ArticlePDF Available

The Influence of Differentiated Instruction on Lebanese Students’ Motivation, Knowledge, and Engagement

January 2020
International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences 5(3):755-774

DOI:10.22161/ijels.53.31

Authors:

Arts, Sciences and Technology University in Lebanon

Abstract— Students’ intrinsic motivation is built to develop students’ longing for new understanding and knowledge in order to reach their highest achievement in the classroom and in their workplaces. For the students to be engaged and motivated, students’ interests, learning styles, levels, and preferences have to be accounted for. For this to be achieved, approaches, methods, and strategies have to be differentiated to accomplish this essential purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of differentiated instruction (DI) in a blended learning environment and the traditional method on the motivation, knowledge, and engagement of 180 students (94 in experimental groups and 86 in control groups) in two Lebanese universities having varied experiences and education during a period of three semesters. Mixed methods were utilized to collect and analyze the data. The findings revealed that the implementation of DI in a blended environment enhanced students’ intrinsic motivation, knowledge, and engagement. Keywords— blended learning, differentiated instruction, intrinsic motivation, PPP.

Content uploaded by Madolaine Massaad

Content may be subject to copyright.

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 755

The Influence of Differentiated Instruction on

Lebanese Students’ Motivation, Knowledge, and

Engagement

Madoline Massaad, Léa Yahchouchi Abi Chaker

Department of Languages and Literatures, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon

Abstract— Students’ intrinsic motivation is built to develop students’ longing for new understanding and

knowledge in order to reach their highest achievement in the classroom and in their workplaces. For the

students to be engaged and motivated, students’ interests, learning styles, levels, and preferences have to

be accounted for. For this to be achieved, approaches, methods, and strategies have to be differentiated to

accomplish this essential purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of differentiated

instruction (DI) in a blended learning environment and the traditional method on the motivation,

knowledge, and engagement of 180 students (94 in experimental groups and 86 in control groups) in two

Lebanese universities having varied experiences and education during a period of three semesters. Mixed

methods were utilized to collect and analyze the data. The findings revealed that the implementation of DI

in a blended environment enhanced students’ intrinsic motivation, knowledge, and engagement.

Keywords— blended learning, differentiated instruction, intrinsic motivation, PPP.

I. INTRODUCTION

People in the business world today require effective

communication skills from strategic, professional, and

adaptable employees who can stand out in the market and

collaborate with people from diverse backgrounds and

cultures (Thill & Courtland 2016). In the modern age and

with the wide spread of globalization, the English language

has played an important role in connecting people and

serving universal communication for business purposes

(Frendo, 2005; Soprana, 2017; Zhang, 2007).

According to El Annan (2012), there is a discrepancy

between skills acquired by university students and skills

essentially required by employers in the real world.

Knowledge of language’s vocabulary, grammar, and

syntax is important; yet it has to be paired with pragmatic

and practical skills, such as communicative skills,

teamwork skills, planning and problem-solving skills, self-

management and organizational skills, in addition to

technological skills to cope with the increasing

communication demands in an internationalized

environment.

Teaching these core skills, as proven by earlier studies (Al-

Annan, 2012; Earnest & Earnest, 2006), necessitates

implementing many strategies and procedures, such as

roleplaying, working in groups, and performing written and

oral tasks; for example, reports, memos, job interviews and

presentations, among others. In addition, other

responsibilities necessitate that students know how to

research, organize and schedule tasks, manage time,

develop plans and strategies, and solve problems in the

target language. Thus, it is required from students to be

subjected to case studies, authentic work simulations,

decision-making tasks, and problem-solving methods

pertaining to their field. Moreover, students must know

how to plan, organize portfolios, self-assess, and use

technological tools in the target language to effectively

communicate information and accomplish the assigned

tasks and projects. All these skills allow students to adeptly

manage their education and work development.

There exists a growing gap between Lebanese universities’

curricula and the challenges, demands, and obligations of

the business realm (Al-Annan, 2012; Ernest & Ernest,

2006; World Bank, 2008). Students’ inadequacy of these

fundamental skills is due to the lack of opportunities in

target language exposure, social interactions and

communication, and exposure to authentic real-life

professional situations (Al-Annan, 2012; Land, 2001;

World Bank, 2008).

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 756

For this reason, human resource (HR) managers in five

different Lebanese companies were interviewed regarding

their employees who were either soon-to-be graduates or

fresh graduates to inquire about those employees’ English

business communication skills. The HR managers mainly

complained about employees’ inadequate English level, the

absence of English business skills in real-life

communications, the lack of effective core skills, and/or

the lack of cultural awareness when communicating in

national/international business contexts. These

shortcomings might cause major confusion,

misunderstanding, and failure to appropriately and

competently engage with internal and external stakeholders

which is a risk for any organization operating in multi-

cultural or multi-national contexts.

