International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 3, 15 April 2013, 332349

Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: an action

research study in tertiary education
Panagiota Konstantinou-Katzia*, Eleni Tsolakia,
Maria Meletiou-Mavrotherisb and Mary Koutselinic
a

General Department, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Frederick University,

Nicosia, Cyprus; bDepartment of Education, European University Cyprus, Nicosia,
Cyprus; cDepartment of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
(Received 31 January 2012)
Diversity and differentiation within our classrooms, at all levels of
education, is nowadays a fact. It has been one of the biggest challenges
for educators to respond to the needs of all students in such a mixed-ability
classroom. Teachers inability to deal with students with different levels of
readiness in a different way leads to school failure and all the negative
outcomes that come with it. Differentiation of teaching and learning helps
addressing this problem by respecting the different levels that exist in the
classroom, and by responding to the needs of each learner. This article
presents an action research study where a team of mathematics instructors
and an expert in curriculum development developed and implemented a
differentiated instruction learning environment in a first-year engineering
calculus class at a university in Cyprus. This study provides evidence that
differentiated instruction has a positive effect on student engagement and
motivation and improves students understanding of difficult calculus
concepts.
Keywords: differentiated instruction; calculus; undergraduate mathematics; differentiation; mixed ability

1. Introduction
In all educational levels, educators face a common problem in their classrooms:
Teachers teach but students do not learn. Traditionally, teaching is mainly an effort
of knowledge transfer into classrooms where students are considered an undifferentiated homogeneous population. This is despite the fact that classrooms have
always been of mixed abilities, especially in terms of student readiness. This means
that traditionalfrontal teaching, where the teacher is always the one delivering the
material, is often ineffective [1]. Such teaching often corresponds to the needs of the
average student in the classroom. Students with a low level of readiness usually fail
in such a classroom because they do not have the required background or are not
given adequate time to progress based on their individual pace of learning. On the
other hand, the gifted and talented students are left unchallenged and unmotivated.

*Corresponding author. Email: panagiota.katzi@gmail.com

ISSN 0020739X print/ISSN 14645211 online
2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.714491
http://www.tandfonline.com

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

333

The study presented in this article is an effort to apply differentiated instruction

to a small group of students and investigate its implications. This study took place in
a college-level mathematics classroom attended by engineering students. A common
problem in teaching mathematics to engineering students has been the limited
preparation, motivation and interest of students towards the subject. Many
engineering students have limited understanding of fundamental mathematical
concepts and often move to the more advanced mathematics courses while lacking
important basic skills. As a result, they are not able to comprehend the new
concepts introduced in the mathematics classroom. Our goal in this study is to use
differentiated instruction to address the above problems and to maximize the
learning potential of every student.

2. Background to the study

2.1. Theoretical background of differentiated instruction
The theory of differentiated instruction is based mainly on the theory of social
constructivism [2] that views learning as a social act best supported through
interactive and collaborative learning. Differentiated instruction emphasizes the
importance of enquiry and exploration, and collaboration and reflection, as a
process of knowledge construction. The philosophy behind the differentiation
of instruction is grounded in Vygotskys [2] theory of the Zone of Proximal
Development. According to the Zone of Proximal Development, meaningful
learning takes place when the task difficulty is slightly beyond the students comfort
level, and it is achieved through teacher scaffolding and collaboration with peers.
Tomlinson [3], a leading expert in this field, defines differentiated instruction as
a philosophy of teaching that is based on the premise that students learn best when
their teachers accommodate the differences in their readiness levels, interests and
learning profiles. A primary aim of differentiated instruction is to take full advantage
of all students ability to learn [3,4]. As Tomlinson [5] points out, differentiation
is an organized, yet flexible way of proactively adjusting teaching and learning to
meet students where they are and to help them achieve maximum growth as learners.
A differentiated classroom is, out of necessity, student-centred. Students are
responsible for their own learning. The teacher coordinates time, space, materials
and activities. The teachers effectiveness increases as students become more skilled
at helping themselves and each other to achieve group and individual goals [5].
In differentiated instruction, individualized work is combined with collaboration
among students and discussion in plenary sessions. In a differentiated classroom,
both students and teachers learn. Teachers learn continuously as the students learn,
they evaluate students level of readiness in various ways, and they plan learning
activities based on the needs and interests of the specific students [6].
Differentiated instruction is not individualized instruction. The teacher is not
supposed to do something different for each one of the students in the class.
Differentiation of instruction does not mean giving some students more work to do
and others less. Rather, the teacher adjusts the nature of the work to respond to the
varied needs of the specific student population [4]. All students focus on the same
key concepts and overall curriculum objectives, but the instructional process or
path towards understanding these key concepts and objectives varies [7].

334

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

In a differentiated classroom, student readiness, interest and learning profile

shape the instruction in contrast to the traditional classroom, where coverage of
textbooks and curriculum guides drive the instruction. In a differentiated classroom,
excellence is, to a large extent, determined by individual growth from a starting
point, in contrast to the traditional classroom where there exists a single definition
of excellence. In a differentiated classroom, students help their classmates and
their teacher solve problems. On the contrary, in traditional classrooms, the teacher
is the one solving problems [5].
Differentiation of instruction, as implemented in mixed-ability classrooms, is
initially based on analysing the undifferentiated curriculum into fundamental
knowledge (concepts, information, skills, processes and strategies). Moreover, for
each course, fundamental knowledge needs to be ranked into essential (everything
that at the end of the course all students need to learn), prerequisite (required for the
support of the essential) and transformative (beyond the syllabus requirements) [8].
There are two stages in the process of implementation of differentiated instruction.
At the first stage, the teacher specifies the desired learning outcomes, determines
the essential, prerequisite and transformational knowledge and converts these into
ranked activities. At the second stage, the teacher organizes the teaching and learning
environment by alternating individual work with collaborative work and plenary
session [9].

