupils (about 7) and then made up their number by some
more advanced ones. Then I gave them the opportunity to select a partner from the ones who
remained seated. This brought some complaints as many of the less advanced pupils prefer to
work with other pupils of the same level but I insisted they could only choose someone who
was still sat down. Even though it was not ideal from their point of view, it still gave them
some measure of choice and control over the situation while it allowed me to assign an
appropriate task to them. The activity needed to be differentiated because the dialogue they
were about to learn from their course book had a rather uneven distribution of text – one part
was decidedly more difficult than the other one.
When we practiced pronunciation, the pupils indicated that it is easy for them, so I
moved on quite swiftly. However, once I asked them to work on it in pairs and started moving
among them, I realized that quite a few of them had difficulty pronouncing some of the
words, so I spent some time with each pair to assist them.
I had to repeat that I want them to memorize it by the next day but eventually they
accepted that and started working on it in earnest. Even though at first many of them
complained that it is too difficult, by the end of the lesson several of them came to tell me that
they already know their part.
I encouraged them to draw pictures of the words in the text as clues and said they were
allowed to use those pictures when being tested the following day. My intention was not to
test them on their ability to memorize strings of words but to form correct questions and
responses, so the visual support served to give them confidence and it allowed me to see
whether they know the English words for the items in their pictures. Some of them did not use
 59

any pictures and did fine anyway; many used the pictures successfully; and some of them did
not bother to prepare any pictures and then struggled. Only one pupil was not prepared at all,
so I made a note of it and said I would test him again on Monday.
This kind of differentiation strategy is not too time consuming to prepare and to carry
out and I feel it was very effective.
In the following lesson the pupils worked on their own on set exercises in their
workbook and I spent most of the lesson testing the dialogue.
 60

Lesson 35: Differentiated revision. (14. 11. 2014)

Pupils: Grade 5, up to 21 (5 girls/16 boys) pupils aged 10-12 , elementary level, 45-minute
lesson.
Differentiation: differentiation of content, process and product in a way to offer an almost
individual lesson plan to each pupil; pupils grouped by specific linguistic needs take part in
activities adjusted for different learning styles and intelligences; support of individual pupils
within the group framework (process)
Aims:
Writing practice – pupils will be able to write the correct forms of adjectives and
comparatives and to compare two people in writing
Vocabulary practice – pupils will be able to use and understand vocabulary related to the four
seasons and to group it accordingly; they will be able to use prepositions of place (on the left,
on the right, between, next to, on); they will be able to recognize opposites (adjectives)
Learning to reflect – pupils will be able to learn from their mistakes and take responsibility
for their learning
Materials and equipment: worksheet for centre 1 (seasons) and word cards; worksheet for
centre 2 (adjectives, comparatives); box with Lego bricks and worksheet for centre 3; cards 50
Things to Do on a Plane, white board markers, worksheets for advanced pupils; homework
slips; noun cards; opposites cards

1. Find out who is missing. Sing a song. - 5 minutes

2. Set up a centre for the advanced pupils (2 boys and 1 girl), give them tasks and
materials and leave them to work alone for the whole lesson. – 2 minutes
3. Class work: I write “What’s the weather like?” on the board, elicit possible answers
and ask pupils to copy it into their notebook – 5 minutes
4. Group forming activity: I give each of the pupils a blue or an orange card with an
adjective and ask them to find the opposite (one blue/one orange). Then we stand in a
circle and read the opposites – 5 minutes
5. Group work: The two groups (one blue, one orange) form two lines. I show the first
person in each line a noun, they tell me which pronoun (it, him, her, them) they would
substitute it with in a sentence “I can see …” or “I need …” – 5 minutes
6. Revision centres: Pupils are divided into 4 groups – a group of 6 goes to join the
advanced pupils; the remaining pupils are divided into 3 groups (3, 3 and 5). They take
 61

turns in three centres quickly set up around corner desks. Each centre is to take about 5
minutes. – 15 minutes
Prepositions centre:
There are some bricks and a ball. Where is the ball?
Next to Between On the right On the left On In
(pictures)
1. Put the red brick between the green brick and the blue brick.
2. Put the green brick next to the yellow brick.
3. The red brick is in the middle, the blue brick is on the right and the green brick is on the left.
4. The yellow brick is on the blue brick.
5. Put all bricks in the box.
6. Put the blue brick on the box.
7. Put the yellow brick next to the box.
8. Put the green brick between the box and a blue brick.