To remediate to these issues, students have to acquire the

needed business communication skills to thrive in the

business world, regardless of their major. For this reason,

real-life situations have to be presented as much as possible

in the classroom through the implementation of student-

centered approaches (Tomlinson, 1999; Frendo, 2005;

Soprana, 2017). Business English classes need to balance

the students’ needs and interests which can be

accomplished with the use of differentiated instruction as

an applicable teaching and learning approach for

improving students’ learning experience and motivation in

a higher education institution (Santangelo & Tomlinson,

2009).

A careful inquiry of the strategies utilized to differentiate

instruction acknowledges the use of choice as an essential

component of differentiation because when the students are

granted the opportunity of choosing materials, activities,

and assessments, they feel a sense of empowerment that

helps in elevating their interest, intrinsic motivation, and

engagement in the course. Therefore, individually, students

are able to achieve their highest learning potential as their

communicative competences are both valued and

recognized in the overall learning process.

The article examines the following research question: What

are the effects of differentiated instruction on the level of

students’ intrinsic motivation, knowledge, readiness, and

engagement in business English?

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

According to many observations (Sampath & Zalipour,

2010; Saqlain et al, 2012; Teodorescu, 2013), students of

Business English feel that they are alienated when faced

with the real business environment and cannot put into

application what knowledge they had attained in the

classroom. As diversity escalates in higher education, the

one-size-fits all present-practice-produce (PPP) teacher-

centered teaching design leads students to failure, not only

academically but also professionally. In order to clarify the

reasons for this study and to emphasize the need for

differentiated learning, students’ interests, learning

profiles, and readiness levels are examined when suitable.

Effective content, process, and product are also

differentiated following Tomlinson’s (1999, 2005, 2010,

2014) concept of differentiated instruction, Vygotsky’s

(1978) constructivism and the zone of proximal

development (ZPD), and Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 2000)

multiple intelligences. Effective implementation of the

differentiated strategies cannot, however, be thoroughly

and successfully acquired due to class time constraints and

the application of traditional face-to-face one-fits-all PPP

method of teaching and learning. For this reason and

because of the prominence and ubiquity of technology

nowadays, blended learning is proposed in this study. It

provides a chance of integrating the contemporary and

technological progress afforded by online learning with the

the experience, knowledge, and face-to-face contact of the

instructor found in a traditional learning environment

(Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018). In addition to face-to-

face teaching and learning that takes place in the

classroom, Google Classroom and Skype are used as online

platforms to ensure students’ authentic involvement in their

learning experience and improvement of their core

employability skills, critical thinking skills, and problem

solving abilities needed in their workplace.

2.1 Present-Practice-Produce (PPP)

Teaching Business English entails, as discussed above, the

thorough planning and selection of activities and materials

to achieve goals and objectives pertaining to the class and

to the individual (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005;

Sims, 2013).

In Lebanon, the majority of higher educational institutions

are still applying the traditional PPP teacher-centred

approach because of the comprehensive curriculum

demands and the compact educational schedule which do

not allow opportunities for students to entirely experience

the communicative approach (Nehme, 2013; Shaaban,

2018). Nehme (2013) reports that English learning and

teaching, especially teaching grammar, follows the

traditional teacher-centred approach which is known as the

grammar instruction method. Therefore, students are

passive and lack chances in communication and

interaction. In addition, she argues that rote learning is an

elemental technique that does not instigate students’

interests, does not enhance their communicative skills, and

does not build their self-confidence (Chang, 2011).

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 757

Richards & Renandya (2002) explain the main phases of

“PPP” as follows:

2.1.1 Presentation

First, the instructor introduces a feature of language in a

clear context to clarify the meaning. It could be achieved

through different means: a dialogue, a scenario, a text, etc.

2.1.2 Practice

Then, students are requested to perform a controlled

practice stage in which specific items have to be repeated

by means of matching, filling the gaps, and drilling. This

practice assists students to use the language adequately and

correctly.

2.1.3 Produce

Finally, the instructor introduces a task or activity to

students who are expected to utilize the practiced form(s).

The task can be a case for role play, a subject to write, or

any assignment that supposedly requires the learned

language model to be used.

According to Carless (2009), PPP is effective because the

instructor assumes a clear and specific role besides the

ability to control the lesson’s pace. Moreover, and

according to studies conducted in Hong Kong, educators

affirmed that PPP is more productive and efficient when

grammatical instructions were being taught which is

considered to be a good start when teaching

communicative language in the classroom (Dowling,

2017).

Many critics (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Hyde, 2013) have

stated that the PPP method emphasizes instructors’ actions

and does not stress on language meaning or student

communication or interaction. Here the instructor is the

knower, the student is tabula rasa, and behaviour

adjustment through comprehensive and ample practices is

the means to learning. The authors continue their argument

by indicating that activities are often given at the last

phase, and thus students only have the opportunity to

analyse and experiment with language at the production

final stage.