2.2. Research studies supporting the use of differentiated instruction

The literature review reveals a growing number of research studies that show and
support the enhancement of teaching and learning through differentiation [5]. Several,
recently conducted, studies provide evidence for positive outcomes from the use of
differentiated instruction on students motivation and academic achievement [10].
McAdamis [7] reported significant improvement in the standardized test scores of
both low-achieving and high-achieving elementary and middle school students in the
Rockwood School District (Missouri), following the adoption of differentiated
instruction. In addition to the improved success of students on state assessments
in mathematics, science and communication arts, teachers also indicated that their
students were more motivated and enthusiastic when provided with differentiation.
Teachers in the study initially resisted changing their teaching practices; the
adoption, however, of strategies like peer coaching, action research and staff
development workshops offered them on-going support and feedback. Teachers were
eventually convinced of the benefits of differentiation, as they witnessed improvements in their students learning and motivation. They were eager to continue using
differentiated instruction on a regular basis. The professional development in this
study was implemented over a period of 5 years and included teachers, principals,
district trainers and school authorities.
Johnsen [11] conducted a study in which undergraduate prospective teachers
differentiated instruction to suit different student ability levels. The study showed
that the use of differentiated techniques stimulated student interest, and provided
a gratifying experience for the participating pre-service teachers.
Hodge [12] investigated the effects of differentiated instruction on student
achievement in standardized mathematics and reading tests. She found that students
prepared with differentiated instruction achieved higher scores on mathematical tests

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

335

compared to students who did not experience differentiated instruction. However,

no comparable gains were observed in reading scores.
A study by Affholder [13] illustrated that differentiation of instruction is
beneficial not only to students but also to teachers. Teachers in the study employing
higher levels of differentiated instruction strategies showed elevated self-efficacy,
and assumed greater responsibility for student growth and learning.
Baumgartner et al. [14] implemented a programme to improve reading
achievement among elementary and middle school students through the use of
differentiated approaches, which included flexible grouping, student choice of
various tasks, increased self-selected reading time and access to various reading
materials. In all three classrooms in the study, the authors found improvements
in students decoding, phonemic and comprehension skills, while student attitudes
about reading and their own abilities also improved.
A study by Hootstein [15] examined how teachers use instructional methods
to meet the diverse academic needs of students. Surveys were completed by 284
secondary school teachers from 28 high schools in the USA. Almost all (90%) of
the participating teachers indicated that addressing academic differences was very
important or exciting for them. Teachers recognized that different learners require
varied instructional methods to help them comprehend instructional content.
Differentiation of instruction was identified as a means of addressing academic
differences and a starting point for future training efforts [15].
A Western Canadian research initiative [16] focused on implementing effective
practices supporting differentiated instruction. A number of projects were carried
out as part of a large-scale school improvement initiative, the Alberta Initiative
for School Improvement in Canada. The research incorporated an examination of
annual reports from 25 projects that were identified as having a positive impact on
student learning over a 3-year period (20032006). Results indicate that addressing
student diversity and providing the best learning opportunities for all children across
kindergarten to grade 12 schools necessitates recognition of the fact that
differentiation requires time, training, intentional planning and long-term commitment on the part of educators, government and wider school communities [16].
Tieso [17] examined the effects of curricular differentiation with between- and
within-class grouping on primary school student achievement. Using curriculumbased assessment as a pre- and post-test measure to evaluate the student
performance, she inferred that students with diverse abilities, who were exposed to
a differentiated curriculum, experienced significantly higher mathematics achievement than students in the comparison groups.
In Cyprus, techniques of differentiation of instruction have been implemented
in elementary, middle and high schools, with very encouraging results. For example,
a large-scale research of fourth grade students in language classrooms [18] confirmed
and documented the effectiveness of differentiation of instruction in mixed-ability
classrooms. Findings from this study confirmed the researchers conjecture
that differentiation can be effective for all students, independent of their level of
readiness, gender and socio-economic status.
Research has shown that differentiated instruction can influence not only
students achievement and performance but also their attitudes towards mathematics. Research studies worldwide, and also in Cyprus, emphasize the importance
of positive feelings towards mathematics on improving students performance,
A study in Cyprus investigating attitudes of students, by Phillipou and Christou [19],

