Employingdifferenciatedinstruction (1).pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329894253

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices Article · December 2018

CITATIONS

READS

0

36

4 authors, including: Yusnamariah Md Yusop English LAnguage Teaching Centre Malaysia 1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ESL Practitioner Journal 2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusnamariah Md Yusop on 24 December 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

4

EMPLOYING DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION IN DESIGNING LESSONS FOR LINUS2.0 PUPILS

ZIKRI EFFANDY BIN ZAINUDIN YUSNAMARIAH MD YUSOP

59

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low proficiency Year One pupils. The study involved ten Year One pupils and two English teachers in two public schools in Mersing, Johor. Data collection included video recordings and interviews with teachers. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews data. Two main themes emerged which are teachers’ preparation and lesson planning. The themes described the elements needed by teachers in designing their lessons to cater the needs of the LINUS 2.0 pupils in employing the differentiated instruction Keywords: LINUS2.0, differentiated instructions, reading, remedial online materials INTRODUCTION The Primary School Standard Curriculum, Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) was introduced by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia (MoE) in 2011. The implementation of this new curriculum is to develop pupils’ ability to listen, speak, read, and write in English meaningfully, purposefully and with confidence. Realizing the importance of mastering these skills, and at the same time being aware of the issue of pupils who are still having problems mastering the skills especially the reading skill in English, the MoE has taken the initiative to expand the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS) programme to include English Literacy (LINUS2.0) in 2013. LINUS 2.0 (LBI) aims to ensure all pupils master Malay literacy, English literacy and numeracy at the end of Year Three (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013). The pupils are screened twice a year when they are in Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 to determine their level of literacy and numeracy. Those who fall behind will have to go through remedial classes until they are qualified to be placed in the mainstream curriculum. The objective of this early intervention programme is to improve the quality of teaching and learning of English as well as to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning remedial English.

60

In year 1, pupils are either streamed based on their achievement on a placement test at the beginning of the school or they are placed based in the class on a first come first serve basis. The latter scenario creates a situation whereby classes consist of pupils with mixed abilities. Having mixed ability pupils in a classroom, requires teachers to teach two groups of pupils which are: the group that fulfils the LBI 2.0 screening requirements and the one that does not. Unlike the LINUS programme, where the pupils will attend separate remedial class during Bahasa Melayu and Mathematics lessons taught by remedial teachers, pupils who do not fulfil the LBI 2.0 constructs will stay in the class together with other pupils learning the same lesson during the English period. In a baseline study done in the year 2014 it was found that only 50.1% of Year One pupils who had their first LINUS 2.0 screening in March qualified to be in the mainstream curriculum based on the results of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, and 63.3% in September screening

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

(Ministry of Education, 2014). This meant that being in the same class as mainstream screened students did not have any positive impact on students’ learning. for LINUS 2.0 set by the MoE was 83% and the cohort was unable to meet the set KPI. (Ministry of Education, 2016). Furthermore, having mixed ability pupils in one classroom requires teachers to be able to design a lesson based on the pupils’ proficiency levels. In an effort to help the pupils acquire these skills, the Ministry of Education developed a Teacher’s Module specifically to cater for the needs of the pupils with remedial learning during the lesson (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2014). However, in spite of having the Teacher’s Module and remedial courses for 7750 English teachers conducted by MoE where they are taught techniques in English remedial teaching, the results of the second screening of the first cohort of 2014 LINUS 2.0 pupils showed that 78.3% of the pupils cleared the screening. The Key Performance Index (KPI) Against this background, this paper demonstrates ways teachers might design lessons to address the problem of teaching pupils of mixed ability. In particular, this paper discusses ways to use online materials to teach groups of low proficiency pupils. The focus of this paper is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low proficiency Year One pupils in selected Malaysian classroom. Teachers are required to select and apply differentiated instructional strategies to address the needs of LINUS 2.0 pupils. The differentiation which has been incorporated in the lesson design is a key part of the investigation reported in this paper. Teachers’ capacity to design lessons for construct 1 to 5 is examined closely in this paper.