This method in its three stages is attacked by several

academics. Ellis (1988), Maftoon, Sarem & Hamidi (2012),

Scrivener (1996), and Willis (1990) declare that the

practice stage is time consuming and controlled by the

instructor and accordingly is inflexible, rigid, and

incapable of accommodating to the class’ dynamic which

is unpredictable and changing. That means that PPP is

useless to the process of students’ learning (Lewis, 1993;

Maftoon, Sarem & Hamidi, 2012). Willis (1990)

emphasizes that what is practiced is not effective

communication but conformity.

Wong & Van Pattern (2003) present another issue of

“PPP” in that it totally depends on the usage of

meaningless and decontextualized practices. They point out

that language chunks are introduced as models, and

students should create them by practice and recurrence.

Harmer (2001) states that “PPP” is a teacher-centred

method which does not correspond to the humanitarian

aspect of student-centred scheme.

In opposition to the one-size-fits all or the PPP style,

differentiated strategies regard students’ differences,

recognize their strengths, and acclimatize their inhibitions.

Business English classes need to balance the students’

needs and interests which can be accomplished with the

use of differentiated instruction as an applicable teaching

and learning approach for improving students’ learning

experience in higher education.

2.2 Differentiated Instruction

Tomlinson (1999) says that “Teachers change because they

see the light, or they feel the heat” (p. 114).

Borja, Soto, & Sanchez (2015) affirm that there has been a

clear diversification in the educational system around the

globe. This means that a classroom might include students

from various sociocultural background, students with

learning disabilities, and students with high intelligences

(Subban, 2006). In addition, other student aspects are being

taken into account, such as students’ different intelligences,

learning styles, interests, along with their readiness either

to study the content being delivered or to proceed to the

next concept or idea when examining student’s attributes

that constitute or comprise the diversity within the

classroom context. For this reason, the one-size-fits all

contexts limit students’ chances to benefit from the

educational instructions given to them.

Defined by Tomlinson (1999a, 2005), differentiated

instruction is an ideology of teaching and learning founded

on an argument that students’ learning would be

outstanding when instructors attune to students’ various

interests, levels, styles, and readiness. The theory explains

(1999a) that instructors have to differentiate and adapt

content, process, and product in conformity to students’

diversified pedagogical needs for the teaching and learning

to be relevant, valid, and effective.

The first key element that the instructor might select to

differentiate is a student’s readiness which specifies the

student’s connection and proximity to the requested

educational results. It depends on prior knowledge, past

experiences, skill level, and chances for learning. In

Vygotsky’s constructivist theory (1978) related to

readiness, he advises that instructors lecture within the

student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 758

the discrepancy of what a student can accomplish alone

with no guidance and what the student can accomplish with

support and scaffolding. The students are able to excel in a

new skill(s) and know how to be independent learners and

problem solvers if they are encouraged by the instructor

into their ZPD and instructed with an assignment or task

comparatively more difficult than one that students could

handle alone (Tomlinson and Imbeau, 2010). For instance,

instructors might differentiate a student’s readiness by

modifying the difficulty levels of the educational materials

presented in class. The authors suggest that no

improvement will take place if the student is presented

with educational materials at or below his/her knowledge

level. Likewise, if the educational material is way above

the zone, the student will be frustrated and confused. To

Anderson (2007) and Tomlinson & Santangelo (2009), the

aim of differentiating readiness is to assure that all students

are equipped with a suitable daring learning experience.

As for students’ interests, intrinsic motivation is provoked

when they are interested in what is being taught (Deci and

Ryan, 1985; Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Vansteenkiste, Lens,

& Deci, 2006). According to Tomlinson & Imbeau (2010)

students’ interests interconnect their’ attention,

involvement, and curiosity. As a result, if instructions are

differentiated in accordance to the students’ interests, they

will be motivated to associate the materials taught with the

item they previously appreciated and valued. Also, interest

differentiation might encourage them to identify new skills

or interests (Tomlinson & Santangelo, 2009). To clarify the

concept, instructors may differentiate required materials

and skills if these are aligned with students’ interests in

different areas, for instance sports, music, nature, science,

and so on. Many studies conducted by Schlechty (1997)

and Jensen (2005) have confirmed that interest

differentiation has given students incentive and motivation

to be engrossed in the task with clear evidence of their

productivity and creativity in addition to a surpassing level

of intrinsic motivation. The authors affirm that instructors

have to acknowledge what item instigates, inspires, and

stimulates students and how including this item can be

outlined and planned to achieve these different interests.

Students’ learning profiles are explained by Tomlinson &

Imbeau (2010) as a preference in receiving, examining, or

communicating content. Students have usually disparate

learning preferences whose essential aspects consist of

group orientations, intelligence preferences, learning

environments, and cognitive styles.

Furthermore, students are different at learning and

processing the acquired data. Dunn and Dunn (1978, 2000)

state that students may differ in favoured learning

ambiances in the degree of affective support and in the

amount of peer communication and cooperation. The

authors continue saying that students vary in their favourite

learning processes; some obtain information visually, while

others obtain information aurally. Learning environment

refers to the means of learning, for instance giving the

students the chance to accomplish the task individually, in

pair, or in group.