Comparatives centre:
1. Napiš 2. stupeň těchto přídavných jmen:

Např. slow – slower (pomalý – pomalejší)

tall _______________________________
dirty _______________________________
short _______________________________
happy _______________________________
clean _______________________________
sad _______________________________
2. Podívej se na obrázky. Použij přídavná jména, která jsi napsal v 1. cvičení, ve
větách tak, aby věty byly pravdivé:
The boy is ________________ than the girl.
The boy is ________________ than the girl.
The boy is ________________ than the girl.
The girl is ________________ than the boy.
The girl is ________________ than the boy.
The girl is ________________ than the boy.

Seasons centre:
What do you need or have in these seasons?
Put 4 things in each season.
Can you write more things?

spring summer autumn winter

(Word cards: Halloween, Christmas, Easter, birthday, hat, swimming suit, flowers on trees,
apples, snowman, kite, pumpkin, skis, umbrella, chocolate eggs, sun cream, ice drink, long holiday)
 62

7. Summary: Allow pupils to see their pre-assessment test and take a note of what they
need to work on. Ask them to practice for Tuesday. Set specific tasks for 7 pupils. - 5
minutes
8. HW: 1. Practice vocabulary spelling units 1-8. (4 pupils). 2. Practice short answers to
Yes/No questions. (4 pupils)

Post lesson reflection:

One pupil was missing (a boy).
This was the most complex differentiation attempt I have made so far.
The first step was to get the pupils to take a mock revision (pre-assessment) test which
was done in the previous lesson. The test consisted of 8 distinct tasks. It took the entire lesson
for them to complete it. Early finishers were allowed to work with English task cards (a type
of flash cards the pupils can draw on with white board marker and then erase it and reuse it
again).
Then I had to check and assess each test and create a table of who needed to revise
what. I also needed to decide in what format the revision would take place.
3 pupils got A or A- and as their work was close to perfect, I decided they did not need
revision and I prepared a couple of worksheets with slightly more advanced materials, and
English task/game cards to work on once the worksheets were done. They were allowed to
work on the worksheets as a group and they had a dictionary to help them. They were very
happy to be singled out and to be given what they hopefully viewed as more appropriate tasks,
followed by a reward for good work in the form of task/game cards which they have done in
the past and enjoyed. I checked on them a couple of times while working with the other
pupils, and they worked beautifully as a group.
Only 4 pupils had difficulty with tasks 7 and 8 (spelling words and answering the
question “Do you like…?”), so I decided to set these as homework revision for the 7 pupils it
involved (one pupil had difficulty with both tasks).
That left me with 6 tasks to revise in the lesson.
Three of the tasks were difficult for 11-14 pupils, so I revised those with all of the
remaining pupils: class work – what’s the weather like?; group forming activity – opposites;
group work – pronouns.
Then I allowed those pupils who had the rest of the test right to join the advanced
pupils and continued to work with the remaining 11.
 63