LITREATURE REVIEW LINUS2.0 Programme Literacy and Numeracy Screening for English Language (LINUS2.0) programme is one of the initiatives by Ministry of Education in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 20132025 to increase the rate of literacy in English Language among Malaysian lower primary pupils. It was introduced in 2013 to help Year 1 pupils to master basic skills in English Language after three years of primary education. (Buku Pengoperasian LINUS2.0, 2015). In order to achieve this, the pupils need to be screened twice a year; namely in March and September. There are two components in LINUS 2.0: the oral and written test screening. There are 12 constructs in both instruments for the oral as well as for the written screening. The instruments emphasise on phonics, phonemes blending and segmenting which are considered as the fundamental aspects of the English KSSR syllabus. For the pupils to pass the oral and written screening they are required to master phonemic skills. Hence, teachers need to find materials that can draw pupils’ attention and interest in learning

61

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

these basic language skills which support reading. These twelve constructs are as follow: Construct 1 : Able to identify and distinguish shapes of the letters of the alphabet Construct 2 : Able to associate sounds with the letters of the alphabet Construct 3 : Able to blend phonemes into recognizable words. Construct 4 : Able to segment words into phonemes Construct 5 : Able to understand and use the language at word level Construct 6 : Able to participate in daily conversations using appropriate phrases Construct 7 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in linear texts Construct 8 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in non-linear texts Construct 9 : Able to read and understand sentences with guidance Construct 10 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in non-linear texts Construct 11 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in linear texts Construct 12 : Able to construct sentences with guidance (Ministry of Education, 2015)

FIGURE 1: The difference between LINUS and LINUS2.0 Programme

62

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

It is thus vital for teachers to understand the issues faced by pupils with reading difficulties. As each pupil is unique and has his/her own strength in reading, teachers need to have the capability to recognise each pupil’s needs and to tailor instruction to meet his/her needs. As learning to read is built on a strong foundation of oral language, children have to be immersed in conversation, talking, singing, being read to and playing from birth (Services, 2011). The differences in the reading proficiency of individual pupils require teachers to design forms of remedial teaching. However, not all English teachers have the knowledge of English Language literacy and remedial teaching to be able to identify the elements for lesson design. Developing Phonemic Awareness Phonemic awareness development is a crucial skill that needs to be taught to young learners. Adams et. al (1998) stated that doing it is difficult, but it has the strongest correlation to learn how to read. The purpose of exposing phonemic awareness is to give the pupils the basic knowledge of the language. Hence, they will be able to differentiate different letters with different sounds. Phonics in this study is to raise accuracy of decoding and fluency in word recognition via the use of online materials. Phonics is correlated to the bottom-up theory of reading that views learning to read progressing from children learning the parts of language (letters) to understanding whole text (meaning). (Barachers 1998:14). The bottom-up approach treats developing reading skills as a sequential process. Students must first learn the basics of phonics and how to decode words before more complex skills such as reading comprehension can be mastered. It focuses on the belief that children who have strong understanding of the relationship between letters and sounds will be successful when they encounter unfamiliar words. Therefore, automatic word recognition and rapid reading rate are the goals of the bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach plays an important role in reading because this method is a suitable method to teach the beginning of reading (Barachers, 1998). Taken from this perspective, the implications for reading instructions are that children need to begin reading by learning the letter names, associating the letter names with their sounds, and then be shown how to blend these sounds together into words. To reach this aim, explicit instruction in phonics and spellings is crucial. (Grabe, 1991).

63

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

Comprehension of Text Reading Full Text Reading Paragraphs Reading Sentences Reading Words Reading Letters

FIGURE 2: Bottom-Up Theory of Reading This echoes to the Ehri’s Stage Model (Ehri and McCormick, 1998) in observing the progress of reading in beginner readers, the process of reading comes in four stages namely the pre-alphabetic stage whereby beginner readers look at words as logos and there is no direct association of letters to sound connection and the readers will use salient letters they recognise to read the word. Next is the partial-alphabetic stage, where the readers know the letter-sound correlation and begin to join the sounds. In addition, according to Beech (2005), in this very stage, the initial and final sounds of the letters are the most important for the readers to join the letters into words, hence it is advantageous for pupils who already starting to develop their phonemic awareness. Thirdly, the fullalphabetical stage is where the readers fully understand the relation between graphemes to phonemes in words that they encounter several times. They can achieve more reading accuracy as they recognise each letter and because of that too, they can read new words by blending the generated pronunciation when they recognise the grapheme-phoneme connection as it is essential for them. In the consolidated-alphabetical stage, the recurring letters that are unitized help readers reduce their memory load while continuing practicing reading the words. Lastly, in the automaticity stage the reader is able to recognize the words automatically and is able to read the words proficiently and accurately.