The distinctions regarding cognitive progress or

development endorse the implementation of differentiated

instructions. Furthermore, Gardner’s (1983, 1993, and

2000) theory of multiple intelligences is the most well-

known theory for mental and cognitive development. He

proposes eight fundamental kinds of intelligences:

linguistic, spatial, logical-mathematical, interpersonal,

intrapersonal, bodily-kinaesthetic, musical, and naturalist.

These kinds of intelligences are disparate ways to measure

intelligence that are no longer confined by only the old-

traditional linguistic and logical mathematical

intelligences.

Although differentiated instruction has its benefits, there

are a few challenges in its implementation. Some of the

challenges in implementing differentiated instructions are

the detachment between instructors’ perceptions of

differentiated instructions and their own substantial real

implementation of the strategy (Whipple, 2012). Many

studies have reported impediments of differentiated

instructions implementation which might include

instructors’ unfamiliarity with the accessible means,

scarcity of resources, needed time for preparation

(Rodriguez, 2012), its predicament to carry out with no aid

from fellow workers or assistants, and its nature as being

time consuming (Smit and Humpert, 2012). Also

Tomlinson et al. (2003) state that some instructors are not

enthusiastic and dedicated when handling students’

diversity, but all these challenges can be overcome in

different ways compared to the extensive learning

experience which could be achieved by the students

andwhich should be number one priority for educators.

Angelo & Cross (1993) and Tomlinson & Imbeau (2010)

claim that a differentiated inclination happens gradually

similar to the progress of every method, strategy, or

educational material that already occurred, is occurring

now, or will be occurring in the future. The indispensable

thing is to begin small and progressively increase and

improve one’s repertoire. Furthermore, the requirement to

cope with diversity found in high education classroom

seems imminent (Fox & Hoffman, 2011; Subban, 2006).

They argue that the one-size-fits all teaching and learning

style is based on the hypotheses that all students could be

regarded and evaluated fairly without any bias.

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 759

It is worth mentioning that acquiring the core skills

effectively and adequately is unlikely to be attained

thoroughly due to the time constraints and the adaptation

and implementation of the traditional face-to-face one-fits-

all method of teaching and learning. That is why, and

through the use of technology, the blended learning model

is introduced in this article to engage students in the

learning experience and to try to enhance their motivation

and critical thinking abilities to deepen their learning

process (Morgan, 2014).

2.3 Blended Learning

Blended learning is a new method in education that blends

face-to-face classroom teaching with suitable application

of technology or online resources. It allows students to

explore the learning process critically as a continuation of

the face-to-face learning session (Cleveland-Innes and

Wilton, 2018; Ginns & Ellis, 2007; Shih, 2010; Northey,

Chylinski, & Govind, 2015). Consequently, students have

the ability to improve their language learning even after

classroom sessions. Blended learning extends teaching and

learning beyond the classroom walls, integrating face-to-

face and online modes, which can be synchronous or

asynchronous to produce an effective learning experience

(Cleveland-Innes and Wilton, 2018; Brew, 2008).

According to Metcalf (2003), synchronous is “frequently

used to describe live training online-real time interaction

between instructors and remote students” (p. 20), while the

term asynchronous refers to “instruction is just-in-time,

when you need it” (p. 21). Asynchronous communication

facilitates students’ interaction, collaboration, discussion,

knowledge sharing, and construction. In this environment,

students can communicate, interact, and post questions to

instructors at any time and expect reasonably quick replies.

Asynchronous communication provides students with the

opportunity to construct knowledge effectively without or

with little time constraints. The use of online learning tools

in blended learning environment allows students to gain

access to the data and information at all times.

A great deal of research has proved that implementing

blended learning techniques in classes has succeeded in

improving students’ learning results and outcomes

(Cleveland-Innes and Wilton, 2018; Garnham & Kaleta,

2002; Twigg, 2003 a; Dziuban et al., 2006; Lim & Morris,

2009; Northey, Chylinski, & Govind, 2015). Thirty

students participated in a research study that implemented

blended learning in which twenty reported improvement in

the learning goals and an increase in grades, knowledge,

and awareness of the course objectives. The study showed

that blended learning could offer universities the

opportunities to endorse technology, stimulate inquiry, and

advocate meaningful and active learning (Garrison &

Kanuka, 2004).

Also, research has proved that students enrolled in blended

learning courses are more motivated and engaged in

learning, with empowered skills of critical thinking

compared to those in face-to-face classes (Donnelly, 2010;

Owston et al., 2008; Sharpe et al., 2006). The table below

adapted from Bull and Garofalo (2005) shows the

comparison between traditional and blended learning and is

consistent with the benefits stated above.

