Kopecka Final Version

MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

Differentiation Reflected in Coursebooks

Global Intermediate and New English File

Intermediate and Suggestions for Improvement

Final thesis

Brno 2013

Supervisor: PhDr. Helena Havlíčková Author: Mgr. Kateřina Kopecká

Bibliografický záznam

KOPECKÁ, Kateřina. Differentiation Reflected in Coursebooks Global Intermediate and

New English File Intermediate and Suggestions for Improvement. Brno: Masarykova

univerzita, Fakulta pedagogická, Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury, 2013. Vedoucí

diplomové práce PhDr. Helena Havlíčková.

Prohlášení

Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze

citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem

pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb.,

o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů

(autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.

…............................................

Kateřina Kopecká

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank PhDr. Helena Havlíčková for her supervising, motivation during writing

my thesis, and her valuable remarks on my thesis.

Kateřina Kopecká

5

Contents

1 Introduction 7

2 Theoretical background 9

2.1The definition of differentiation 9

2.2 A brief history of differentiation and its current state 11

2.3 Reasons for differentiation 12

2.4 Assessing learner needs 13

3 Types of differentiation and their advantages and disadvantages 16

3.1 Differentiation by outcome 16

3.2 Differentiation by task/ability 17

3.3 Differentiation by support 18

3.4 Differentiation by resource 19

3.5 Differentiation by process 19

3.6 Differentiation by interest 22

4 The introduction to the practical part 23

4.1 The background of my research 23

4.2 The aims of the research 23

4.3 Hypothesis, research questions and possible solutions 23

4.4 Research methods 24

6

5 The main body of the practical part 25

5.1 The evaluation of New English File Intermediate according to the types of

differentiation 25

5.2 The evaluation of Global Intermediate according to the types of differentiation

28

5.3 Suggestions for improvement 31

5.4 Evaluation of the results, hypothesis affirmed or disconfirmed 38

6 Conclusion 40

7 Summary 42

8 Bibliography 44

7

1 Introduction

There is no doubt that teachers in today’s classroom encounter students with various

needs. There are students who prefer seeing things, students who need to listen to the teacher

and one can also find students who require so-called hands-on experience and movement. To

make matters even more complicated, various combinations of the above mentioned groups

exist.

Furthermore, students whose left brain hemisphere prevails over the right side have an

outstanding stretch of the imagination and need different strategies than students who excel in

logical thinking and creating systems. Last but not least, there are also students who are more

gifted in a specific subject and students whose strengths lie somewhere else. Teachers whose

belief system comprises of differentiated instruction assess learner needs carefully and suit

their teaching to meet them.

On a personal note, I have decided to write about differentiated instruction because I

wanted to explore how I can meet my students’ needs more. I believe being a good teacher

means putting your students’ needs ahead of yours. In my opinion, differentiation usually

sounds more appealing to students than to teachers. As a student I would probably have

appreciated being given easier tasks in physics and more demanding tasks in languages. As

a teacher I realise how time-demanding this approach could be.

Nevertheless, there are some tips how to differentiate without spending a huge

amount of time on preparation. I strongly believe modern language textbooks should tackle

this current trend and use (among other things) open-ended tasks as much as possible. Also,

teacher’s books should provide extra support for mixed-ability classes. One can argue all

classes that consist of more than one student are mixed-ability ones. This approach would

encourage teachers to differentiate more without feeling overloaded with work.

As far as the structure of the thesis goes, the theoretical part consists of two main

sections: theoretical background and different kinds of differentiated instruction. The former

examines the definition of differentiated instruction, gives a short review of the history and

present of differentiation, states reasons for implementing these strategies in classroom and is

concerned with assessing learner needs. The latter discusses various types of differentiated

instruction and their advantages and disadvantages.

8

The practical part of the thesis is divided into the introduction and main body. The

introduction deals with the background of my research, aims, hypothesis and research

questions. The main body of the thesis is concerned with the evaluation of the coursebooks

New English File Intermediate and Global Intermediate and the respective teacher’s books.

Suggestions for improvement are given as well as the evaluation of the results and whether

the hypothesis is affirmed or disconfirmed.

9

2 Theoretical background

The first section of the theoretical part focuses on the introduction into the study of

differentiation. First the definition of differentiating instruction will be suggested. Then its history and

present state will be examined. The following chapter will deal with different reasons both for and

against differentiation in the classroom. In the last chapter we will look at learner needs as this is an

essential prerequisite for any differentiation.

2.1The definition of differentiation

A variety of definitions of the term differentiated instruction have been suggested.

This thesis offers a few examples shown below. Heacox (2002) claims that "differentiating

instruction means changing the pace, level, or kind of instruction you provide in response to

individual learners needs, styles, or interests (p.5)".

Cooper, Irizarry, Leighton, Morine-Dershimer, Sadker (2010) give a somewhat longer

definition: "A teacher proactively plans varied approaches to what students need to learn,

how they will learn it, and/or how they can express what they have learned in order to

increase the likelihood that each student will learn as much as he or she can as efficiently as

possible" (p.155). Last but not least Gregory, Chapman (2006, p.2) base their definition on a

more philosophical view. The authors refer to it as: "philosophy that enables educators to

plan strategically in order to reach the needs of the diverse learners in classrooms today to

achieve targeted standards" (p.2).

Gregory, Chapman (ibid.) emphasise that differentiation is not a mere set of strategies

but instead a whole belief system. Shortly, every learner matters to teachers who support the

idea. Even though the term differentiated instruction is a relatively new concept, Tomlinson

(1999) argues that a lot of teachers practice differentiation naturally without even knowing it

on a conscious level. It can be said it is one of the signs of a good teacher.

10

The term differentiation (also known as differentiated instruction) comes from the

1990s. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in differentiated instruction

especially in English speaking countries. Teachers and authors of coursebooks are becoming

more and more aware of the importance of helping students to reach their full potential.

However, Dillon, Maguire (2011, p. 199) argue that the concept is not new at all. They say

teachers often appreciate the fact that something they have been doing for years is now fully

acknowledged as a good teaching strategy. Dillon, Maguire (ibid.) also add that more

information about the topic helps beginning teachers to a huge extent.

Traditional teaching differs from this kind of instruction and emphasises conformation

to the norm. The teacher usually sets the same task to all students. Naturally, the level is too

low for some gifted individuals, which may cause problems with discipline as they feel bored

and demotivated. By contrast, some students struggle with the task and might feel frustrated.

Again, there is a possibility that they will misbehave to protect their feeling of worthiness.

This view is supported by Dillon, Maguire (2011, p.201) who argue that both internal

confusion and visible frustration have a negative impact on the individual.

In contrast to the aforementioned way of teaching, differentiated instruction means

that the teacher sets the bar in such a manner that more able students do not feel bored and

low-proficient students do not consider themselves a failure. Therefore, the teacher acts in

a more flexible manner.

Heacox (2009, p.103) claims that the key to this lies in putting students into groups in

a clever manner. She points out that the teacher should change strategies often enough in

order to create diversity. Heacox (ibid.) stresses that students should not work in the same

groups all the time. Possible strategies might be: random groups, groups of own choice,

homogenous groups and mixing more able students with less able ones while offering enough

support. It is obvious that the aforementioned approach requires a lot of thinking on the part

of the teacher before their lessons.