I divided the pupils according to their level of difficulty with the tasks and had a group
of 3 with the greatest difficulty, a group of three with moderate difficulty, and a group of 5
who just needed to practice. They took turns at the stations (as these were for the less
advanced pupils, some of the instructions were in Czech) and I was able to assist each group
and explain to the pupils what I had observed in their mock tests and what I felt they needed
to practice. It would have been nice if the pupils had a bit more time in each centre but as I am
already slightly behind in my thematic plan, I only had this one lesson to devote to it.
I do not know if the revision was more effective this way than if I had just gotten all
the pupils to go through all the exercises; but I hope it allowed the pupils to focus on what
they needed to focus on the most, to make it varied enough for them to be able to remain
focused for the duration of the 45 minute lesson; and it showed them that while working hard
brings rewards, lacking in some way brings assistance and not only a low mark.
This kind of differentiation seems to form the core of the whole differentiation
process.
Inasmuch as it felt very good to be able to supply the pupils with exactly what they
needed, and have them enjoy the process, the question remains whether it is more effective
than other, simpler ways and worth the teacher’s time and effort.
The total amount of time spent on this one 45-minute lesson is fairly high when we
add everything that had to be done in order to get to it: 45 minutes for the running of the
mock-test, 15 minutes for the test preparation; 3 hours for test marking, evaluation of the test
results and lesson planning. When I take into account only the time, I arrive at about 4 hours
of work. That is more than 5 times the length of the actual lesson. There is also the added cost
of working late into the night after a full day of work in order to have it ready by the next day;
the effort it took to come up with a plan that would be not only appropriate but also
reasonably varied and enjoyable; the cost of the materials I used which I partially pay for
myself because the school has limits on what can be supplied by the school and to what
extent; and last but not least comes the fact that many of those hours go over and beyond the
time I am paid for in my job.
Using the test results for a longer practice period would definitely make it more
worthwhile. Perhaps next time I will be able to plan better and make better use of it. I also
believe that the preparation would become considerably shorter and easier if I had the
opportunity to teach the same grade from the same materials repeatedly. Having said that, I
cannot quite imagine doing so in up to seven different classes.
 64

7 Final assessment

Even though the final assessment took place after 10 weeks of teaching instead of the
planned 4-6 weeks, there did not seem to have been enough time to achieve much in terms of
the pupils’ improvement in the language and my mastery of the methods and strategies of
differentiation. I feel a couple of years of teaching experience would do the strategy more
justice.
While I have been teaching English to adults for twenty years, I am a novice teacher as
far as teaching at a primary and lower secondary school is concerned, and the lack of
experience with the environment, expectations and management of large groups of young
learners is evident from some of the lesson plans and reflections.

7.1 Results of tests and their interpretation

The final assessment phase, which took place after 10 weeks of teaching, consisted of
a written pre-assessment test, second speaking test and a marked written revision test which
was a variation of the pre-assessment test.
The table below contains the results of all the assessment tests (both speaking tests,
revision tests 1 and 2, the pre-assessment test and last year’s mark).
The pupils reported they found the second speaking test harder than the first one, in
their own words: “The examiner spoke too fast.” “I didn’t understand him at all.” “It was
harder.” However, their overall results have improved rather than digressed, so the feeling
may have been subjective.
There was a difference between the two speaking tests and it was the vocabulary: the
first test used more animals and they were jungle animals (crocodile, snake, monkey, and
elephant); the second test used domestic animals (dog, cat) and there were less of them.
The pre-assessment test was taken from the course book (revision of units 1-8) and a
variation of it was used as revision test 2 (revision test 1 is the test the pupils took at the start
of September).
Table 4 shows that the pupils manifested very varied results in the receptive part of the
speaking test: 6 pupils achieved a lower score than before, 4 remained at the same level, and 7
pupils improved their score; in the productive part of the test the result saw a slight rise: 6-9
improved, 7-10 remained the same, and only 1 achieved a lower score. The overall scores
were as follows: 4 pupils achieved a lower score, 3 remained at the same level and 10
improved.
 65