336

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

revealed that primary school students (sixth grade) have positive attitudes towards
mathematics. They seem to enjoy mathematics and understand their importance in
modern society. Moving on to the first grades of secondary school (seventh grade),
students attitudes seem to change and they start developing negative feelings
towards mathematics. Furthermore, a research study conducted by Papanastasiou
[20] investigated the attitudes of eighth grade students in Cyprus. The study
demonstrated that teaching, beliefs and school climate have direct effect on attitudes
towards mathematics and they were statistically significant. It was also found that
family educational background and reinforcement have direct and indirect effect
on attitudes towards mathematics.
The majority of studies on differentiated instruction conducted internationally
have examined the application of differentiation in the lower levels of schooling.
Very little empirical evidence exists on the implementation of differentiated
instruction at the higher education level. Among the few reported studies is that
of Chamberlin and Powers [21], who examined the use of differentiated instruction
in an undergraduate mathematics course. A concurrent mixed-methods research
study was used to address the central research question: What impact does
differentiated instruction in a college mathematics class have on students
mathematical understanding? The participants included elementary education
majors enrolled in a mathematics course covering the topic of number and
operations. Results showed that students receiving differentiated instruction
experienced greater gains in their mathematical understanding [21].
A study by Ernst and Ernst [22] that took place in an American university setting
and aimed to assess the practical and ethical concerns associated with the
implementation of differentiated instruction, reached the conclusion that this
pedagogical approach can be implemented at the college level. Findings from the
study showed that differentiation of instruction can help increase students
motivation and interest, and meet their diverse needs. At the same time, the authors
identified a number of challenges faced by college instructors in implementing
differentiation of instruction, such as the large class size, time constraints and limited
contact hours with students. Finally, a pilot study by Epps [23] examined the effects
of differentiated instruction on student achievement and attitudes towards
mathematics. The data analysed for this study came from students enrolled in
college algebra that were either engaged in differentiated activities or in the lecture
method of delivery depending on the class to cover course objectives. The results of
the study indicated a significant difference between the groups. The study concluded
that student achievement levels and attitudes towards mathematics improved when
they were allowed to use strategies geared towards their individual learning styles.

2.3. Teaching and learning mathematics in tertiary education

Teaching and learning mathematics in tertiary education is an issue that concerns
both researchers in mathematics education, and mathematicians who teach
undergraduate mathematics courses. Researchers and mathematics instructors are
concerned with the following questions: How can instruction help students improve
their understanding of important mathematical ideas and develop good problemsolving skills? How can the classroom change so that the students do not passively
receive information but actively construct their own knowledge? What are various

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

337

cooperative learning techniques that can be used in the classroom to enhance

students learning? How can instruction help students connect mathematics with
their real life?
These questions and many more arise from problems that a mathematics
instructor has to face on a daily basis in his/her classroom. Very often, we observe
students being able to follow procedures but not being able to understand the basic
concepts. As a result, they have difficulties in applying the concepts acquired in the
mathematics classroom into different contexts. This is a common phenomenon
observed in mathematics classrooms targeting engineering students. Students often
do not see the usefulness and applications of mathematics in their field of study,
and thus lose their motivation. A lot of research is currently concerned with ways
to bridge the gap between engineering and mathematics courses (e.g. [24]).
One of the main challenges faced by instructors teaching undergraduate
mathematics courses is in effectively dealing with students differing mathematical
backgrounds, especially in first-year college-level courses. Some of the students
taking such courses have a very weak mathematical background; others are nontraditional, mature students with deficient mathematics skills, while others are very
talented. It is very common in a calculus class, for example, to have to teach higher
level mathematics topics, such as integration, when some students have difficulties
even with fraction simplification. Helping each of the students to reach their
maximum potential is a big challenge for mathematics instructors. It appears that
using undifferentiated instruction, students weaknesses tend to increase as a result
of learning only the procedures without understanding the underlying concepts.
Students tend to believe that mathematics is a difficult subject, unrelated to their
studies and life, and therefore have negative attitudes towards mathematics [25].
Constructive teaching and learning is definitely a step forward in dealing with
some of the problems mentioned above. The biggest challenge is how to ensure that
every student learns and understands what is constructively taught in the classroom.
The turn towards differentiated instruction might provide a solution to this issue.
As already noted, most of the studies that were conducted on differentiated
instruction are concerned with the implementation of differentiated techniques in
elementary, middle or high school classrooms. This study is one of the few studies
focusing on applying differentiated instruction at the tertiary level. In higher
education, the need of respecting students differences and different levels of
academic preparedness becomes crucial. Instructors in many higher education
institutions deal with student weaknesses by trying to help them fill any gaps they
might have in their background knowledge and reach the level of preparedness
required for comprehending the material taught in the classroom. At the same time,
instructors often receive complaints from high-achieving students, who are frustrated
over the fact that they are not given the chance to reach their maximum potential and
who worry as to whether they will be able to successfully compete with graduates
from other universities.

3. Study methodology
3.1. Context of study and participants
The study took place in a Calculus I classroom of a private university in Cyprus
and lasted for 13 weeks. The class met twice a week, for a total of 3 h per week.

338

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

There were 27 first-year students in the class. All the students were males, and most
of them majored in mechanical engineering. The students had very diverse
mathematical backgrounds. More specifically, students were graduates of secondary
education from either science direction, non-science direction or technical
direction. Furthermore, there were some students who had transferred from
Greek universities. It is worth noting that there are no entrance examinations in
private universities of Cyprus, resulting in a huge diversity in students level of
readiness, especially in freshman courses.
The study followed the procedure of curriculum development at the micro level,
which entails revising and reconstructing teaching units and goals of the existing
curriculum in such a way as to correspond to the varied needs of the specific student
population [26]. For the course instructor, who was the first author, the intervention
had the form of First-person Action Research [1]. Action research allows the teacher
to investigate his or her attitudes and knowledge along with students attitudes and
actions, which establish his or her actions and ommissions.