Westphal (2007, p.1) also stresses the importance of choice. She argues that most

adults when asked whether they prefer being given an option or being told what to do choose

the former. Westphal (ibid.) claims that students feel the same way even though they may not

be as explicit when it comes to their wishes. It might also be said that being given the

opportunity to choose what suits them most encourages motivation and autonomy. Therefore,

being given a choice can accelerate their learning. To conclude, being given a choice and

enhancing motivation seem to be closely linked.

11

2.2 A brief history of differentiation and its current state

Chen (2007, p. 24) claims that the term differentiation is quite recent in the school

environment but at the same time he adds that teachers have been trying to differentiate in the

classroom for a very long time. In the past village teachers taught students of various ages

and abilities in one single classroom. The teacher was forced to act in a flexible manner and

prepare thoroughly to help all the pupils. These days the term differentiated instruction is

connected especially to the name Carol Tomlinson, who has written fifteen books on the

topic. She is considered to be one of the most influential pioneers. However, the idea of

differentiation was mentioned even earlier back in the nineteenth century.

Tomlinson’s predecessor was, among others, Preston Search (Washburne, 1953,

p. 139-140), who opposed to grade-repetition and letting students fail his subjects. Search

tried to change the views of the public but faced indifference. Washburne (1953, p. 140)

points out that the need for differentiated instruction became more intense at the beginning of

the twentieth century when intelligence tests showed people are not equal when it comes to

their mental abilities. Washburne (ibid.) stresses that this is when the era of self-instructive

coursebooks commenced.

Another important figure in the field of differentiated instruction and alternative

schools is Carleton Washburne, who is known as the superintendent of schools in Winnetka

in the United States. In his famous article called Adjusting Program to the Child, which has

been quoted on several occasions above, Washburne (1953, p. 138-139) states that children

vary in their mental ages. Let us assume we have two pupils – Andy and Jesicca, who are

both 15 years old (i.e. chronological age). Their mental age might be, though, lower or

higher.

Andy might be better at grammar (above his chronological age) whereas Jesicca

prefers speaking. Nonetheless, Washburne (ibid.) disapproves of grouping children according

to their mental age. He claims more able children would not fit in the class of older pupils

because there are other elements to consider (physical development, psychological maturity

etc.). Contrarily, a less able student would probably feel awkward and self-conscious with

younger pupils, which is a problem of grade-repetition in general.

Nowadays differentiated instruction is experiencing its boom. Both teacher trainees

and practising teachers learn the theory of differentiation and how important it is to build it

into their lessons. We all agree one needs to differentiate, however, implementing

12

differentiation seems quite challenging. There appear to be more books dealing with the

theory than with practical and easy suggestions.

There is no doubt in my mind that differentiated instruction as such is slowly getting

more and more vital in Czech classrooms. Yet when it comes to putting theory into practice

a CELTA trainer and lecturer (who does not want to be named) claims that the Czech

educational system lags behind compared to the United States and United Kingdom. But as

one cannot hinder the progress, it seems very likely one day Czech teachers will be obliged to

implement differentiation to a greater extent.

2.3 Reasons for differentiation

Gregory, Chapman (2006, p.4) argue that students differ when it comes to the way

they learn and the teacher should take the fact into consideration. The theory of multiple

intelligences has been proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983 and remains valid.

Differentiation by activities takes into account his model of multiple intelligences and will be

discussed further.

Cooper, Irizarry, Leighton, Morine-Dershimer, Sadker (2010, p.156) stress that

differentiated instruction helps to tackle diversity in the classroom. They also argue that

learning only happens when a student is challenged to a reasonable degree. When a student

finds the task too easy, learning does not take place. Instead, this student only revises what

has already been learnt. On the other hand, being given a task beyond one’s ability is not

helpful either. Without somebody helping the learner can feel demotivated and possibly even

upset. Considering different ability is called (among other terms) differentiation by task. To

sum up, differentiation helps students to develop to the fullest potential and that is its most

fundamental purpose.

On the other hand, it needs to be said that students will encounter situations in their

life which will be challenging. One cannot rely on the fact that the world will always suit

their needs as that is far from reality. In my opinion, a certain level of discomfort is necessary

to overcome personal barriers and develop to the fullest potential. Getting out of our comfort

zone helps us to gain self-confidence and self-respect. Moreover, it broadens our horizons.

Furthermore, Morgan, Neil (2001, p. 49) argue that differentiating every single activity seems

13

to be impractical and, therefore, rather unrealistic.

Another reason for being hesitant when it comes to differentiated instruction is that

the current system is based on traditional assessment and teachers have to prepare their

students for passing tests. Would it be fair to prepare three sets of tests according to ability?

A typical test does not reflect principles of differentiated instruction much. Consequently,

different kinds of assessment would be necessary. Therefore, differentiated instruction

strategies are linked with modern assessment methods. More information on assessing learner

needs can be found at the end of the theoretical part.

When considering both advantages and disadvantages of differentiated instruction it

becomes clear that a balance between the two needs to be sought in order to prepare students

for their life to be. To conclude, principles of differentiation should definitely be

implemented but to a reasonable degree.

2.4 Assessing learner needs

In order to differentiate effectively we need to assess learner needs. The teacher ought

to find out not only who is more and who is less proficient but also where their learner

strengths and weaknesses lie. This can be done in various ways. The teacher should assess

continuously as learners might get better or worse during the course due to the various

reasons (e.g. illness, problems at home etc.). Let us discuss some of possible ways of needs

assessment.

The teacher ought to asses by means of constant observation. The educator should,

therefore, focus both on whole class activities and group work. A way of doing so is a

discreet monitoring when students are working in pairs or groups and noting down some of

the students’ good and bad points. I learnt a useful tip when attending a methodology

seminar: The teacher pretends to listen to a pair while actually listening to another one close

by. This way there is no shyness on the part of those actually being observed as they do not

even realise it.

Another way of assessing learner needs is looking at their written work.

Unfortunately, writing as a language skill tends to be neglected in the classroom. Some pupils

say they will not need to write later in life – all they want to do is practise speaking. It is

14

a shame as writing enables students to reflect on grammar use and vocabulary in the context.

Moreover, it helps the teacher to see the level of students English very easily.

Thanks to its durability assessing written work helps when the educator does not feel

sure whether a student makes a mistake or (more serious) error. Recurrent problems with the

language become more obvious and, therefore, easier for remedial work. Personally, I like

giving feedback to individual students after a lesson and sometimes during individual work in

class. I always mention what I liked about their piece of writing as well to balance it.

For lower levels I use Czech for giving feedback about written work for two reasons.

First, I want to be sure my explanation is clear enough and second, it creates a less

threatening atmosphere. In my opinion, giving students their written work just with notes and

corrected sentences does not suffice and does not help to raise the motivation level either.

Another way of assessing learner needs is giving the students a needs analysis

questionnaire. Murray, Christison (2010, p.11) claim that the educator might design their

own questionnaire and give it to students even before the first lesson. Also, Murray,

Christison (ibid.) argue that the teacher could send it via email if the students cannot be

reached easily.