Table 4: YLE Starters Test 1&2

Pupil Listening Language Pronun- Overall Last Rev. Pre Rev.
number and ciation score year’s test ass. test 2
Interaction mark 1 test
1. D. 2.5/2 2/2 2.5/3 7/7 2 3 5 3
2. D. 1.5/1 1.5/1.5 2/2 5/4.5 2 3 5 3
3. 1/2 1.5/2.5 1.5/2.5 4/7 1 2 -1 2
4. 1.5/3 2/3 2/3 5.5/9 2 1 3 1
5. 2/2.5 2.5/3 3/3 7.5/8.5 1 2 4 3
6. 2/1.5 2/1.5 2/2 6/5 3 2 4 3
7. 2.5/2.5 2/3 3/3 7.5/8.5 2 3 -3 3
8. 2.5/3 3/3 3/3 8.5/9 1 2 -3 2
9. 1.5/2 1.5/3 2/2.5 5/7.5 2 2 3 -2
10. T. 3/3 2.5/3 3/3 8.5/9 1 2 3 3
11. 1.5/2 2/3 2/3 5.5/8 2 2 2 2
12. 2.5/2.5 2.5/2.5 2.5/2.5 7.5/7.5 2 2 4 2
13. 1.5/1 1.5/1.5 1.5/2 4.5/4.5 3 3 4 4
14. 2/1.5 2/2 2.5/2.5 6.5/6 1 3 -1 3
15. 2/2.5 2/3 2.5/3 6.5/8.5 1 2 3 2
16. M. 2.5/- 2.5/- 3/- 8/- 2 3 Left
17. 2.5/2 2/2 2.5/2 7/6 1 1 -2 1
18. 2.5/- 2.5/- 2.5/- 7.5/- 2 2 Abs. 2
19. 1.5/- 1.5/- 2/- 5/- 3 3 Abs. 4
20. 3/3 2.5/3 3/3 8.5/9 1 1 1 1
21. Not allowed - - - 1 2 3 1
22. Abs./2 Abs./2.5 Abs./2.5 Abs./7 1 3 2 1
Total 6/4/7 1/7/9 1/10/6 4/3/10 12/8/1 6/13/2

As my focus for these 10 weeks was to help pupils improve their communicative
skills, the test results would seem to indicate that the attempt was successful.
As far as the pupils’ written work is concerned, the results of the first and second
revision tests show that the pupils’ written performance over the last ten weeks did not
improve; on the contrary, over a quarter of them performed worse: 6 pupils received a lower
mark, 13 remained the same and only 2 improved. There are many factors which could have
influenced this: a more demanding curriculum which is increasingly less manageable for
some of the pupils; the focus on communication and less opportunity to practice writing and
grammatical accuracy; too many new methods and strategies introduced too quickly.
I see all the test results as indicative rather than final or decisive as the pupils and I
have only had 10 weeks together which is not quite enough time to get used to each other, let
alone draw any conclusions. In another 10 weeks’ time the situation may well be very
different again.
 66

7.2 Conclusion and suggested course of action

During the course of the case study I have really come to appreciate a quote by a
famous Prussian Field Marshal, Helmuth von Moltke, who said: “No plan of battle ever
survives contact with the enemy.” (Keyes xi)
I have had many plans with regards to this thesis, and many of them had to be changed
time and again, as occasion demanded.
The primary goal of the thesis was to determine whether the differentiation strategies
and methods “as a package” could be successfully used in a Czech primary school.
Over the ten weeks, I have succeeded in using many of them in practice, and, for the
most of it, it has been a positive, enriching and fulfilling experience. The work was more
interesting for me, as a teacher, as I had an opportunity to try new strategies I have not tried
before. I have had the satisfaction of watching pupils take part in them and embrace them. I
have also witnessed the engagement of the pupils who were approached in many different
ways, at their level.
There were many minor set backs, many of which had a simple solution, but the ones
that appeared most often and repeatedly were lack of time (for preparation, practice, revision,
application, and summary) and creating and giving clear instructions. The issue of time should
naturally decrease over time as the teacher gains more experience and learns to adjust
planning appropriately. The creation of clear instructions is also a matter of practice, but of
trial and error too, as different pupils will respond to the same instructions in different ways.
While I have not always found a way to overcome all obstacles, I believe that further practice,
study and consultation with colleagues may be helpful.
The secondary goal of the thesis was to ascertain whether the strategy was worth the
teachers’ time and effort. Having had this ten-week experience, I believe that it is up to every
teacher to endeavour to use it and make that decision for themselves. The use and mastery of
these strategies does require the sacrifice or devotion of a considerable amount of the
teacher’s time. It is not something one can simply pick up while teaching. It has to be studied,
and, ideally, observed before the teacher can implement it in their own teaching practice.
I have not managed to devise a way to determine whether differentiated instruction is
effective in accelerating the pupils’ progress. The short-term test results have been influenced
by many variables, and as such, do not offer any reliable data.
 67