Table.1: Comparison between the Traditional and Blended

Learning Contexts (Bull and Garofalo, 2005)

Traditional Learning

Environment

Blended Learning Environment

Instructivist

Shift in focus to the constructivist

pedagogical

Philosophy

Behaviourist

Shift in focus to the cognitivist

and constructivist learning

theories

Teacher-centred

instruction

Student-centred learning

Single-sense stimulation

Multi-sense stimulation; Access

and exchange

information in a variety of ways

Single-path progression

Multi-path progression

Single medium

Multimedia

Isolated work

Collaborative work

Information delivery

Information exchange

Passive learning

Active/exploratory/inquiry-based

learning

Factual, knowledge-

based learning

Critical thinking and informed

decision-making

Isolated, artificial

context

Authentic, real-world context

According to Senior (2010), the blended learning method

emphasizes that instructors have to concentrate on general

educational outcomes with the use of technology to extend

learning outside the walls of the classroom, and in addition,

it concentrates on the students’ requirements, goals,

experiences, and interests. This teaching method goes

along with the social constructivism theory that advocates

the development and collaboration of learning environment

where the role of instructors is to address the improvement

and advancement of students’ self-reflection and

motivation caused by proactive cooperation with the

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 760

students all through the course (Baker, 2010; Kuh, 2009;

Zimmerman, 2008).

Blended learning shifts the authority of teaching and

learning from teacher-centred to learner-centred,

improving student’s self-efficacy and reducing their

anxiety in an EFL learning environment (Bandura, 1977).

Richards (2010) and Northey, Chylinski, & Govind (2015)

explain that the proactive engagement of students with the

content of the course using technological platforms allows

instructors to boost face-to-face class in productive

communicative activities; it also fosters the production of

spoken language as the instructor is a facilitator of the

learning experience in which technology is used to aid

students (Johnson, 2014).

As previously stated, when students are actively engaged in

their learning process, their level of motivation is

heightened, especially the intrinsic motivation, which

would eventually affect the improvement of their academic

achievement.

2.4 Students’ Intrinsic Motivation

Researchers (Anderson et al., 2014; Fischer, Malych, and

Schafmann, 2019; Liu et al., 2016) assert that motivation is

a substantial component in students’ knowledge and

learning. It is considered as an element of pedagogy that

instructors should utilize for their students’ development in

acquiring knowledge. This kind of motivation is referred to

as intrinsic motivation. As a definition, motivation is the

“process whereby goal directed activity is instigated and

sustained” (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2002, p.4).

Motivation is either extrinsic or intrinsic (Deci and Ryan,

1985, 2008).

On the one hand, Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece (2002) and

Williams & Sternberg (2002) state that extrinsic motivation

deals with an action or attitude induced by external benefit

or reward, such as praise, money, grades, etc. It occurs

from outside the person as opposed to intrinsic motivation

which emerges from the inside of the person. Although

extrinsic motivation is a factor in the classroom, it should

be linked with the intrinsic motivation enhancement when

associated with the improvement of students’ competences

(Thomas, 2002). Deci & Ryan (2008) explain that both are

compelling factors that form who the individual is and how

she/he behaves.

On the other hand, Barry and King (2002) argue that

intrinsic motivation involves being engaged in an act or

task for its own account, interest, gratification, or innate

achievement of curiosity. In their theory of self-

determination, Deci & Ryan (1985, 2008) have stated four

components that intrinsically motivate an individual:

autonomy, competence, relatedness, and progress.

Regarding autonomy, it has been proved by a significant

amount of research (Anderson et al., 2014; Deci & Ryan,

2008) that individuals will successfully achieve their life’s

purposes either in work or academic environment when

they feel autonomy in choosing the goals and the means of

accomplishing them. An individual intrinsic motivation is

ruined when it is controlled. Commanding managers

generate demotivated employees who at the end consider

that they do not have proprietorship of their own tasks or

projects (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Moreover, controlling

instructors diminish students’ innate enthusiasm and

natural interest to gain knowledge from their learning

experience (Anderson et al., 2014).

The second component is competence which comprises

challenge, high standards, knowledge, and skill awareness.

Individuals’ motivation is heightened when they do

something they prefer and execute well. The task or project

will flow smoothly and naturally without even asking

about the motives. That is why tasks or projects have to be

designed to present an adequate challenge for the

individuals to be energized to use their full capacity.

The third component is relatedness which is deemed as a

crucial motivation according to Deci & Ryan (1985, 2008).

The sense of belonging to a group is acknowledged and

valued especially if there are social and shared goals. In the

academic field, instructors have to create an encouraging

learning environment in which each student is recognized

and appreciated (Scott, 2010).

Finally, the fourth and the last component is progress or the

readiness to make consequential contribution. It is the

impression of meaningfulness and accomplishment

perceived when engaging in projects or activities that

contribute to other individual’s well-being (Deci & Ryan,

2008).

Many of previous studies have proved that when students

are intrinsically motivated, their educational performances

were increased (Anderson et al., 2014; Flaherty & Hackler,

2010; Ryan & Deci, 1985, 2008). One of the studies

(Flaherty & Hackler, 2010) demonstrated that when

differentiated instruction was implemented, students’

educational accomplishments were strengthened. The

reason for this improvement was that differentiation was

relevant to their learning styles and interests, providing

opportunities for students which subsequently increased

their interest, self-expression, inspiration, and creativity.