What should a questionnaire like this contain? We could ask about past experience

with learning the English language, skills which the students find especially

important/demanding etc. Murray, Christison (2010, p.12) also stress the importance of

talking about learner goals. It is essential to know what our students intend to achieve and

whether it corresponds to the requirements of the course.

Furthermore, the educator could ask about the students’ interests and hobbies to tailor

the content of the course to the majority and increase motivation. Making adjustments to suit

the majority is stressed by Dubin (1986, p.102), who points out that it is impossible to

completely fulfill the needs of each and every individual in the class. Nevertheless, it does

not mean we should overlook them.

It ought to be mentioned that the educator could also give their students

a questionnaire based on learning style preferences. A nice example is given by Berman,

Belak, Rimmer (2011), who adapted Christison’s questionnaire published in the journal

MEXTESOL. This topic will be discussed further in the subchapter called Differentiation by

process. It seems obvious that asking about attitudes and learning styles cannot possibly

suffice. The teacher could also give their students a diagnostic test examining their level of

English. The test could contain listening as well as this skill tends to be omitted in tests. Of

course, the test should not be marked as it serves as a purely diagnostic tool.

15

To sum up, knowing what our learners need is essential as it helps the teacher to

differentiate effectively. There are many ways of assessing learner needs, some of which

have been mentioned above and the educator ought to aim to use a variety of them.

16

3 Types of differentiation and their advantages and

disadvantages

It needs to be said that a wide range of classification of differentiation exists. For our

purposes, Dillon and Maguire’s system (2011, p. 203) has been used for its relative

simplicity. The authors distinguish differentiation by outcome, task (also known as

differentiation by ability), support and resource. Dillon, Maguire (ibid.) mention that the first

two types are considered to be the most crucial ones.

Another two categories have been added to make the list more complete. Heacox

(2002, p. 11) argues differentiation by process should also be taken into account. This means

the teacher ought to consider different learning styles of his or her students. The latter

additional type of differentiated instruction is differentiation by interest (Pachler, 2001,

p. 180), which basically means a learner is given a choice when it comes to their learning.

It might be interesting to note that Morgan, Neil (2001, p. 49) mention also

differentiation by timing, which is not going to be dealt with further in the thesis because of

the high number of various types included and its marginal character. To put it simply,

differentiation by timing means the teacher acts in a flexible manner when it comes to setting

time limits.

3.1 Differentiation by outcome

Anstee (2011, p. 47) argues that definition by outcome means the teacher sets the

same task but his or her expectations of the outcome are varied. For instance, the teacher tells

students to write a story beginning with the phrase Once upon a time… Obviously, there will

be pupils good at writing a narrative and students who will produce a worse piece of writing.

What is crucial is that the teacher does not expect weak students to write an extraordinary

narrative. The educator does their best to help less able students to make their piece of

writing as good as possible.

At the same time the teacher should challenge the best students to write an even better

17

fairy tale. Anstee (2011, p. 48) points out that the teacher can show the students some

examples of a decent piece of writing. Especially when practising writing, that seems to be

a very useful strategy.

The key to differentiation by outcome is, therefore, giving students open-ended

exercises. Differentiation by outcome seems to be especially practical when it comes to

productive skills. As far as advantages go, differentiation by outcome is considered pragmatic

and time-saving. Concerning disadvantages some might argue that differentiation by outcome

may slip into no differentiation at all. The teacher may just say that they expect from students

different results and that is how they approach differentiated instruction. A possible solution

to this issue can be using differentiation by outcome after careful planning and not

exceedingly. However, open-ended tasks will definitely carry on playing a key role in

differentiated instruction.

3.2 Differentiation by task/ability

Another kind of differentiated instruction is differentiation by task (also known as

differentiation by ability). It takes into account that students vary in their ability when it

comes to learning a foreign language. Also, one cannot dismiss the fact that some students

excel in grammar and some are better at speaking. This means the first group will need to

practise speaking by concentrating more on fluency and the other ought to focus on accuracy.

Out of all types of differentiated instruction this one appears to be the most time-demanding

for the teacher and, therefore, the least popular.

When doing my bachelor thesis, it has been found out that one of causes of stress for

educators is preparing extra materials for pupils with learning difficulties (Kopecká, 2010,

p. 39). Therefore, a considerable amount of preparation is required on the part of the teacher

who intends to embrace differentiation by task. Furthermore, one should consider the fact that

students might get worse or better during the course itself due to the various reasons. Thus,

constant assessment seems to be essential.

Differentiation by task involves developing extra materials. When preparing handouts

or flashcards, more versions are usually needed (at least two). Of course, there are teachers

who enjoy preparing materials and spend a lot of time creating them. On the other hand, there

18

are also teachers who feel aversion toward even more work. Nowadays, teachers often

complain about being overburdened by administrative tasks, preparation, teaching itself and

many more duties related to the profession. The question is how realistic it is to prepare this

way for every lesson while having a busy schedule.

Furthermore, a possible problem with differentiation by task/ability is that students

might find it unfair. The teacher basically divides students into the strong, average and weak

ones (alternatively, he or she divides the class into two groups). The weak ones might feel

inadequate because of this label. They may want to try the same task as the strong ones,

which could be motivating for them.

Washburne (1953, p. 141) claims that what students need is a plenty of

encouragement. It goes without saying that creating a positive atmosphere in the classroom is

essential as students need a safe, non-threatening environment. No judgment ought to be

passed on weaker students. Another possible solution can be using the same task while

offering extra support and resources to less able students.

3.3 Differentiation by support

A high number of teachers implement this type of differentiated instruction naturally

without knowing they are doing it. It basically means offering more help to weaker students.

The teacher could easily put differentiation by support into practice by monitoring students

when they are, for instance, working on exercises on their own. Students might ask some

questions if they feel the need and more importantly, the teacher could serve as a guide to less

able pupils. It also shows to the students that the teacher cares deeply about their progress.

We could also support weaker students by giving them extra materials which are on their

level (i.e. differentiation by resource).

Even though it might seem that differentiation by support is done by the teacher, in

my opinion it might as well be done by students themselves. In the best case scenario, this

system works naturally after (or even during) the class when a weaker student asks a stronger

one for help. The aforementioned cooperation between students needs to be encouraged by

the teacher. A possible way of doing it is applying this strategy whenever possible and

working on a positive atmosphere in the classroom

19

3.4 Differentiation by resource

Differentiation by resource means the teacher gives different kind of materials and

resources to various groups (or individual students). To illustrate, let us have a look at how

this type of differentiation might work in the classroom. The teacher assigns creating a

project as homework. The topic of the project could be, for instance, practical ways of saving

the environment. The teacher would divide students into groups of three or four according to

their ability. More able students would work with recommended literature and websites

suitable for their needs and so would less able students. Weaker students could be given

articles in simplified magazines for EFL learners.