64

Based on the above model proposed by Ehri (1998), she highlighted the importance of recognizing the letters, the sounds and the relation between letters and sounds that later develop the readers’ ability to read words practiced and new words they will encounter. Besides that, Saine et. al (2011) also stated that in order to develop the reader’s literacy skill, word recognition is vital as it is the main component of beginning reading. Thus, based on the above stages, readers need to master each as it provides the knowledge before they continue to the next stage. As each stage complements the other, the pupils with reading difficulties will be able to later develop to become skillful readers.

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

Prealphabetic phase

Partial alphabetic phase

Full alphabetic phase Consolidated alphabetic phase

FIGURE 3: The Ehri’s Reading Model Differentiated Instructions in Reading Dealing with mixed ability pupils requires teachers to be able to differentiate their instruction to cater for pupils’ ability. It is crucial because different pupils have different needs and intelligences (Morgan, 2014). There are four classroom elements that can be used by the teachers to differentiate their instructions and these four elements are linked closely to student readiness, interest, or learning profile. The first element, the content, is what the student needs to learn or how the student will get access to the information. Secondly, the process of the activities have to be carried out in which the student engages in order to make sense of or master the content. Thirdly, the product that allows the students to rehearse, apply, and extend what he or she has learned in a unit and lastly the learning environment where students feel comfortable and conducive through the lesson. (Carol, 2014) This is because pupils tend to lose focus if the teacher fails to use instructional strategies that match pupils’ learning styles. Unfortunately, the increasing diversity of children in the primary classroom and the large class size is sometimes unable to address the needs of some children, thus teachers should be able to employ systematic differentiated instructions as the fundamental for effective remedial teaching and learning. According to Tomlinson (2010), differentiated instruction is very impactful if teachers implement three strategies: emphasizing pupils’ interest, using the right starting point and allowing pupils to work at their own pace. This is supported by Valiandes (2015) in her study which indicates that differentiated instructions raise effectiveness through the provision of quality and equity education. In addition, Joseph et.al (2013) argue that one of the key elements of differentiated instruction is content differentiation. Teachers are required to modify or to adapt the

65

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

materials used in their lessons by giving pupils access to the materials. Teachers may choose to differentiate the content by grouping the pupils into small groups and use the internet as the main source developing the pupils understanding and knowledge of the topic (Valiandes,2015). Online Materials The LINUS 2.0 pupils receive different quality of instructions due to the complexity of the curriculum to match their ability. Although the pupils are considered as ‘digital natives’ because they are born with various technologies in front of their eyes (Hicks, 2011) it does not ensure the pupils to be literate (Warschauer, 2001). The use of technology is able to help pupils with difficulties in reading as it teaches the pupils in a new and exciting environment (Muniandy et. al, 2009). The computer technology has the capability to provide highly personal and specialized instruction and assist pupils who are at risk of reading failure as it supports and helps them at word level reading instructions (Torgesen et. al, 2010). Additionally, teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classrooms as we move from an era where printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials inseparable from literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires corresponding paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ roles. Their teaching is facilitated in a way that their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to Lubis et al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education. Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun, 2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and their pupils’ learning needs and to develop specific remedial materials in order to make the teaching and learning process effective. However, the reason for not using the computers also comes back to the teachers’ lack of knowledge in modifying the lesson plan and only focusing on the traditional classroom activities. The lack of knowledge and skills can be facilitated by modelling and application of the remedial online materials developed in educational websites and as according to Blackwell et. al (2014) the internet acts as a rich source of information in teaching the language. The remedial materials available online are able to help teachers without remedial teaching skills because some of the materials come with instructions on how to teach and information of the suitability of the materials. Thus, when teachers teach using technology, teachers’ role to facilitate and guide these pupils is executed well as each pupil learns to do the activity through computer with the teacher’s guidance. 66

However, we also need to understand that there is no ideal teaching method or materials that are fit for all. According to Chun (2011) although there has been research proving that