This contributed to enhancing and developing students’

intrinsic motivation in accordance with achieving

satisfactory to high grades (extrinsic motivation). Another

study (Amabile & Pratt, 2016) stated that students’

intrinsic motivation is built through a supportive and

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 761

cooperative learning atmosphere. These afforded

classroom management and positive atmospheres

accentuated fairness and trust which in turn were important

factors to improve and enhance confidence and elevate

motivation.

It is essential to examine if differentiating content, process,

and product to suit students’ needs, interests, and styles

will increase students’ intrinsic motivation. The article

investigates if designing diversified lessons and activities,

providing individualized strategies and instructions,

offering choices appropriate to students’ needs, employing

cooperative groups, and providing supportive atmosphere

would increase students’ intrinsic motivation. Furthermore,

the study examines if students’ intrinsic motivation would

extend the academic setting into the realistic personal one

as well, that is if students perceive themselves capable of

achieving anything not only in the classroom but also in

the real world.

As stated previously, education has encountered a

considerable shift from teacher-centred to student-centred

(Annous & Nicolas, 2014; Coleman, 2006; Gill &

Kirkpatrick, 2013; Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015). Academic

technologies are frequently integrated in the classroom

environment for personalized and autonomous learning for

students (Graham, 2006; Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015)

which is essential and critical for developing their

participation (Northey, Bucic, Chylinski, & Govind, 2015)

and which is crucial to achieve the needed objectives

(Bolkan, 2015). The function of blended learning in

addition to the implementation of different learning

platforms in higher educational institution is among the

most important topics examined by academics (Hughes,

2012). For this reason, there is a burgeoning concern in the

practice in which the pedagogical methods and online

tools/platforms are used to generate higher effective

interaction and cooperation among students and between

instructors and their students (Hughes, 2012). For this

study, Google Classroom and Skype are used as the

technological platforms in teaching the Business English

course in a blended learning context.

III. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

The study is an experimental research in which the

researcher manipulates one variable which is the

independent variable, controls, and measures the dependent

variables in order to establish a cause-effect relationship

between them (Creswell, 2011). Therefore, it can be

claimed that the independent variables possibly created or

caused the dependent variables and had an influence over

them. In this study, the differentiated instruction is

considered as the independent variable in which its

strategies of differentiating content, process, and product

serve students’ interest, needs, and learning profiles. The

last-mentioned components are considered as the treatment

variable conditions manipulated to cause an outcome or

dependent variables which are students’ intrinsic

motivation, knowledge, readiness, and engagement in

Business English.

3.2 Research Environment

For this study, 180 students participated in the experiment.

They registered for the Business English course which is

the last and advanced level of English to be taken. The

study was conducted over three semesters with different

students in two universities. The first is located in Mount

Lebanon, and the second is located in Beirut.

For the control groups, no intervention or experimental

treatment was administered, and the traditional one-fits-all

PPP teaching method was applied, whereas, the

experimental groups were subjected to differentiated

instruction teaching strategies. The classrooms were taught

by two instructors; the researcher was the main instructor

in some sessions and an assistant instructor in other

sessions.

In this experiment, cluster sampling was utilized in which

the researcher randomly selected two groups (clusters) out

of four groups that were registered each semester for this

course. There were two classes in the morning and two

classes in the evening, and one class was chosen randomly

from each shift by the use of an online random picker

(miniwebtool.com).

3.3 Procedures of the Study

The table below shows the overall procedures that were

implemented for teaching Business English for both

groups.

Table.2: Procedures of the Study

Control Group One-Fits-

All Model in the

Classroom

Differentiated Instruction

In Blended Learning

Environment

Present: The instructor

presented the theme or

concept, read the text and

found the concept

embedded in the text, in

addition to providing

examples using different

techniques.

Differentiation of

content: Introducing the

topic and tasks, thus

preparing students for the

task. Linking various texts

and resources (according to

interests, levels and

learning profiles) and

uploading them in Google

Classroom to be later

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 762

checked online.

Practice: The instructor

described a situation in

which students were to

practice the emphasized

pattern and checked

students’ work for

accuracy.

Differentiation of

process: Using of tiered

activities, using of

independent learning

strategies (cooperative or

problem-based), with the

implementation of

appropriate grouping of

students depending on the

tasks, levels or interests,

providing various levels of

scaffolding to students, and

engaging students in

writing business

correspondence (emails

depending on their

grouping) and in oral

communication

(interviews, phone

conversations, and

presentations).

Production: The instructor

presented a task to students

in which they were

expected to utilize the

form(s) just practiced (role

play, writing task, or any

task that used the language

pattern or vocabulary

learned).