When reading a novel as long-term homework, stronger students would be given a list

of more demanding books whereas weaker students could be offered easier authors or

simplified readers. Personally, I find simplified readers worthwhile as students may start

reading from the very beginning and progress quickly. Thus, simplified readers could be less

daunting for EFL learners. Moreover, simplified literature is usually divided into more levels,

which makes differentiating by resource (and task) even easier (e.g. level 2 for weaker

learners and level 3 for stronger ones).

Of course, authentic books could be used as soon as it is possible. Consequently, we

can see a strong relationship between differentiation by resource and differentiation by task.

This kind of differentiated instruction supports learner autonomy and, therefore, raises

self-confidence. Students take learning into own hands and depend less on the teacher, which

seems very useful in the long term.

3.5 Differentiation by process

Differentiation by process (also known as differentiation by variety/activities)

basically means that the teacher takes into account leaner preferences and learning styles.

This kind of differentiation can easily be done by adding variety to lessons. Lessons should

be balanced enough so that all learners may get most of it. The problem is the teacher cannot

satisfy everyone all the time. The solution appears straight forward – it is not necessary to

20

always please everybody. A good teacher ought to structure a lesson in a way so that all the

students can profit from an activity which suits their needs.

When it comes to offering variety to students, one cannot omit the name Howard

Gardner, who works as a professor of psychology at Harvard University. He presented his

theory of multiple intelligences in the book called Frames of Mind back in 1983. In his

introduction Gardner (1983, p. 3-4) comments on narrow-mindness of current intelligence

tests and their possible negative impact on one‘s self-esteem and future.

In the aforementioned book Gardner distinguishes eight kinds of intelligence:

logical-mathematical, spatial, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal,

interpersonal and naturalistic. Campbell, Campbell (1999, p.2) point out that Gardner himself

felt surprised by public acceptance of his work. Campbell, Campbell (ibid.) claim that he had

not expected his theory to be used in educational context but rather in psychology. Let us

look at practical implications of the theory in EFL contexts. Possible activities which are

aimed at developing a respective intelligence are:

Logical-mathematical: systematical explanations (e.g. of grammar), logical puzzle,

crosswords

Spatial: timelines, visual cues, drawing

Linguistic: word games (e.g. the game Countdown), working with a dictionary, writing

activities

Bodily-kinesthetic: miming, total physical response

Musical: songs, rhymes, action songs

Intrapersonal: choosing own homework, keeping a journal, independent study

Interpersonal: cooperative games, peer teaching, role plays

Naturalistic: environmental studies, projects about nature

Of course, developing one intelligence may include acquiring another one. To

illustrate, writing activities develop linguistic intelligence. If the teacher encourages peer

teaching (e.g. exchanging pieces of work), this could help to build interpersonal intelligence.

Thus, it becomes obvious that intelligences are also related and one cannot treat them as

separate.

21

When talking about different needs, one needs to mention learning style preferences.

Three main types are distinguished: visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Wong (2011, p. 5)

claims that the majority of people prefer one channel to the others. On the other hand, most

people do not tend to fall into the categories as easily. Their style is a unique combination of

the aforementioned learning styles. Wong (ibid.) argues that learning style preferences begin

in our childhood, however, later in life we are able to adapt to learning which does not reflect

our learning style preference.

Of course, the educator could give out questionnaires on learning style preferences

which might be easily found on the Internet and in various books. There is no doubt that

knowing one’s learning style preference helps especially with effective learning strategies

and independence of the teacher. It is essential to note, though, that the best strategy is

offering enough variety in the lesson by involving as many channels as possible.

Furthermore, the teacher should give the learners a choice (see differentiation by

interest). To illustrate, visual learners might need to have a handout in front of their eyes to

get their bearings in the presentation phase (e.g. a grammar section). Also, they tend to make

notes. On the other hand, auditory learners could find the aforementioned learning strategy

distracting. Consequently, the teacher who is visually oriented should not force their students

to make notes whilst listening to him or her. It goes without saying that being flexible is the

key. Now let us have a look at some teaching aids and activities which could be beneficial for

learners who tend to have a channel much stronger than the others.

Visual learners: pictures, photos, timelines, graphs, handouts for making notes,

drawing and drawing games, phonemic chart

Auditory learners: lectures, songs, poems, limericks, tongue twisters, pronunciation

drills and games (e.g. bingo)

Kinesthetic learners: TPR (total physical response), action songs, games involving

movement (e.g. clapping associations), miming, theatre etc.

To make the list more complete, one needs to mention the so-called Brain Dominance

Theory. The human brain is divided into two halves – the left hemisphere and the right

hemisphere. Wong (2011, p.16) argues that according to the research each hemisphere has

specific functions. Wong (2011) claims that "the Brain Dominance Theory suggests that

people tend to have a preference for initially processing information through the left

hemisphere (also referred to as the left brain) or the right hemisphere (the right brain)" (p.16).

22

Bernstein, Nash (2008, p.70) state that so-called left-brain learners are analytical

when it comes to thinking, they prefer structured information, words and numbers. They also

prefer predictability. Contrarily, according to the authors right-brain learners excel in

visualisation, creativity and intuition. The educator ought to, therefore, consider also learners

whose learning style differs from his or hers. In the classroom left-brain learners are often

favoured as the whole system is based more on logic than imagination.

Of course, there are more classifications of learning styles. Due to the lack of space

here, though, they are not going to be discussed.

3.6 Differentiation by interest

If one intends to motivate students, giving them a choice seems to be one of the best

ways of doing so. For instance, when the educator sets a speaking task for homework, the

learners could choose from the following options:

1) tell a longer joke

2) prepare a short sketch with one or two classmates

3) tell a piece of news

4) recite a longer poem by heart

5) organise and lead a whole class discussion

It goes without saying that the strategy of giving options can and ought to be

implemented to a greater extent. Not only can students be given options when it comes to

homework, they can also opt for the order of tasks, group, the topic of research and the like.

Giving a choice empowers students and helps them enjoy instruction more. As a result, they

learn more in the end.

23

4 The introduction to the practical part

4.1 The background of my research

Two modern coursebooks were chosen to be analysed and adapted. New English Files

seem to be a very popular textbook among teachers and I have had personal experience with

it for almost three years. It is a textbook I would highly recommend. In a teaching seminar

the teacher trainer mentioned Global coursebooks which seem to meet demanding needs of

modern learners. After browsing in the teacher’s book I came to a conclusion that it is worth

working with. Also, it needs to be pointed out that analysing a textbook is definitely

a worthwhile activity. However, I wanted to base my practical part on not only analysing but

also adapting. There are many theses that focus on teachers’ opinions but not many that

concentrate on concrete examples how to adapt exercises.

4.2 The aims of the research

The main purpose of the thesis is to explore what kinds of differentiation could be

found in both student’s books and teacher’s books of New English File Intermediate and

Global Intermediate. It is worth pointing out that the analysis is based on the theoretical part

of my thesis. Another aim is to attempt to adapt some exercises to suit differentiation more

and to show the reader how it can possibly be done.

4.3 Hypothesis, research questions and possible solutions

The hypothesis which is going to be explored says: Modern textbooks take

differentiation into account but not sufficiently. To find out whether the hypothesis will be

confirmed or disproved the following research questions are used:

24

What kinds of differentiation can be found in the two coursebooks?

What limitations can be found in the two coursebooks?