8 Conclusion

The whole process, from spending a couple of years on studying the theory of
differentiation to finally arriving at a point when I had the opportunity to implement parts of it
in practice, comprised a steep and stimulating learning curve.
While most Czech teachers use some of the methods and strategies of differentiation,
too few use it as a package, and therefore, the experience was new both for me and for the
pupils. Many of the strategies put to use were unknown to the pupils, so the period of 10
weeks must have been very challenging for them too. Unfortunately, there was not enough
time to secure feedback on the whole procedure from the pupils, but it would have been
helpful to have obtained such.
During the 10 weeks’ teaching practise I have implemented the following elements:
testing – VAK, Gardner’s multiple intelligences, and level pre-assessment (oral and written);
understanding the family situation (family tree); differentiated group forming activities,
partially tiered assignments, flexible grouping, simplified choice boards, experiential learning,
learning centres, differentiated products and assessment options; and adjusting content,
process and product for learners with specific learning differences.
Some elements were easier to implement than others and they produced varied results.
My overarching feeling is that the use of differentiation allowed me to get to know my pupils
at a more personal level faster; and that it helped in the preparation of lessons with more
varied and better aimed methods, strategies and content.
I did not succeed in utilizing the following elements, largely due to time constraints:
identifying the pupils’ hobbies and interests, incorporating Bloom’s taxonomy, and compiling
curriculum maps. I would like to continue with the project at a slower pace for the rest of the
school year and apply them all, one by one; and to use those that were attempted only in part
more fully. This should eventually lead to adopting the honed and successful strategies in
other grades too.
Also, it would have been helpful to share the results of the individual tests with the
pupils; to spend more time on introducing the new strategies to the pupils and practising them
more; and to allow the pupils to reflect on their experiences more often. All of that would
have provided me with much needed feedback and the pupils with a much needed opportunity
to acquire more learner autonomy.
Whilst I can envision the potential of differentiation, I do not feel I was able to achieve
it fully in the short time available.
 68

During the course of my studies at MU, and especially during the last two years, the
theory of differentiation was introduced with great emphasis but rather briefly.
Some elements were demonstrated and implemented in practice: experiential learning,
learning centres, group forming activities, tasks or reading with an element of choice or
personal preference; and these elements are without question those that I am most likely to
use in my teaching practice as I am the most comfortable with them and confident about using
them.
Other elements were studied in theory: VAK, Gardner, Bloom’s taxonomy, tiered
activities; and some elements I discovered through personal study: pre-assessment, curriculum
mapping.
However, I was not able to form a cohesive picture of the scope and depth of what
differentiation entailed until I began attempting to use it. The knowledge of individual
elements provides a good beginning and it is undoubtedly useful even on its own, but without
knowing how it all fits together, it remains a collection of elements I may or may not choose
to use.
It may be helpful to run differentiation as a separate class and to have all the elements
introduced gradually, to be shown in practice how they fit together, and what each of them
does or what purpose it serves.
Alternately, the whole package could be integrated into one of the classes, such as
Practical language, in which all the strategies would be gradually used in practice on the
future teachers themselves in a natural setting. This would have to be supported by studying
the theory of these individual strategies in a Didactics class running parallel to and in
coordination with the Practical language studies.
Practical language may serve well for this purpose as there is a substantial variety of
levels to justify and make good use of differentiation. In my own studies, I enjoyed having
Practical language as an easy subject for which I did not need to prepare, but it would have
been more useful for me to have been taught at a level that would challenge me and help me
grow.
I feel it would be immensely helpful if future teachers studying at university were able
to experience differentiation when being taught; and also if there were opportunities for them
to use it in practice in their lessons at university and in guided teaching practice.
In addition, currently practicing teachers may benefit from being given an opportunity
to learn about the principles of differentiation as part of their professional development.
 69