Differentiation of

product: Delivering of the

presentation either online,

by Skype, or in the

classroom and providing

students with a variety of

assessment choices, for

example preparing formal

or informal presentations

either in groups or as

individuals

The mixed method was utilized by analysing the collected

data quantitatively and qualitatively to strengthen and

validate the findings. Quantitative tool such as

questionnaires was used in addition to the qualitative focus

group discussions and the open-ended questions to

investigate and answer the research question: What are the

effects of differentiated instructions in a blended

environment on the level of students’ intrinsic motivation,

knowledge, readiness, and engagement in Business

English?

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results

4.1.1 Quantitative Data Analysis

4.1.1.1 Questionnaires

For this purpose, questions in Questionnaire 1 (submitted

to the control groups) and Questionnaire 2 (submitted to

the experimental groups) regarding students’ intrinsic

motivation, readiness, and engagement were analysed

using the Frequency in SPSS. The questionnaires were

designed following Likert scale of five-points, ranging

from number 5 for ‘strongly agree’ to number 1 for

‘strongly disagree’.

Students’ intrinsic motivation as previously discussed in

the literature review is built to develop students’ longing

for new understanding and knowledge in order to reach

their highest achievement in the classroom and in their

workplaces. For the students to be engaged and motivated,

students’ interests, learning styles, levels, and preferences

have to be accounted for. For this to be achieved,

approaches, methods, and strategies have to be

differentiated. Students’ prior knowledge should be tested.

Then it has to be assimilated with the new knowledge,

taking into account its relevance to students’ needs

(majors, styles, levels, etc.).

In regards to the aforementioned elements, the students’

responses in the experimental groups were highly positive

as disclosed in Table 3. The majority of the students

replied positively towards the effectiveness and suitability

of the method/strategy applied while teaching Business

English (87.9%, Spring 2018; 91.4%, Fall 2019; and

88.5%, Spring 2019). This resulted in their elevated

interest and motivation in acquiring the taught materials

compared to the control groups’ responses.

Table.3: Effectiveness of Differentiated Instructions in

Blended Learning

Furthermore, Table 4 shows the significant affirmative

responses concerning the diversified materials found either

in the course book or in the Google Classroom. It is worth

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 763

mentioning that these materials were diversified or

differentiated according to students’ interests, majors, and

English levels. With respect to English levels, there were

many scaffold and tiered exercises for the lower achievers

to practice with in order to reach the expected English level

required for this course.

Table.4: Differentiated Activities

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

Students in the experimental groups affirmed that the

method/strategy used (Differentiated instructions in

blended environment) had a constructive effect on

acquiring knowledge because the instructors anticipated

and took into account their interests, learning styles, and

English levels (Table 5).

Table.5: Students’ Needs

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

Moreover, students who were subjected to differentiation

were positively engaged in the tasks given either in class

or/and in Google Classroom. Most of these students

confirmed that students’ groupings were effective in the

learning experience (78.8%, Spring 2018; 77.2%. Fall

2019; and 80.8%, Spring 2019), while the other few

students were uncertain of its effectiveness with no

disagreeing responses to note (Table 6).

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 764

Table.6: Students’ Grouping

Spring2018

Fall2019

Spring2019

Besides students’ groupings, students were highly engaged

in synchronous (real-time communication via Skype) and

asynchronous communications (not real-time

communication but communication through written posts

or recorded speech posted on the platform) both among

each other and between them and the instructors. Their

positive responses found in Table 7 below acknowledged

the strategies’ effectiveness regarding the learning

experience.

Table.7: Synchronous/Asynchronous Discussions

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

All of this led to their considerable participation inside and

outside the classroom as illustrated in Table 8.

Table.8: Students’ Participation Inside and Outside

Classroom

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

Their engagement in Business English inside and outside

the classroom resulted in their motivation to acquire the

knowledge needed. They were not passive learners but

active ones who had opportunities to analyse and reflect on

the acquired materials inside and outside the classroom

(Table 9).

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 765

Table.9: Students’ Reflection Inside and Outside the

Classroom

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

Furthermore, students found what they were learning

compatible, applicable, and relevant to real-life

experiences or/and their fields of study as shown in Table

10.

Tables.10: Learning Relevance to Real-Life Experience

Spring 2018

Fall 2019

Spring 2019

Moreover, the responses showed that differentiated

instructions in blended environment improved students’

problem-solving skills (87.8%, Spring 2018; 91.4%, Fall

2019; and 88.5%, Spring 2019), enhanced their learning

autonomy (87.8%, Spring 2018; 88.6%, Fall 2019; and

88.5%, Spring 2019), and developed their self-confidence

(90.9%, Spring 2018; 88.6%, Fall 2019; and 88.5%, Spring

2019). All their responses were compared to the highly

negative responses of the students in the control groups

who were subjected to the one-fits-all PPP method

(Appendix A).