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

computer-based materials have direct positive effects on second language acquisition, there is no proof saying that a certain medium or tool that fits for all types of learners exists. In this light, it should be understood by every teacher that every child is unique, with different learning styles and preferences and due to this understanding, teachers need to integrate differentiated instructions in their teaching and learning process (Morgan, 2014). METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 4: The process of the intervention and collecting the data Two teachers from two different schools and their 10 pupils had participated in the study. The two female English teachers underwent training in TELL 2 programme (native speaker mentoring program under the Brighton and MOE collaboration) and were selected as they had undergone a mentoring period of two years, and were trained in the teaching of phonics to the pupils. The pupils selected for the study were those who were not able to acquire the LINUS2.0 second screening in September 2016. Each teacher was given access to a Padlet that contained five separate pages. The Padlet page contained lesson objective(s). The teachers were responsible to select and choose online materials available in each Padlet page in order to achieve the objective of each lesson. The online materials used were carefully selected based on these criteria: 1) free access 2) could be accessed using the internet connection provided by MOE 3) allowed by government facilities 4) suitable online materials based on pupils’ proficiency level and the objective(s) of each lesson. Three types of online materials were gathered namely: Videos, Interactive Activities and Assessment-Based Activities.

67

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

Briefing sessions were given to the teachers for at least a day, prior to the lesson they planned to conduct. Teachers also received lesson guidance that contained lesson steps and URL links of the suitable online materials for each step that had explanations of the purpose of the online materials selection. Additionally, the teachers were given authority to design and conduct their lessons based on the objective(s), online materials and lesson guidance provided. Hence, they could either project their lesson on the screen or the pupils could access the lesson through individual computers. There were online activities and online exercises conducted in the class and the teachers could gauge if the lesson objective(s) were achieved based on the online assessments at the end of each lesson. The first data collection method was a structured observation through video recordings with an adapted checklist (Robb et. al, 2013). This included researcher notes as the observation the schedule was predetermined and the objectives of each lesson were developed based on the theory (Mulhall, 2003). Besides classroom observation, the teachers were involved in standardised, open-ended interviews. The interview questions were aligned with the classroom observation checklist whereby the questions dealt with these domains: Teachers’ Practice, Online Materials Use, and Technology Skills and Proficiency. The data obtained from the observations through video recording and the transcriptions of the interviews were analysed using Thematic Analysis through Atlas TI 8.0. A Priori Codes and new codes emerged from the analysis. The A Priori Codes that emerged were technology skills and online materials use. The objective(s) of the lessons were as follows: Day

68

Lesson Objective(s)

1

• Recognizing the alphabets

2

• Recognizing the graphemes-phonemes relations

3

• Blending two initial phonemes (body) • Recognizing the final phoneme (coda) • Blending using body-coda

4

• Recognizing the initial phoneme (onset) • Blending two final phonemes (rime) • Blending using onset-rime

5

• Blending phonemes • Read the word using phonemes blending TABLE 1: Lesson Objective (s)

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

No.

Emergent Codes

1.

Materials Differentiation

2.

Materials Familiarisation

3.

Proficiency Driven Materials

4.

Objective Driven Materials

5.

Time Allocation

6.

Teaching Aids

7.

Online Materials Preparation

8.

Teachers Facilitate

9.

Time Allocation

10.

Materials Searching TABLE 2: The emergent codes

FINDINGS The qualitative data was analysed thematically and included analysis of observation videos, interviews. The findings are divided into two parts namely: Teachers’ Preparation and Lesson Planning. The Emergent Codes put under each theme were as follows: Theme

Emergent Codes

Teachers’ Preparation

Lesson Planning

Frequency

Online Materials Preparation

14

Materials Searching

1

Materials Familiarisation

10

Materials Differentiation

3

Teaching Aids

2

Time Allocation

11

Materials Searching

4

Teachers Facilitate

1

Pupils’ Authority

5

TABLE 3: Theme and the emergent codes

69

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

Teacher’s Preparation Based on the themes that emerged from the analysis, for the teachers to employ differentiated instructions, they needed to be able to understand the process of preparing the lesson that could cater for needs of the LINUS2.0 pupils. In this light, the analysis showed that teachers needed to find materials that could draw pupils’ attention and interest in learning the basic language which supported their reading skills. Besides that, teachers needed to understand the needs of these pupils in reading and their difficulties as each pupil is unique and has his or her own strength in reading. Teachers also needed to have the capability to teach the pupils based on the pupils’ ability levels. This included preparing the online materials that they wanted to use, suitable for the pupils’ proficiency level and the objectives of each lesson. The lesson designing is a process whereby the teachers need to really understand both conditions and to make sure that they understand the concept of content differentiation used in teaching LINUS2.0 pupils. The process is shown below.