What are possible suggestions for improvement?

The last research question focuses on finding possible solutions to the lack of

differentiation in the above mentioned coursebooks and teacher’s books.

4.4 Research methods

Regarding the research methods the analysis and adaptation of the coursebooks and

teacher’s books will be used. All six types of differentiation discussed in the theoretical part

will be examined one by one. First, New English File Intermediate (also referred to as NEF)

will be studied and then the same process will be done with Global Intermediate. For the sake

of clarity the word Intermediate will be omitted. The second part will deal with practical

examples of changing exercises to suit differentiation more. Needless to say, only several

exercises will be chosen to demonstrate some techniques. Selected exercises would vary in

terms of their type (e.g. matching, gap fill, odd one out, etc.) and focus (different skills).

25

5 The main body of the practical part

5.1 The evaluation of New English File Intermediate according to the types

of differentiation

By outcome:

For the authors of the textbook this basically means providing enough open-ended

tasks which Penny Ur (1981, p. 15) defines as "tasks requiring the gathering… of ideas

unlimited by one predetermined 'right' result". It seems that the coursebook offers

open-ended tasks when it comes to speaking. If there is a yes/no question, why/why not

always follows. Often, students are asked what they think of a certain topic (usually as

a warm up to an exercise).

Furthermore, when students are expected to write an email, story etc. there is enough

space for more able students as only the structure and key phrases are suggested. When it

comes to receptive skills (reading and listening) the authors use a wide range of

comprehension check exercises: true or false statements, gap fills, mixed paragraphs and also

open-ended questions. However, as far as grammar and vocabulary go, there is always one

correct answer and the teacher’s book does not suggest any ideas concerning early finishers.

There are no suggestions for early finishers in pronunciation sections either.

One of the exceptions is the vocabulary section on page 46 in student’s book in which

the student must choose between –ing or –ed (e.g. Which do you find more tir…….,

travelling by car or by public transport?). The exercise is done in the form of questions which

are personalised. Therefore, once students have finished they ask each other the questions.

This strategy enables early finishers to practise immediately in a meaningful context.

By task/ability:

The teacher’s book contains sections called Extra support and Extra challenge. The

purpose of these sections is obvious; they aim to make activities easier/harder for

26

weaker/stronger students. For example, unit 1A is divided into six parts: reading & speaking,

grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, listening and speaking. Each part contains an extra

support apart from vocabulary (which contains none) and grammar (which contains two).

Unfortunately, as the teacher’s book proceeds, there is less and less advice for weaker

students. Also, extra challenges can be found much less than extra supports.

Let us have a look at some examples of these extra support and extra challenge

sections according to skills, vocabulary and grammar they focus on. The respective units are

in brackets, however, it needs to be said that the same piece of advice tends to be repeated

throughout the teacher’s book.

Extra supports:

Reading: reading aloud paragraph by paragraph and discussing which clues helped students

to complete the exercise (2C), students underline five words (phrases) they want to remember

from the article and then compare theirs with the partner (2C)

Speaking: eliciting the story from the whole class by asking questions (7C)

Listening: letting students listen to the tape with the transcript, asking more questions to

check comprehension (this advice is in each unit)

Pronunciation: reading a dialogue in pairs (7B), the teacher underlines stressed words on the

board (1A)

Vocabulary: demonstrating the activity by letting students ask the teacher some questions

(7C)

Grammar: translating new words or phrases (1A)

Extra challenges:

Reading: students close their books, comprehension checking questions are on the board (1A)

27

Speaking: answering comprehension checking questions more extensively (2A)

Listening: before the second listening students in pairs try to work out the answers to the

second exercise (1C) (Note: In New English Files a listening exercise usually consists of two

different types of tasks)

Pronunciation: underlining the stressed syllables first then checking the answers with the

recording (6C)

Vocabulary: eliciting other kinds of films (6B)

Grammar: underlining more examples of the passive in the other texts (6B)

As we can see from the examples above the authors of the book use a wide array of

activities. One can find a possible drawback, though. The suggestions are usually meant for

the whole group which is either stronger or weaker than the coursebook is aimed at. The

coursebook does not tell the teacher how to help individual students who struggle or motivate

a few more proficient ones. Out of the above mentioned examples, only a few can be used for

individual students. For example, more proficient students can translate some phrases into

Czech for less proficient students. Alternatively, stronger students can underline more

examples of the grammar structure if they finish the task too early. All in all, the teacher’s

book shows the teacher how to make some activities less or more challenging and I consider

that very positive.

By support:

The teacher’s book does not state directly how differentiation by support is meant to

be done. However, this kind of differentiation is done by the teacher throughout their lessons.

Therefore, it would probably be redundant.

28

By resource:

Differentiation by resource seems to be especially valuable when it comes to

assigning homework. In this respect it does not have to be included in the Teacher’s book.

New English File does not suggest different sources for various groups of students.

By process:

The analysis of various kinds of intelligence is not possible due to the lack of space.

In general, it seems that the coursebook targets especially visual and auditory learners.

Kinaesthetic learners appear to be slightly disadvantaged. On the other hand, the teacher’s

book also provides communicative activities, some of which are aimed at kinesthetic learners

(e.g. a student is describing a picture, the other one is drawing the scene or mingling activities

such as Find somebody who). Also, the teacher’s book contains card games associated with

kinaesthetic learners.

By interest:

The teacher’s book provides sections called Extra ideas. Most of these ideas are

meant for the teacher. However, the teacher could ask the whole class how they would like to

approach a task (e.g. traditionally or in a new way). Giving students a choice is not stated

directly, though.

5.2 The evaluation of Global Intermediate according to the types of

differentiation

By outcome

The coursebook does not seem to offer more open-ended tasks than NEF. It might be

said that the coursebooks and teacher’s books appear very similar in this respect. On the other

hand, the teacher’s book for Global contains plenty of advice for early finishers, many of

29

which would fall into the category "open-ended" (e.g. preparing a short oral presentation in

the meantime p. 32 SB).

By task/ability

The teacher’s book contains advice for mixed ability classes in each unit under the

heading Mixed ability. An important point worth noting is that the authors chose to include

some advice on how to approach more challenging exercises. It is implied that not every

activity needs to be graded according to ability, which sounds reasonable and practical. The

authors recommend a wide range of solutions to problems with stronger and weaker students.

The array of approaches used by the authors might be considered above average. Here are

some concrete examples:

UNIT 1 + 2 no advice

Writing sentence stems on the board for weaker students, preparing a short oral presentation

– stronger students (UNIT 3)

A harder task for stronger students who work together with weaker ones (UNIT 4)

Not forcing students to use the target language straight away (UNIT 5)

Thinking of more collocations – early finishers (UNIT 6)

Stronger students retell a joke, weaker students listen and add details (UNIT 7)

The answers to an exercise are given to weaker students but in jumbled order (UNIT 8)

By support

The teacher’s book suggests letting stronger students work with weaker ones.

Therefore, it encourages peer help. In this respect it is more modern than New English File.

30

By resource

It suggests activities for homework and gives students more choices. Here

differentiation by resource blends with differentiation by interest.