3.2. Data generation

Multiple forms of assessment were used to collect and document evidence of changes
in students content knowledge of mathematics and attitudes towards the subject as
a result of participating in the course.
In order to be able to follow the students conceptual development process
and also to differentiate instruction based on the students preparedness levels, good
understanding of their thinking prior to instruction was required. On the first week
of class, students took a pre-test that assessed their background knowledge of basic
calculus concepts. The students were tested on their knowledge of solving simple
linear equations, simplifying expressions, understanding graphs and calculating
simple derivatives. The diagnostic questionnaire consisted of eight questions
covering these four areas. For each area, there were two questions; an easy
question that could be solved with simple calculations, and a more demanding one
which required deeper understanding of mathematical ideas and more sophisticated
skills in evaluating and simplifying expressions.
During the instructional experiment, assessment was ongoing and diagnostic
in order to make instruction responsive to the needs of each student. The students
were given three in-class exams and four assignments. At the course completion,
students responded to a short anonymous questionnaire surveying their views on the
effectiveness of differentiated instruction. Additionally, semi-structured interviews
of a group of 15 students were conducted, in order to gain a more in-depth
understanding of the course participants impressions regarding the instructional
approach adopted by the course. The selection criterion was willingness to
participate in the interviews. While the interviewees were clearly a self-selected
group, they ended up being representative of the whole class.

4. Results
4.1. Findings from the beginning-of-course assessment
Findings from the assessment at the outset of instruction verified our assumption
that there was a wide diversity in students background knowledge and skill level.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

339

Specifically, the pre-test indicated that there were three to five different readiness
levels in the classroom.
In Question 1 of the diagnostic questionnaire, students were asked to solve
the simple linear equation 4x 

3 6x  8 with respect to x, and in Question 2 to
simplify the expression 6  12 . Although all students answered the first question
correctly, 33% got the second one wrong. They actually thought that 6 is divided by
2 and gave the answer 3. This might help explain why, when more complicated
expressions are given to students, they get confused and cannot simplify them
correctly.
In Question 3, students were asked to solve the equation x 32 x  6 0.
Even though there were only three students who made no attempt to solve the
equation, the most common mistake among those who actually solved the equation
was to report 3 as the roots of the first factor of the equation instead of the double
root 3. The power of two on the factor made students to give the answer 3 without
thinking about the actual calculation. It is common practice for students to give
answers to questions they think they recognize, without checking whether these
answers actually apply in the specific context.
In Question 4, students were asked to simplify a more difficult expression, namely
1
x1
,
x1 resulting in 78% of the students failing to provide any answer. Another 11% of
1x
the students managed to reach the point of xx1
, without however further
simplifying the term x  1.
Questions 5 and 6 assessed students understanding of graphs. Question 5 was a
simple one, assessing students ability to read graphs (reading values of y for specific
values of x), while Question 6 assessed their understanding of the notions of
increasing functions and relative maxima. Sixty per cent of the students answered all
parts of Question 5 correctly. Among the remaining students, half made mistakes
on reading the correct values of the function from the graph, while the other half
on reading the intercepts. In Question 6, only five students gave the correct relative
maximum. Finally, only two students provided the correct intervals over which the
function is decreasing.
Questions 7 and 8 involved calculation of the derivatives of two simple functions.
The derivative of a power of x was correctly obtained by five students, whereas the
derivative of sin x was correctly obtained by only two students. This material was to
be covered later in the course.
Students performance in the pre-assessment was rated as follows: Students who
were only able to do Questions 1 and 2 showed basic understanding and knowledge
of simple problems on solving linear equations and simplifying expressions. As a
result, they were given a grade of D. Students who were able to correctly answer half
of the questions obtained a grade of C. Students who had answered almost
everything correctly, with only some mistakes on Question 5 and/or Question
6 obtained a grade of B. Finally, students who had answered everything correctly
(or had made minor mistakes) obtained a grade of A. A bar chart of student results
is shown in Figure 1.
Overall, students performance indicated that the majority could deal with tasks
involving simple calculations, but not with more advanced questions which required
deeper understanding of the calculus concepts covered in the course. As shown in
Figure 1, the majority of learners scored a C on the pre-assessment. Of course, there
were also a few students with a very deficient mathematical background who got
very low scores, and a few with an advanced background in mathematics who scored

340

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A

Figure 1. Bar chart of pre-test scores.

A or B. Thus, as expected, we had to deal with a class of mixed ability where students
needed differentiated guidance in order to progress based on their individual level of
academic preparedness, their strengths and challenges.

4.2. Description of the instructional experiment

The instructional experiment adopted an enquiry-based, learner-centred approach,
which provided all students with ample opportunities for interactive and
collaborative learning. Students were actively involved in constructing their own
knowledge, through their participation in authentic educational activities, group
work and discussions. A central conviction underlying the course design was that
learning is a social act best supported through collaborative activities [2]. Learners
were encouraged and expected to engage in joint discussions and work collaboratively in completing assignments. Also central to the development of the course was
the functional integration with existing core curricular ideas of contemporary
technologies that provided opportunities for visualization and experimentation with
mathematical ideas.
The preparation of differentiated instruction for each session was based on the
preparation of activities at three levels: the prerequisite, essential and transformational knowledge and skills. The research team prepared the course learning activities
having in mind the following questions: What is the basic essential knowledge of the
course instructional aims? How are these aims related to students interests? What
prior knowledge/skills/ways of thinking are required? What transformational
knowledge can possibly emerge? Each class session followed a similar format of
instruction. Students first worked individually and then collaboratively on the
exercises that covered the prerequisite knowledge. In given time, the problems were
discussed in a whole class setting. If necessary, the instructor would go over the
concepts with which students struggled. Subsequently, two methods were interchanged depending on student responses. The first method involved the teacher
intervening to introduce new concepts using the Socratic method of instruction. The
second method involved the teacher providing students with learning activities so
that they would constructively work on an individual basis or in groups, in order to
discover the new knowledge. Then, the teacher would give the students activitiesproblems that covered the essential knowledge in a hierarchic order. The students
were working first individually and then in small groups. The teacher would move