Teachers’ Preparation

Online Materials PreparatioOnline n

Time Allocation

Materials familiarisation

Materials Differentiation

Materials Searching

Teaching Aids

FIGURE 5: Teachers’ Preparation Theme In preparing the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to first understand the pupils’ proficiency level. This was to ensure that, the materials selection was focused on developing pupils’ phonemic awareness. The teachers also needed to experience the materials themselves as it helped them during the teaching and learning process. Besides, the teachers needed to realise that the pupils needed more attention and more focused activities, and hence choose materials that really helped the pupils in developing phonemic awareness. “…and then I’m going to like you have to google, you have to surf to find the suitable materials that you can use and you have to try it first before you ask the pupils to try to do it…” Teacher F

70

The Teachers’ Preparation requires the teacher to allocate suitable time to teach the pupils using online materials based on the pupils’ proficiency level, as each stage of the lesson requires teachers to ensure that it could be done by LINUS2.0 pupils.

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices



“…when you are using certain times to mark your erm your progress in your lesson it is actually make it easier and you can attract the pupils’ attention so that they stay focus with whatever you are doing.” Teacher F

Apart from using online materials, the teacher used non-digital materials like flashcards and worksheet to strengthen the pupils learning as the pupils need to use their kinesthetic intelligence beside their visual and auditory intelligences. The teacher believed that the pupils need to use both types of materials which the online and non-digital materials are,



“…like flashcard, printable worksheet, singing, interesting pictures and also audio and videos.” Teacher A



“…you can maybe 20 to 30 percent of teaching time is online and after that you can use worksheet to make sure that they are learning on that day.” Teacher F

Lesson Planning In planning the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to consider two conditions namely: the proficiency of the pupils and the objective of the lesson. These two conditions were also needed in selecting the online materials to develop pupils’ phonemic awareness. The materials used in this study were based on the pupils’ proficiency levels whereby teachers searched the materials and after thorough professional judgement of the materials, it was then used in their lesson.

Lesson Planning Materials selection

Teacher facilitation

Pupil’s Authority

FIGURE 6: Lesson Planning Theme



“…I should say a bit of better and a bit of both better and learning at their own pace because at first we can choose the materials according to their own ability. Meaning you can use easier online games and then when they show improvement then you can choose online materials that can make them better in the language that they are learning.” Teacher F

71

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

The teacher used the materials and manipulated them as the online materials in their lesson were not only used individually but also as a whole class approach. The pupils in both classes needed teachers’ assistance in doing the online activities. Although the materials were carefully selected based on the pupils’ proficiency level, some of them do still need assistance in answering the questions as they were given first the authority to do the online activities on their own, teachers still need to facilitate them in fulfilling the task.



“…with digital materials, pupils have more freedom and you as a teacher is like erm just erm watching them and be there when they need you to assist them. Okay it’s like I mentioned earlier 99 percent is the pupils are doing their self-discovery with whatever skills or whatever we want them to learn on that certain lesson.” Teacher F

The role of the teacher as a facilitator is crucial for the teachers. In this study, the pupils were mainly doing the activities with the assistance of the teachers as facilitator. Nevertheless, the pupils would benefit from the remedial online materials if the teachers as facilitators showed positive attitude towards the usage of technology in the classroom. In Malaysia, the Ministry of Education is concentrated on developing ICT tools in support of a richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, stronger links between school and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Chan 2002). The Ministry believes that properly designed and implemented computing and communications have the potential to revolutionise education and improve learning. At the same time, the Malaysia National Philosophy of Education calls for developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically balanced and harmonious (Curriculum Standard Document, 2011:4). In order to support the country’s ICT master plan and in line with the country’s drive to fulfil Vision 2020, the education system need to be transformed. Hence, by incorporating technology into teaching, we are adding another means of teaching and learning but not changing the prior process of literacy. This would be an advantage as studies have shown that the use of technological innovation by teachers has resulted in a significant increase in pupils’ achievement (Earle 2002).