By process

Interestingly enough, Global introduces learning styles on p. 17 in the coursebook by

giving students a questionnaire (the included types are global x analytical, visual, auditory or

kinaesthetic and impulsive x reflective). The section is called study skills and students are

encouraged to discuss their answers in small groups. In the teacher’s book it is stated that the

teacher cannot meet all the learning styles in each lesson but they should vary their teaching

methods to approach more students.

The authors themselves classify as activities suitable especially for kinaesthetic

learners the following ones: activities which involve moving around, activities which involve

cards or objects and doing a variety of activities. Similarly to NEF, there are some exercises

aimed at kinesthetic learners (e.g. drawing according to the partner’s instructions (p. 69 in

SB), Simon says (p. 69 in TB) etc.). The teacher’s book contains plenty of game like

activities usually under the heading Extra activity. These activities do not tend to target

kinesthetic learners much, though. Regarding activities involving cards or objects there are

very few.

By interest

It offers more options especially concerning homework (e.g. write a memo or

complaint p. 57, choose a video clip of any of the English films mentioned this lesson p.55).

The authors tried to include modern and more interactive ways of assigning homework.

31

5.3 Suggestions for improvement

Only differentiation by outcome, task/ability, process and interest will be dealt with in

this section. Differentiation by resource would be very difficult to include due to the

unpredictability of individual differences and it would probably make the teacher’s book too

long and cluttered. As far as differentiation by support is concerned, that is rather a rule than

something that ought to be stated directly in the teacher’s book. It is worth mentioning that

the thesis contains only some ideas about implementing differentiation. Only a few exercises

were chosen to demonstrate how it could possibly be done. It goes without saying that more

skills and exercises could have been adapted. Even though Global uses tips for mixed ability

classes and personally, I do not think the section should be extended in the Teacher’s book

due to the practical reasons, some exercises were adapted as well in order to be more

balanced. As far as differentiation by process goes I do not assume that there should be

a much higher amount of activities for kinaesthetic learners.

Differentiation by outcome:

Woodward (2001, p. 216) claims: "Although very helpful to students, any approach

which involves giving different materials to different students dramatically increases your

preparation time. It is more time and energy efficient to use the same material for all students

and then vary the demands on different students by leaving tasks open-ended." Furthermore,

Penny Ur (1999, p. 138) argues that using only open-ended tasks is not the aim. She only

stresses the importance of increasing the amount of exercises like that. Here are some ideas

which could be used.

Conditionals are often tested by matching exercises (NEF unit 7A). Here the first

column begins, for example, by if sentences. To achieve an open-ended task, the teacher may

tell students to ignore the second column and come up with own examples. This would

involve more writing, creativity and less controlled practice.

32

Example:

If you hadn’t reminded me, I would have forgotten. (the correct version)

If you hadn’t reminded me, I would not have remembered.

If you hadn’t reminded me, I would have left without paying.

Similarly, in unit 6C students are asked to complete the sentences by relative

pronouns. To open up the task, the teacher might ask students to ignore the second halves and

complete the sentences using their creativity and possibly a sense of humour. Weaker

students may use the second half as a model changing, for instance, just the verb. More able

students could, though, come up with a completely different relative pronoun.

Example:

We drove past the house …………….. we used to live. (where)

We drove past the house where my mother grew up.

We drove past the house whose roof had blown away.

As we can see, making a task open-ended might entail deleting parts of sentences. In

the student’s book some words can be left out to make it easier for the teacher (e.g. the

exercise on conditionals) but not necessarily always. Whole exercises could serve as a model

(e.g. the exercise on relative pronouns). The teacher’s book could include some advice on

how to make a task more open-ended. As for open-ending vocabulary exercises in New

English File that proved to be more challenging as one correct answer is usually needed. Still,

the same principles used when transforming the grammar exercises above might be applied.

On page 152 the book tests the knowledge of work-related expressions. A common

exercise is included – matching words to their definition. A good point about the exercise is

having the words in the context. An open-ended follow-up to the exercise could be using

some of the words in personalised sentences. As there are 12 words, the instructions could be:

Write at least eight sentences using a word from above in each sentence. Students would

33

then compare and discuss the sentences in pairs or small groups. Students would also be

encouraged to ask for details.

On page 44 in Global there is a section on vocabulary which makes up a matching

exercise focused on spoken English expressions. Students are supposed to match a comment

to its proper reaction.

Example:

1: I don’t have anything nice to wear. A: So what? You always look lovely.

The purpose of the exercise is to learn/revise the phrases in the second column (i.e.

letters – here A). Therefore, open-ending could mean students coming up with the first (and

less important) halves (i.e. numbers – here 1). An important thing to bear in mind, though, is

that deleting as a teaching strategy should be always pre-planned not haphazard.

Example:

I have put on ten pounds. B: So what? You always look lovely.

My hair is thinning out. B: So what? You always look lovely.

Alternatively, students could expand on the original or newly created dialogues and

come up with a sketch.

On page 29 Global gives an example of "find the odd one" kind of exercise.

Example:

1 colleague acquaintance fiancée great-grandfather

34

The instructions are: Which word or phrase is different in each group? Why? The

authors included the word why, which is a very positive feature. On the other hand, here

students could be encouraged to come up with as many various reasons as possible using

their creativity. This way it could be easily turned into a game.

a) great-grandfather - the rest are not relatives (teacher’s book)

b) great-grandfather - the oldest one

c) great-grandfather - the only word which does not come from Latin

d) fiancée – the only person you want to spend your life with, the closest person

e) fiancée – the only person who has to be a woman

etc.

Differentiation by task/ability

The adaptation according to ability basically means having tasks ready for early finishers and

offering extra support to less proficient students. In my opinion it all depends on the percentage of

more and less able students. If a teacher has only one or two students who need help then it may

appear redundant to state directly what less proficient students should do and differentiation by

support should be implemented (i.e. the teacher ought to help a struggling student out while the rest

are working on a task). Also, the teacher could consider reducing the amount of work for weaker

students occasionally. Alternatively, the instructions might be changed by saying: Do at least…

On the other hand, if there are five weaker students an extra help in the teacher’s book might

be included. Furthermore, the teacher could consider letting stronger students sit next to weaker ones.

This way the second type of differentiation by support would be encouraged. Of course, this may be

impossible unless there is a non-threatening atmosphere in the class. It is necessary that the teacher

shows empathy as in some classes the very same strategy could backfire. Alternatively, the teacher

could group students in a clever manner so that the division by ability is not so obvious at first sight.

This section will focus on tasks for early finishers as more able students need less help of the teacher.

Interestingly enough, when adapting exercises tasks for early finishers proved to be easier to design

than the other way round.

35

On page 24 in Global there is a vocabulary exercise testing the knowledge of prepositions.

There is a picture in which a princess is looking out of a window of the castle. The instructions say:

Look at the picture and complete the description with the prepositions in the box. The text with gaps

is short and easy to understand. The teacher can make the task harder by telling the strongest students

to cover the options first. At the same time the teacher could tell weaker students where to find help if

needed (e.g. their exercise book, handout etc.). Prepositions could be easily demonstrated by the

means of pictures which could appear at the end of the coursebook.