Works Cited
Cambridge English: Starters (YLE Starters). Cambridge English, 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Chapman, Alan. VAK Learning Styles. Businessballs.com, 2005. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
---. Multiple Intelligences test. Businessballs.com, 2005. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Collins, Rita, and Naďa Vojtková. Using Learning Centres in the English Language
Classroom. IATEFL Voices, 212. 16 Feb. 2010. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.
Comenius, J. A. A Reformation of Schools (1642). Uspace, Communicate and Collaborate.
The University of Sheffield, Feb 10, 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
Dewey, John. My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, Vol. LIV, No. 3. 1897. Web. 10 Feb.
2014.
The Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education. VÚP, 2007. Web. 25 Oct.
2014.
Experiential Learning. Northern Illinois University, Faculty Development and Instructional
Design Center, n.d. Web. 10 Sep. 2014.
Frederics, A. D. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Success as a Teacher. Indianapolis, USA:
Alpha Books. 2005. Print.
Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind. USA, New York: Basic Books. 2011. Print.
---. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences: As Psychology, As Education, As Social Science. An
address given at Jose Cela University in Madrid, Spain on October 22, 2011. Web. 19
Apr. 2014.
Gundlach, Marlene. The Roots of Differentiated Instruction in Teaching. Ed. Wendy Finn.
Bright Hub Education, 2 Aug. 2012. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.
Hall, T., N. Strangman, and A. Meyer. Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL
implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum, 2003. Web. 11 Feb. 2014
Heacox, Diane. Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis, USA:
Free Spirit Publishing Inc., 2002. Print.
The Holy Bible. Salt Lake City, USA: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1988.
Print.
Langa, Michelle A., and Janice L. Yost. Curriculum Mapping for Differentiated Instruction,
K-8. Callifornia, USA: Corwin Press, 2007. Print.
 70

Kershner, Ruth, and Sheila Miles. “Thinking and talking about differentiation.”
Differentiation and Diversity in the Primary School. Ed. Eva Bearne. London:
Routledge, 1996. Print.
Keyes, Ralph. The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When. New York, USA: St.
Martins‘ Press, 2006. Print.
Kolb, D. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984. Web. 10 Nov. 2014
Maslow, A. H. Toward a Psychology of Being. USA, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1968. Print.
McCarthy, M. The Why and How of Learning Centers. The Elementary School Journal.
Vol.77, No. 4. The University of Chicago Press, n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2014.
Oxford, R. Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. NTPU, 2003. Web. 17 Oct.
2014
Sherman, W. N. Differentiated Instruction: A Review of the Literature. Metropolitan
Educational Research Consortium (MERC) Report, 2008, Spring, 28. Web. 15 Feb.
2014.
Specific learning differences. ELT well, 2012-2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Sternberg, R.J., and Li-fang Zhang, Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction.
Theory into Practice, 245-253, n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.
Tomlinson, C. A., and Cindy A. Strickland. Differentiation in Practice. Alexandria, USA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2005. Print.
Tomlinson, C.A. Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and Differentiation.
Educational Leadership, September 2000, Volume 58, Number 1: How to
Differentiate Instruction. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Vygotsky, L. Interaction between learning and development. Mind and Society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print.
Chart
Tomlinson, Carol Ann. Differentiation, 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.diffcentral.com/model.html>
Tests
VAK test. Projekt MIP CZ.1.07/1.2.00/14.0125. Web. 3 Sep. 2014.
<http://www.mip.viphosting.eu/useruploads/files/orientacni_test_ucebniho_stylu_zaka
.pdf>
 71

Cambridge English Young Learners. Sample papers Starters, volume 1. Cambridge, UK:
UCLES, 2013. Web. 3 Sep. 2014. <http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/165870-
yle-starters-sample-papers-vol-1.pdf>
Cambridge English Young Learners. Sample papers Starters, volume 2. Cambridge, UK:
UCLES, 2013. Web. 3 Sep. 2014. .
<http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/153309-starters-sample-papers-volume-
2.pdf>

Tables
Table 1: VAK learning styles
Table 2: Multiple intelligences in the class
Table 3: YLE Starters Test 1
Table 4: YLE Starters Test 1&2