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

341

around to help students when needed and ensure that all students worked at their
own pace on the activities that covered the essential knowledge. Some problems
would be discussed in the class plenary, if necessary. Some students were able to
move onto the more difficult problems that covered transformational knowledge,
while the rest were still working on the essential knowledge.
During the instructional experiment, technology was used in specific modules,
such as when introducing two-sided limits and the applications of derivative
functions. Specifically, the research team developed interactive applets with the use
of Geogebra. The students worked on learning activities guiding them on how to use
the applets in order to constructively gain the essential knowledge and skills to
understand the difficult mathematical notions of limits and derivative functions.

4.3. End-of-course findings

4.3.1. Student progress
As mentioned earlier, most of the students had scored a C in the pre-assessment,
but there were also a few who had scored A, B, D or E. Specifically, there were 1 A,
3 Bs, 17 Cs, 5 Ds and 1 E. In traditionally taught courses, instructors are mostly
focused on the progress of average students (Cs) who, typically (as in this class),
comprise the majority of the class. By contrast, when applying differentiation of
instruction, one is interested in the progress of all students at any given time. In this
section, we compare students pre-test scores with their final overall score (a weighted
average of their homework, midterm and final exam scores) in order to investigate
their progress throughout the semester. We note here that the marking scheme was as
follows: A any score between 86% and 100%, B 76% and 85%, C 66% and 75%,
D 56% and 65%, E 50% and 55% and F a score below 50% (this is the universitys
official grading system).
Most of the students scores improved significantly in the post-assessment
compared to the pre-assessment. The student who got an A in the pre-test retained
his A in his overall score. Out of the three students who got a B in the pre-test, two
got an A in their overall score and one remained at B. Eight out of the seventeen
students who got Cs got an A as a final overall score and four got a B. Only four
students remained at their initial level, obtaining a C, and only two obtained a D.
These two students missed most of the lectures. Looking at the lower scale of scores,
we note that three out of the five students who had obtained a D in the pre-test
obtained an overall A score, one student with a D obtained a C, and one student with
a D remained at D. The student who had obtained an E failed to attend the course
for half of the semester. After many attempts on behalf of the instructor to contact
him, he eventually started attending classes and managed to score a C in the second
midterm examination, showing good progress. Nevertheless, in the end he failed
to pass the course as he had missed most of the lectures during the first half of
the semester.
Overall, it can be seen that there was a significant improvement for students
initially obtaining a B, C or D. This provides evidence of a general improvement
in students performance, which was the main aim of differentiated instruction.
The strict structure of the course enforced by the university required all students
taking the same midterm and same final exam, and therefore we could not have a
complete picture on each students individual progress. On the other hand, the four

342

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

assignments given to students, besides their diagnostic purpose, offered some

information on students individual growth. Of course, this does not comprise
a quantitative proof of any effectiveness of the method but comes as a support of the
method, especially when also taking into account the positive feelings and
attitudes towards differentiated instruction of students across levels described in
the following section.
4.3.2. Students attitudes towards differentiated instruction
Student responses to the short survey given to them at course completion as well
as their comments during the follow-up interviews indicate very positive attitudes
towards the differentiated instruction approach adopted by this study. The vast
majority of students expressed their preference for this method, emphasizing how
it helped them improve their understanding of mathematical concepts and increased
their interest and commitment to learning the subject.
Table 1 summarizes the students responses to the survey given to the class at
the end of the course.
As seen in Table 1, the majority of the course participants had positive attitudes
towards mathematics even before enrolling in the course. In the end-of-course
survey, 86% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
I like mathematics. Only two of the respondents reported having had negative
feelings towards the subject before enrolling in the course. When students were
prompted in the follow-up interviews to state the reasons why they liked
mathematics, the following responses were typical: I like mathematics because it
is interesting and useful; I enjoy mathematics because it is practical.
In the follow-up interviews, some of the interviewees responded that the course
did not have any impact on their attitudes towards mathematics, giving responses
such as the following: I truly enjoyed the course, but I have always liked
mathematics . . . It has always been like this . . . . Most of the students, however,
pointed out that the course did have a positive impact on their attitudes towards
mathematics.
I liked mathematics in the past, but now I like it even more because of the way this
course was taught.
The instructional approach succeeded in increasing my interest towards mathematics.
It made mathematics more appealing to me, and I was motivated to study more.
I like mathematics when I understand it. When I dont understand whats going on,
I hate it. In this class, it was easier to understand what was going on. It was more
interesting.
Now Im more inclined to study advanced mathematics. I feel better prepared to do so
because I managed to fill in some gaps that I had from high school mathematics.

Students seem to prefer the instructional approach adopted in the course rather
than more traditional approaches to mathematics instruction. Eighty-six per cent of
the students responding to the end-of-course survey noted that, if given a choice,
they would choose differentiated rather than traditional mathematics instruction.
Only one student agreed with the statement I prefer traditional methods of
instruction. Similarly, only one student agreed with the statement I prefer to
immediately get the solution of a problem from the instructor, rather than being
given time to work on it on my own.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

343

Table 1. Summary of student responses to survey.