Similarly, on page 12 in Global there are sentences about Australia. Students are supposed to

make questions, the beginnings of which are shown. Even though the beginnings are clear, the authors

left the task to be quite open-ended. The exercise is based on subject/object questions.

Example:

The most popular sports Australians watch on television are Australian football and cricket.

What sports…?

Stronger students could come up with more variations of the questions. Weaker ones could

consult their notes as working with materials helps them to become more autonomous. Also, an

example of subject/object question could be written on the board to serve as a guide. Furthermore, the

following word (here do, are…) could be revealed to those that struggle with the task.

What sports do Australians watch the most?

What sports are the most popular ones to watch in Australia?

What sports do Australians prefer watching?

A common exercise in each unit in New English File consists of dividing words according to

their phonemes. For instance, in unit 1B students are supposed to divide the words ball, serve, caught,

world, draw, fought, hurt, score, sport, shirt, warm up, worse, court into two groups – i.e. words

sounding like a horse [ɔ:]and bird [ɜ:]. A possible task for early finishers could be: Think of more

words containing the same sound as horse/bird. The instructions could be stated explicitly in the

student’s book or they could appear as a suggestion in the teacher’s book.

36

When adapting exercises a possible problem sprang to mind; the teacher cannot guarantee that

stronger students will not "cheat" and use the help meant for weaker students in order to finish the

task as soon as possible and perhaps misbehave. One needs to rely on their motivation and possibly

even pride.

Also, the teacher should be prepared for students who would rather complete what the

majority were told to do and then "relax". I have been once told by a gifted student: "Why should I be

punished for being quick?". Of course, when a student feels that extra work is a punishment, it raises

questions. Should the teacher convince the student to do the task anyway? Or should they let it be? In

my opinion, such students should not be forced to do extra work. The teacher might try to think of

something more interesting for the student or (provided that the student does not disturb the others)

focus on the rest.

Differentiation by process

It has been established that the aim is to increase the number of activities for kinaesthetic

learners. One should not overdo it as the target group is young adults and adults, therefore, it might

look too childish to have too many kinaesthetic tasks.

An awareness raising activity which worked well both with children and teenagers is similar

to TPR (i.e. total physical response). The teacher distributes cards with words which are repeated in

the song (it works particularly well with the chorus). Once a student hears their word on the card they

raise their hand. In the second round students have to stand up and sit down quickly. Personally, I

have tried this activity with the carol Jingle Bells. The class enjoyed it very much despite the initial

reluctance.

New English File contains many songs which can be adapted this way. For instance, the song

Sk8er Boi by Avril Lavigne, the words on the cards being: skater, boy, pretty, face, space, earth,

sorry, good, obvious etc. The words should be familiar to the students and the teacher could help lost

pupils to identify the word by drawing attention to it (or confirming) it. The third round could be

possibly done with the lyrics if necessary.

In both textbooks there are many pair work activities. To suit kinaesthetic learners

more, it might be a good idea to get students to talk in pairs and then swap a partner telling

a new person about the previous one’s talk. Let us have a look at a speaking exercise on page

83 in Global. The instructions are: You are going to tell a story about a time you were very

motivated to do something. First, look at the questions and think about your answers. There

are eight questions (e.g. What were you motivated to do? Was it something difficult?).

37

A mingling activity like that might increase motivation as not only kinaesthetic learners need

to take a break from sitting.

Example:

Petr and Vanda work in a pair. Petr talks about an important exam, Vanda about giving up

cigarettes. Then they find a new partner. Petr talks with Hana about Vanda’s smoking and

Vanda talks to Iveta about Petr’s exam. Hana and Iveta share the stories they learnt the first

time. As a follow-up another round might be possible – Petr telling Vanda’s and Iveta’s

stories to Lukáš and vice versa.

Differentiation by interest

Differentiation by interest (choice) seems to be easier to do in productive skills (i.e.

speaking and writing) as feedback could be more varied. On p. 7 in NEF there is a speaking

exercise in which students should either agree or disagree with six statements about eating

habits. The teacher could tell students to choose which statements they want to discuss. It

needs to be stressed that as long as English is spoken students could even talk about only one

of the statements. It depends on the attractiveness of sentences. Personally, I use this strategy

every time there are more statements to discuss as it empowers students.

In Global on p. 117 we can find a writing exercise, the purpose of which is to write

a thank you email. The instructions say: You have received a hand-knitted sweater from an

aunt as a present. Write a letter and thank her. The coursebook provides four useful phrases

students could use to improve their style of writing. In the following task students are

supposed to read each other’s letters so peer teaching is encouraged. This exercise could be

easily adapted by telling students they could choose which present they received and from

whom. Also, they could choose the tone of the email (being grateful, rather disappointed,

amused etc.). The teacher could encourage students to write a thank you email for "crazy

gifts" by bringing some pictures from the internet to class (e.g. a scary ashtray). Of course,

students who lack ideas could write a thank you email as it is stated in the coursebook.

38

5.4 Evaluation of the results, hypothesis affirmed or disconfirmed

Both coursebooks and teacher’s books use modern methodology. As far as

differentiation by outcome is concerned, the two coursebooks seem very similar. Global gives

more information, though, concerning mixed ability classes (i.e. differentiation by task).

Whereas NEF gives advice on generally stronger or weaker classes, Global suggests various

tasks both for early finishers and less proficient students. New English File Teacher’s Book

tends to repeat what has already been said regarding the categories extra challenge and extra

support. Concerning differentiation by support Global (unlike NEF) mentions grouping

students according to their ability. Differentiation by process seems to be better handled in

NEF even though the difference is not a huge one. The teacher’s book does not state it

directly unlike Global’s but it seems to support kinaesthetic learners to a larger extent thanks

to its marvellous communicative activities.

Differentiation by resource seems to be basically at the same level in both

coursebooks. Furthermore, Global tells the teacher what kind of homework can be given and

mentions giving students a choice (i.e. differentiation by interest). NEF tells the teacher

which pages from the workbook could be used as homework. Therefore, NEF uses a

traditional and for some students a rather boring approach to giving homework. It is worth

noting that NEF contains more communicative activities (both in the coursebook and

teacher’s book).

All in all, NEF contains a greater amount of communicative activities, which makes it

more attractive in this respect. The teacher’s book is clearly written and suitable for teachers

beginners. Judging just by the student’s book it seems that NEF is better. However,

differentiation wise Global wins over NEF especially thanks to advice for mixed ability

classes. Also, it suggests more attractive and motivating homework.

Let us summarise the data by responding to the research questions. NEF contains all

kinds of differentiation but differentiation by support, resource and interest. Global only does

not include differentiation by resource. NEF’s main limitation might be not including

differentiation by task aimed at individuals not whole classes, which is considered to be

crucial in modern teaching. Both NEF’s and Global’s limitations could be a lower number of

open-ended tasks and virtually no support for teachers beginners when it comes to adapting

the tasks to be more open-ended. Possible solutions are outlined in detail in the chapter

Suggestions for improvement. To conclude, it is advisable for the authors of the two

39

coursebooks to include more open-ended tasks. Ideas for mixed ability classes in Global

teacher’s book seem to be extremely useful and worth taking into account.