72

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

DISCUSSION Teacher’s Preparation i) Materials Familiarisation The incorporation of online materials into the teaching and learning required teachers to familiarize themselves with the materials. Material familiarization includes materials searching and materials evaluation. Teachers searched materials available online and later decided the materials’ suitability based on the pupils’ proficiency. Teachers decided whether or not to use any part of the Padlet platform and incorporate them in their lesson. They decided the technologies that were beneficial and the strategies they could use when teaching (Noble, 1996). They experienced the materials first thus enabling them to handle and explain the remedial online materials provided for the pupils to learn that day. ii) Time Allocation The daily lesson plan and the classroom management need to be planned according to the time allocated for each lesson. This practice needed teachers to be alert on each lesson development stage so that the learning could take place effectively as the online remedial materials for each Padlet platform were already selected to be used in every stage to help the pupils develop their literacy skills. According to Levitch and Milheim (2003) educators need to understand the differentiation in time management between the traditional classroom and a classroom that uses computer as a medium. Educators need to develop new time management skills as technology requires proper preparations. Shi et. al (2006) also suggested few time management strategies in the classroom that uses online materials. One of related strategies is that teachers need to be very clear on their objectives of the lesson and understand the time each activity consumes so that the stage of the lesson can be executed according to the objectives. The teachers need to be clear with the timing of each activity. iii) Materials Searching Teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classroom as we move from an era where printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials inseparable from literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires a corresponding paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ role. Their teaching is facilitated in a way that their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to Lubis et al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education. Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun, 2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and to develop specific remedial materials in order to make the teaching and learning process effective.

73

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

iv) Online Materials Preparation When it comes to teacing using online materials, teachers need to come out of their comfort zones. ICT materials require them to familiarize themselves with the online tools and strategies that they need to use during the lesson. Teachers need to be aware that ICT is able to effectively capture the pupils’ attention as compared to the former textbook based learning. This is supported by Wood (2001) who agreed that online games should be used as learning tools and are able to gather pupils’ attention in contextual learning while playing because young learners tend to favor ‘edutainment’ learning (Krasilovsky, 1996). v) Teaching Aids Apart from the use of online games, videos and assessment, other teaching aids such as flash cards and worksheets were also being used to support and enrich teaching and learning through technology. Lei (2009) supported the usage of other types of materials in computer-based classrooms and suggested that non-digital teaching methods should never be replaced with technology although technology is now being part of their lives. vi) Materials Differentiation The content knowledge of this study focused on basic reading skills as the pupils selected were those who had difficulties in reading. Thus, the materials that were chosen for them, besides being suitable for the pupils’ proficiency level, were a bit different compared to the mainstream pupils. According to Tomlinson (2000), in classrooms with various proficiencies, some students will struggle to learn while others will perform beyond others. This differentiation requires teachers to be aware of the situation and understand the students’ needs. Hence, she added that by using different materials, it enables teachers to support the students’ learning and helps students in fulfilling the task according to their own levels as it provides additional support for the struggling learners. Lesson Planning

74

i) Materials Selection Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013) divided materials into two areas namely: content analyses of materials that are isolated from the process and classroom interaction and publication of materials development, the design and evaluation. Understanding the differences in the role played by materials, selecting materials for teaching and learning requires teachers to understand the needs of the pupils in the classroom. This is important as materials selection plays an imperative role in combining the participants (students), lesson structure, and learning process whereby the students and teacher share experience within the lesson (Guerrettaz and Johnston, 2013). This had been explained by Lee and Bathmaker (2007) whereby individual teacher and student’s complex relationship and characteristics determine their responses towards the materials selected to be used.

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

ii) Teachers Facilitation The role of teachers in the classroom changes over time when technology especially computer becomes the medium. Teachers play the role of the facilitator in three ways as explained by Lai (1993), teachers as the planner whereby teachers need to understand the objective of using the computer, be knowledgeable and resourceful in managing the classroom computing resources. Besides, teachers play the role of participants too as teachers are no longer the main source of knowledge and need to cater for pupils’ needs based on the pupils’ responses and respond to the output hence, teachers need to observe the learning and facilitate when needed. Lastly, teachers act as a guide. In this situation, computer-based learning provides pupils with the acquisition of metacognitive knowledge of the learning process and teachers need to ask appropriate questions to help pupils throughout their learning. Teachers’ then can make a difference by facilitating the pupils because they influence the pupils and expose meaningful experience, and this is supported by David and Kuyini (2012) who mentioned that teachers’ assistance in the classroom allow pupils to learn better and produce better outcome whether or not the pupils have disabilities or not. iii) Pupils’ Authority The usage of computer in the classroom needs teachers to monitor the learning process thoroughly especially when they are teaching young learners that have reading difficulties. Close monitoring is needed as these pupils require more guidance compared to mainstream pupils. However, computer is a personal medium and somehow, teachers need to give authority to pupils during lesson. Hargreaves (2014) argued that when teachers applied skillful autonomy-promoting teaching and learning, pupils were able to give ideas independently, being proactive in learning and encourage better engagement with the topic they were learning.