Statement
I like mathematics
Before enrolling in this class, I had
negative feelings towards
mathematics
My feelings towards mathematics did
not change after attending this
course
I prefer traditional methods of
instruction
I prefer to get the solution of a
problem immediately from the
instructor, rather than being given
time to work on it on my own
In this course, I had more interaction
with the instructor than in other
courses because of the new method
of teaching
I found the computer session to be a
waste of time
Group work was a waste of my time
The exercises we worked in class were
above my abilities
If I had a choice, Id prefer differentiated rather than traditional
instruction

Strongly
disagree/disagree
(% of students)

Neither agree
nor disagree
(% of students)

Strongly
agree/agree
(% of students)

0
77

14
14

86
9

23

68

95

95

95

88

91
81

9
14

0
5

14

86

Students patterns of responses to the end-of-course survey indicate that they

appreciated the various socio-constructivist pedagogical strategies adopted by the
course instructor. With the exception of one student, all of the course participants
either agreed or strongly agreed that, in this course, they had more interaction with
the instructor than in other courses because of the new method of teaching
(statement 6; Table 1). There was also general agreement regarding the usefulness
of both the computer sessions and the group work undertaken during the course.
All the respondents expressed disagreement with the statement Group work was a
waste of my time (statement 8; Table 1), while only one student agreed with the
statement I found the computer session to be a waste of time (statement 7; Table 1).
Only one student agreed that the exercises they had worked on in class were above
their abilities (statement 9; Table 1).
In the follow-up interviews, all 15 students stated that they truly enjoyed the
course. They noted that this course was quite different from any mathematics course
they had taken in high school or from the other courses they were currently taking at
the university (e.g. physics, engineering, etc.):
In my other courses, the professor presents the course material in a mechanical way.
Students just sit there, watching the professor solve exercises on the board and copying
his solutions. They think they understand the professors solution, but when they go

344

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

home and try to solve the exercises on their own, they get stuck. When this happens to
me, I finally give up.
Although I had been taught most of the course material back in high school, it was quite
different then. When I was in high school, I did not understand anything about calculus.
This course was totally different. The fact that we had to work on our own helped us
understand mathematics much better.

Similar to the end-of-course survey, all the interviewed students expressed

their preference for differentiated instruction over a more traditional approach to
mathematics teaching. In the traditional mathematics classroom, they noted,
learners have a passive role that does not allow them to develop deep
understanding of mathematics: When the teacher does all the talking and writing,
it is like telling us that he is the only one able to solve mathematical problems. This
does not help us build our understanding of mathematical ideas. Students
considered the pedagogical approach adopted by the course to be much more
interesting and constructive than the traditional approach, because it provided
them with the opportunity to actively participate in the learning process and to
collaborate and share experiences with their classmates: I liked this course much
better than other mathematics courses Ive taken in the past because we were
solving problems in class rather than just sitting and listening to the teacher;
What was different was the collaboration in class, and the fact that it was not the
typical boring mathematics course in which the teacher does all the talking.
Everyone was working.
When prompted to state what they liked most about the differentiated instruction
approach, the aspect most appreciated by all the students was the fact that it gave
them the opportunity to work on their own and to move forward based on their
background knowledge and individual pace of learning:
In mathematics, it is nice to be given the opportunity to think and to work on
your own. Only when you solve problems on your own, you truly understand whats
going on.
I prefer differentiated instruction because it made it easier for me to understand the new
mathematics concepts introduced in the course. Each one of us progressed based on our
individual pace and abilities. It had all different difficulty levels, so it was suitable for
everyone.

Students found the approach adopted by the course to be challenging, and also
motivating and rewarding at the same time:
I liked the instructional approach . . . the fact that we had to solve the problems rather
than just sit in class and copy from the board. We would get tired because we had to
work on our own most of the time, but we enjoyed it. Each time, I left class with a
headache, which means I had been working a lot . . .
There was healthy competition. You would see a fellow student whom you thought he
or she would not be able to solve a problem and they did, so you would say Why cant
I also solve the problem? and you would try to do so.
It was the first time I had been introduced to the material taught in this course. At first,
it was way too difficult for me. Gradually, however, there was improvement, and with
the help I received from the instructor and my classmates, I ended up doing much better
than I had anticipated.

Although the course content was challenging, the fact that the classroom
activities were sequenced in a hierarchical order of knowledge and skills, from easy

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

345

to more difficult ones, gave students of all levels of preparedness the opportunity to
be successful and reach higher levels of understanding:
I liked this approach because of the way it led you into difficult territories without you
realizing it. It moved gradually from easy questions to more difficult ones. When you
eventually reached the hard questions, you didnt realize it.
It started from easy questions and slowly moved to the more difficult ones, thus when
you reached the difficult ones, you could do something with them. You didnt just see
them and get stuck. Because you had been prepared for them through the other
questions you had already solved.
We were starting with the easy ones and moving forward, with the difficulty level
continuously increasing. It has a hierarchy and thus, I could eventually reach the
difficult questions. I would not have been able to do so otherwise.