As far as the hypothesis is concerned, it was confirmed only partly. It is true that NEF

could consider the principles of differentiation more but on the other hand, Global appears to

be very close to meeting all the demanding criteria regarding the implementation of

differentiation.

40

6 Conclusion

Differentiated instruction proves to play a significant part in modern EFL teaching.

The thesis aimed to explore what kinds of differentiation are used in the two student’s books

and teacher’s books and more importantly, how exercises can be adapted to differentiate

without too much preparation on the part of the teacher. The hypothesis said: Modern

textbooks take differentiation into account but not sufficiently. It was only partly confirmed as

Global Intermediate met almost all criteria concerning differentiation. The reason for this

might be the fact that Global Intermediate came out in 2011 whereas New English File

Intermediate in 2006. On the other hand, New English File aimed at kinaesthetic learners

more than Global and offered more communicative games and activities.

As far as the answers to the research questions go, the conclusions will be

summarised here very briefly. Global does not include differentiation by resource whereas

NEF does not deal with differentiation by support, resource and interest. The main limitation

might be the lack of open-ended tasks and regarding NEF not enough support for teachers

when adapting exercises.

When adapting exercises I focused especially on differentiation by outcome,

task/ability and process. Open-ending exercises is not always possible but it needs to be

emphasised that the goal is not to open-end every single task. One of the techniques used was

careful deleting of chosen parts of the exercises. As far as differentiation by task goes,

adapting exercises to make them easier proved to be more demanding than adding tasks for

early finishers. Tasks for more able students tend to be more repetitive, which might be

a plausible explanation. As to differentiation by process, I included more exercises aimed at

kinaesthetic learners as this group often tends to be neglected when teaching older students.

Furthermore, some movement and game-like activities are beneficial and motivating for all

learners.

All in all, writing about differentiated instruction was definitely a worthwhile activity

as it showed me ways of adjusting to students’ needs better. Some principles of adapting

exercises are easy enough to implement in the class without too much preparation.

Furthermore, the conclusions of the thesis could be useful to students (and teachers) who feel

the need to explore differentiation in greater depth. One could develop the topic further and

41

come up with more ideas how to adapt exercises in coursebooks to suit more pupils in the

class.

42

7 Summary

The thesis has dealt with exploring the notion of differentiation and its

implementation in modern coursebooks. It is divided into the theoretical and practical part.

In the theoretical part basic concepts regarding differentiation are explained. Its

history and present state are explored as well as various reasons both for and against

differentiation in the classroom. Then learner needs and the relationship with differentiation

are examined. The theoretical part is concluded by types of differentiation and their

advantages and disadvantages.

In the practical part two coursebooks New English File Intermediate and Global

Intermediate and their teacher’s books are analysed according to the types of differentiation

suggested in the theoretical part. Furthermore, suggestions for improvement including

concrete examples of adapting exercises are given. As far as some of the conclusions go, it

has been found out that both coursebooks implement rules of differentiation but they differ in

terms of the amount of advice given to teachers. Global offers more teaching tips and

strategies whereas New English File focuses on communicative tasks. Both coursebooks do

not seem to include enough open-ended tasks.

Resumé

Závěrečná práce se zabývá zkoumáním pojmu diferenciace a tím, jak se zavádí do

moderních učebnic. Práce je rozdělena na teoretickou a praktickou část.

V teoretické části jsou vysvětleny základní pojmy týkající se diferenciace. Líčím její

historii, současný stav, ale také rozličné důvody pro a proti jejímu zavedení ve třídě. Poté se

zabývám potřebami žáka a jejich vztahem k diferenciaci. Teoretická práce je zakončena

vyjmenováním typů diferenciace a jejich výhodami i nevýhodami.

Podle typů diferenciace načrtnutých v teoretické části práce jsou pak podrobeny

analýze dvě učebnice New English File Intermediate a Global Intermediate a jejich verze pro

43

učitele. Dále uvádím návrhy na zlepšení včetně konkrétních příkladů adaptace cvičení. Co se

týče závěrů práce, zjistila jsem například, že v obou učebnicích lze najít aplikovaná pravidla

diferenciace, učebnice se ale liší v množství rad určených pro učitele. Global nabízí více tipů

a strategií pro učitele, zatímco New English File se zaměřuje na komunikační aktivity. Zdá

se, že žádná z učebnic neobsahuje dostatečné množství otevřených otázek a úkolů.

44

8 Bibliography

Anstee, P. (2011). Differentiation Pocketbook.UK: Management Pocketbooks.

Berman, M., Belak, M. & Rimmer, W.(2011). English Language Teaching Matters:

A Collection of Articles and Teaching Materials.US: John Hunt Publishing.

Bernstein, D.A. & Nash, P.W. (2008). Essentials of psychology (4th ed.) Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Intelligences and Student Achievement:

Success Stories from Six Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Chen, Y. H. (2007). Exploring the Assessment Aspect of Differentiated Instruction: College

EFL Learners’ Perspectives on Tiered Performance Tasks. University of New Orleans:

ProQuest.

Clandfield, L. & Robb Benne, R. (2011). Global Intermediate Student’s Book. US:

Macmillan Education.

Clandfield, L. & Robb Benne, R. (2011). Global Intermediate Teacher’s Book. US:

Macmillan Education.

Cooper, J.M., Irizarry, J.G. Leighton, M.S. Morine-Dershimer, G.G. & Sadker, D. (2010).

Classroom Teaching Skills. US: Cengage Learning.

Dillon, J. & Maguire, M. (2011). Becoming a Teacher: Issues in Secondary Teaching. UK:

McGraw-Hill International.

45

Dubin, F. (1986). Course Design: Developing Programs And Materials For Language

Learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). The Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:

Basic Books.

Gregory, G. H. & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated Instruction: One Size Doesn’t Fit All.

US: Corwin Press.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. US: Free Spirit

Publishing

Heacox, D. (2009). Making Differentiation a Habit: How to Ensure Success in Academically

Diverse Classrooms. US: Free Spirit Publishing.

Kopecká, K. (2010). Příčiny stresu u učitele ZŠ. Masaryk University, Brno.

Morgan, C. & Neil, P. (2001). Teaching Modern Foreign Languages: A Handbook for

Teachers. London: Routledge.

Murray, D.E. & Christison, M. (2010). What English Language Teachers Need to Know.

London: Routledge.

Oxendon, C. (2006). New English File Intermediate Student’s Book. UK: Oxford University

Press.

Oxendon, C. (2006). New English File Intermediate Teacher’s Book. UK: Oxford University

Press.

Pachler, N. (2001). Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the Secondary School:

a companion to school experience. London: Routledge.

46

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All

Learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that Work: Task-centred Fluency Practice. UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Ur, P. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching. UK:Cambridge University Press.

Washburne, C. (1953). Adjusting the Program to the Child. Educational Leadership, 11 (3),

139-140.

Westphal, L. E.(2007). Differentiating Instruction with Menus. Austin, US: Prufrock Press

Inc.

Woodward, T. (2001). Planning lessons and courses. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wong, L. (2011). Essential Study Skills. US: Cengage Learning.