CONCLUSION It is vital for teachers who are teaching LINUS2.0 pupils to understand the importance of differentiated instruction in their teaching and learning session. Lesson planning requires the teachers to consider elements that are beneficial in teaching the pupils literacy skills that later help them in reading. The elements identified in this study could help teachers in planning their lesson in the classroom that has mixed ability pupils and use them to facilitate the LINUS2.0 pupils but at the same time not ignore other pupils with higher proficiency level. The use of technology in their teaching and learning helps teachers in differentiating their instructions in teaching and at the same time assist them in the teaching as well. 75

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

REFERENCES Barachers S.I. (1998). Teaching Reading: From Process to Practice. United States of America: Wad Sworth Publishing Company. Beech, J.R. (2005). Ehri’s Model of Phases of Learning to Read: A Brief Critique. Journal of Research in Reading. 28:50-58 Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A. & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90. Chun D. M. (2011). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Handbook of Reseach in Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume II, by Hankel E., 663-680. New York: Routledge. David, R. & Kuyini, A.B. (2012) Social inclusion: Teachers as facilitators in peer acceptance of students with disabilities in regular classrooms in Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1-12. Earle, R. S. (2002). The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education: Promises and Challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs Nj-, 42(1), 5-13. Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows (2001). Systematic Phonics Intervention Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 71 (3):393-447 Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern

Language Journal, 97, 779–796

Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive

whiteboards, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117.

Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., and Hopkins, D.W. (2014). International 76

Handbook of Educational Change: Part Two. Springer Science and Business Media. Hicks, S.D. (2011). Technology in Today’s Classroom: Are you A Tech Savvy Teacher?

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

The Clearing House 84:188-91 Joseph, S.,Thomas,M.,Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in A Teacher Education Setting: Successes & Challenges. The International Journal of Higher Education,_,28-40. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2015). Buku Pengoperasian Program LINUS2.0. Putrajaya. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Krasilovsky, P. (1996) A child’s garden of virtual reality, American Demographics, 20–22 Lai, K. W. (1993) Teachers as facilitators in a computer-supported learning environment, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2, pp. 127-137. Lee, R. & A. Bathmaker (2007). The use of English textbooks for teaching English to ‘vocational’ students in Singapore secondary schools: A survey of teachers’ beliefs. RELC Journal 38.3, 350–374 Lei, J. (2009). Digital Natives as Preservice Teachers: What Technology Preparation Is

Needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. Vol. 25, pp 87 – 97.

Levitch, S., & Milheim, W. D. (2003). Transitioning instructor skills to the virtual

classroom. Educational Technology, 42-46.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya. Ministry of Education. Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing Student Success with Differentiated Learning. The

Clearing House, 87: 34–38.

Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of

advanced nursing, 41(3), 306-313.

Noble, D. D. (1996). Mad rushes into the future: The overselling of educational

technology. Educational Leadership, 54(3).

77

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre Innovations in ELT Practices

Robb, M., Catalano, R., Smith, T., Polojac, S., Figlar, M., Minzenberg, B. and Schomburg, R. (2013). Checklist for Identifying Exemplary Uses of Technology and Interactive Media for Early Learning. Retrieved from http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/ wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Tech_Integration_Checklist_-_Final.pdf Services & D.O.E. a. C.S. (2011). Engaging in and Exploring Reading: Reading in the Early Years: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Literacy Secretariat. Shi, M., Bonk, C. J., & Magjuka, R. J. (2006). Time management strategies for online teaching. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_06/article01.htm Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., and Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in pupils at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https:// doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 two instructional approaches. Annals of dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56. Warschauer, M. (2001). Online communication. The Cambridge guide to teaching

English to speakers of other languages, 207-212.

Wood, J. (2001) Can software support children’s vocabulary development?, Language

Learning & Technology, 5(1), 166–201.

----------.Pencapaian LINUS2.0 Tahun Satu Meningkat. Berita Harian. 2015

Zikri Effandy bin Zainudin Mersing District Education Office, Ministry of Education Malaysia [email protected]

78

Yusnamariah Md Yusop English Language Teaching Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia [email protected]

View publication stats