In addition to the opportunity to work on their own in solving problems,

students found very constructive the fact that individual work in class was typically
followed by collaborative work in small groups. Their comments suggest that they
truly enjoyed working in groups, and found it to be a very useful learning experience.
They identified several benefits of collaborative work, including the opportunity to
help and support each other, the sharing of knowledge and the provision of insights
into alternative methods of mathematical problem solving:
I liked the differentiated approach. You first solve exercises alone and then you discuss
them with your classmates in case you find different results. You talk to your classmates
who are at the same level as you in order to understand what mistake you made and why.
I found group work very useful. Many times, I felt that I gave help, while other times
that I received help from others. Often, students that might have been weaker than me
academically, proved me wrong.
I might have a question about something. I might not be able to understand the
instructors explanations, but a classmate in my group might be able to explain it in a
different way that can help me understand it better. We are of the same age and we
communicate better with each other.
It was nice because you could help other students that had difficulties in comprehending
the course material. At the same time, working in groups helps you recognize your
mistakes by seeing how others think when talking to them.
You try to reach the other group members level and often, you manage to solve
questions that you earlier thought you wouldnt be able to.

In addition to group work, interviewed students also expressed their satisfaction

regarding the incorporation of technological tools in the classroom. They noted that
the computer applets used during instruction facilitated their learning by helping
them understand challenging concepts that would have been very difficult for them
to comprehend otherwise:
I am not very good in understanding graphs when I see them in books or on the
blackboard. However, the fact that we could move the mouse to different points in the
graphical representation helped me understand limits much better than just seeing them
ready made.
When you would show us about limits on the board I would not understand anything.
When I worked with the computer applets I understood limits much better.
It was very helpful. We were the ones working the program, we were moving points and
manipulating graphs the way we wished, and this helped us understand how derivative
functions actually work.

346

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

I think I would not have been able to comprehend limits if we had not had the chance to
work with technology.

5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to understand the implications of differentiated instruction
in the subject of mathematics, at the tertiary education level. We applied
differentiated instruction in a first-year mathematics course of an engineering
programme with very encouraging outcomes. The class was organized in such a way
that students had the chance to work on activities, starting at their own individual
level and gradually reaching the level-goal of each lesson. The students could work at
their own pace, either individually or in groups, and interact with the instructor on a
one-to-one basis or, with the class as a whole. In addition to group work, educational
technology was also utilized in the course as a tool for facilitating differentiation of
instruction through the enhancement of students understanding of challenging
mathematical concepts.
This research was exploratory in nature. There are several methodological
weaknesses which might limit the validity and generalizability of the study findings.
Its small scale and limited geographical nature means that generalizations to cases
that are not very similar should be done cautiously. Clearly, the results presented
here are only suggestive and warrant more rigorous study. Also, one ought to draw
attention to the underlying educational and cultural factors affecting students
mathematical achievement. Nonetheless, despite its weaknesses, the study does
provide some useful information regarding the application of differentiated
instruction in college-level mathematics courses.
Findings from the study corroborate with the research literature which indicates
that differentiated instruction has a positive impact on student learning and attitudes
towards mathematics. While applying differentiated instruction, we observed the
whole class being transformed into a more interactive and a livelier one. Students
expressed their enthusiasm throughout the semester and also during the interviews.
They felt strongly about the fact that they were given the chance to actually do
mathematics and understand it, and not feel handicapped by any lack of prerequisite
knowledge. Students felt they had constructive interaction with the instructor and
their peers. As a result, differentiated instruction was shown to be effective in
improving students performance and also in enhancing their motivation and
engagement.
Students positive feelings towards this method and their inclination to continue
being taught this way suggests that further commitment in the direction of
differentiated instruction may be beneficial. This method can be the solution to
several issues that college-level mathematics instructors face in their classrooms.
Problems such as the lack of student motivation, lack of deep understanding of
mathematical concepts and inability to apply the acquired knowledge can be
addressed by reaching out to students and responding to their individualized needs.
In spite of their shortcomings, mixed-ability mathematics classes seem to be a
better alternative than classes segregated by student ability. Plank et al. [27], who
analysed the grades of over 1000 engineering students, found that both weaker and
more able students were disadvantaged by being taught in segregated classes. Their
findings are in accord with the research literature, which documents the adverse

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

347

effects of ability grouping at the school level [28,29]. Differentiation of instruction

can help improve the effectiveness of mixed-ability mathematics classes. Rather than
segregating students by ability in their mathematics classes, instructors can instead
adopt differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms in order to tailor the
learning environment to all students diverse needs.
Despite the potential benefits of differentiated instruction, there are several
challenges to its successful implementation. The process of differentiating instruction
can be very demanding and time consuming [30]. Moreover, unlike this study where
the class size was manageable, having to teach a very large audience of students, as is
often the case in college-level calculus courses, can greatly reduce the organizational
options available to the teacher for differentiating instruction. Group work and
incorporation of technology, in particular, are much more difficult to implement in
large classrooms. However, even in such large classroom settings, instructors can still
use strategies that promote differentiation of instruction. They can, for example, take
advantage of the recent trend of increased laptop use by students in higher education
in order to overcome some of the challenges to differentiated instruction in large
classes. Laptop computers can help to increase students interest and motivation and
engage them in technology-enhanced learning, that is, at their own level [31]. Social
softwares, such as wikis and discussion forums, could also be used as tools for
promoting student collaboration and community learning [32].
Instructors can also use the unique affordances of network-based environments
in order to make student assessment more efficient. They could insert formative
technology-based student assessments into a classroom instructional sequence in
order to gather timely, useful feedback that they could use to tailor instruction to
meet their students individualized learning needs. Such an approach to student
assessment could lead to more effective differentiation of instruction than what was
possible in this study, since it would provide richer information about each students
needs, abilities and interests, which instructors could utilize to help all their students
make continuous progress and extend their learning.
The study described in this article is a first step towards understanding the
implications of differentiated instruction on higher education students academic
performance, attitudes and engagement. However, future work on a larger-scale
study, with the use of educational technology in order to provide different options
for constructive teaching and assessment, can be conducted in order to get a deeper
understanding of the effects of differentiated instruction in higher education
mathematics.

References
[1] M. Koutselini, Differentiation of Teaching and Learning, Lithographica Press, Nicosia,
Cyprus, 2007 (in Greek).
[2] L.S. Vygotsky, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978.
[3] C.A. Tomlinson, Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theor. Pract. 44(3)
(2005), pp. 262269.
[4] C.A. Tomlinson, How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms, 2nd ed.,
ASCD Publications, Alexandria, VA, 2001.

348

P. Konstantinou-Katzi et al.

[5] C.A. Tomlinson, The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners,
1st ed., ASCD Publications, Alexandria, VA, 1999.
[6] M. Koutselini, Differentiated instruction: Forms and techniques Research based results,
International Conference of Pedagogical Association of Greece, Educational and
Pedagogical Research, Athens, 2003.
[7] S. McAdamis, Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs, J. Staff
Dev. 22(2) (2001), pp. 15.
[8] M. Koutselini, Curriculum development in micro-level: Promoting teachers/pedagogical
autonomy, Pedagogiki Epitheorisi (Educ. Rev.) 32 (2001), pp. 2637 (in Greek).
[9] M. Koutselini, The problem of discipline in light of the modern-postmodern debate,
Pedagog. Cult. Soc. 10(3) (2002), pp. 353365.
[10] P. Subban, Differentiated instruction: A research basis, Int. Educ. J. 7(7) (2006),
pp. 935947.
[11] S. Johnsen, Adapting instruction with heterogeneous groups, Gift. Child Today 26(3)
(2003), pp. 56.
[12] P.H. Hodge, An analysis of the impact of a prescribed staff development program in
differentiated instruction on student achievement and the attitudes of teachers and parents
toward that instruction, Unpublished EdD thesis, University of Alabama, 1997.
[13] L.P. Affholder, Differentiated instruction is inclusive elementary classrooms, Unpublished
EdD thesis, University of Kansas, 2003.
[14] T. Baumgartner, M.B. Lipowski, and C. Rush, Increasing reading achievement of primary
and middle school students through differentiate instruction, Masters research, Saint
Xavier University, 2003. Available at: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC
No. ED478203).
[15] E. Hootstein, Differentiation of Instructional Methodologies in Subject-Based Curricula at
the Secondary level, Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 427 130), Richmond, VA, 1998.
[16] L.M. McQuarrie and P. McRae, A provincial perspective on differentiated instruction:
The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI), J. Appl. Res. Learn. 3(4) (2010),
pp. 118.
[17] C. Tieso, The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement,
J. Educ. Gift. 29(1) (2005), pp. 6089.
[18] St. Valiande, M. Koutselini, and M. Kyriakides, Investigating the impact of differentiated
instruction in mixed ability classrooms: Its impact on the quality and equity dimensions of
education effectiveness, International Congress for School Effectiveness and
Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus, 2011.
[19] G. Phillipou and C. Christou, Emotional Factors and Learning of Mathematics. Education
texts, Atrapos, Athens, 2001 (in Greek).
[20] C. Papanastasiou, Factors effecting students attitudes on mathematics, Pedagogiki
Epitheorisi (Pedagog. Rev.) 31 (2001), pp. 165180 (in Greek).
[21] M. Chamberlin and R. Powers, The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the
mathematical understandings of college students, Teach. Math. Appl. 29 (2010),
pp. 113139.
[22] H.R. Ernst and T.L. Ernst, The promise of pitfalls of differentiated instruction for
undergraduate political science courses: Student and instructor impressions of an
unconventional teaching strategy, J. Polit. Sci. Educ. 1(1) (2005), pp. 3959.
[23] K. Willcox and G. Bounova, Mathematics in engineering: Identifying, enhancing and
linking the implicit mathematics curriculum, Proceedings of American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, 2004.
[24] V.L. Epps, Accommodating diversity in the college algebra classroom using
differentiated instruction: Effects on student achievement and attitudes towards
mathematics, Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) Conference,
Gatlinburg, TN, 2009.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

349

[25] E. Goodykoontz, Factors that affect college students attitudes toward mathematics,
EdD thesis, West Virginia University, 2008.
[26] M. Koutselini, Curriculum Development: Theory, Research, Praxis, K&A Lythrodontas
Press, Nicosia, 2001 (in Greek).
[27] M. Plank, A. James, and J. Hannah, Group by subject or by ability? Tertiary mathematics
for engineering students, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Tech. 42(7) (2011), pp. 857865.
[28] Y. Lou, P.C. Abrami, J.C. Spence, C. Poulsen, B. Chambers, and S. dApollonia,
Within class grouping: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res. 66(4) (1996), pp. 423458.
[29] D. William and H. Bartholomew, Its not which school but which set youre in that matters:
The influence of ability grouping practices on student progress in mathematics, Br. Educ.
Res. J. 30(2) (2004), pp. 279293.
[30] B. McGarvey and V. Morgan, Differentiation and its problems: The views of primary
teachers and curriculum support staff, Educ. Stud. 22(1) (1996), pp. 6982.
[31] A.A. Zucker and K.E. King, Teaching with laptops, Sci. Technol. 76(9) (2009), pp. 2226.
[32] A. Ebersbach, M. Glaser, and R. Heigl, Wiki: Web Collaboration, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2006.

Copyright of International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.