As analysed above, when differentiated instructions in

blended environment was implemented, the relationship of

student-student and student-instructor were well

established and strengthened. In doing so, students’

intrinsic motivation improved, especially when their needs

(interests, styles, and majors) were taken into

consideration. When students had absolute interest in their

personal learning, they would not only progress

academically, but they would exhibit a higher awareness

and perception of long-term accomplishment and self-

worth. That eventually would positively be achieved and

extended outside the classroom.

4.1.2 Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative tools were employed to assert and strengthen

the quantitative analysis achieved by examining specific

questions of the questionnaires for the purpose of

examining the research question: Data obtained from focus

group discussions and the open-ended questions in

Questionnaire 2 presented to students in the experimental

groups were investigated.

4.1.2.1 Focus Group Discussions

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 766

Two focus group sessions per semester were conducted for

the experimental groups: one after the Midterm exam and

the second at the end of the semester. Each focus group

consisted of six students chosen randomly from the

different six majors available in both universities. Specific

questions were discussed in this section pertaining to

students’ intrinsic motivation, knowledge, readiness, and

engagement in Business English.

The questions are as follows:

- To what extent was this course intellectually

stimulating when it was given in a differentiated

blended mode?

- Was Business English relevant to your field of study

and/or employment and how?

- In what way(s) do you think the course has improved

your knowledge and level of confidence?

After analysing the data several times, the specific themes

related to research questions were coded/tagged and

included knowledge, intrinsic motivation, engagement, and

readiness.

The replies received from answering the first question in

the focus group were positive and decisive that the course

was intellectually stimulating and interesting. Most

students throughout the semester agreed that how the

materials were presented had impacted their learning in the

course. They preferred this kind of teaching and learning

strategy in comparison to somehow memorized and dry

materials and a teacher-centred approach executed in the

acquisition of the English language in previous levels.

They asserted that this strategy was fundamental to

knowledge integration as it took into account their learning

styles and preferences. In their opinion, the principal

element that had a significant impact was how the

materials were presented. A student said that “Classes

were not boring. Every time there was something new and

challenging to be learned or done, and the important thing

is that the instructors were not the only one talking like in

other courses I am taking in Business” (Spring 2018).

Another student confessed that “At the beginning I found it

difficult because I had to participate and get out of my

comfort zone, but the materials were given in an

interesting and appealing way which made it impossible

for me to stay passive” (Fall 2019).

Moreover, a student from the graphic design department

explained that she “thought that Business English was only

for business students, and I only had to take the course

because it is the last English level that I had to be

registered in… I thought that I will only memorize business

words and definitions and write what I memorized. But I

was actually surprised because I was fully engaged in the

content and actively interacting with my classmates and

instructors” (Fall 2019).

In Spring 2019, one of the students who was interviewed

stated that “How we studied English before was useless

and boring. We only had to memorize grammar rules and

vocabulary. The way that we are learning the course is

unique and special as if we were in an actual company,

and we were employees asked to fulfil the responsibilities

related to our department” (Spring 2019).

To summarize, many students admitted to being motivated

to learn when their needs, majors, and preferences were

accommodated and regarded. The majority of students’

comments highlighted the stress-free and relaxed

environment, the caring instructors, the interesting and

beneficial materials, and the interesting engaging

instructions.

As to answering the second question in the focus group

discussion “Was Business English relevant to your field of

study and/or employment? Many students admitted that the

innovative learning education, the customized texts and

assignments, and a variety of quality materials and

resources had substantially influenced the students’

commitment. It also helped them feel connected to the

course content and to its extension to their real life. They

further commented that the given tasks and knowledge

were parallel, relevant, and applicable to their majors and

their current work’s responsibilities. In other words, they

felt a link with the materials and tasks given in their

learning and life. Many students proclaimed that what

happened within the classroom and in Google Classroom

mirrored what was happening in the workplace. They

agreed that the assignments and the discussions that

followed were designed according to students’ life

experiences and their concerns, and thus consequentially

corresponded to students. Furthermore, the majority of

students asserted that classroom interaction and

classroom/Google Classroom groupings satisfied social

needs and improved learning. The course’s groups

sometimes reflected what happens in a company whether

the grouping was heterogeneous or homogenous.

Some of the students’ responses are given below:

“When we were in class discussing the task given, I felt as

if I were in the company deliberating with my colleagues to

present our final project to our manager.”

“I have acquired the knowledge of how to manage business

communication both orally and in written.”

“My English and interaction skills had been improved, and

I think my chances for employment haves increased

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 767

because I know how to write a CV and cover letter and

how to manage a job interview if called to one.”

“What was happening in the course reflected the real-life

communication in the business world. The class was as a

business enterprise where all of us were like colleagues

working with each other either in different departments or

in the same department depending on the task. Other times

we were divided into employees and clients or managers

who were asked to do something depending on the job

given to us; we had to figure out how to work and

communicate with each other to create a productive and

constructive working relationship.”

The data collected in regard to students’ responses to the

third question: In what way(s) do you think the course has

improved your knowledge and level of confidence? in both

focus groups per semester were also analysed. They held

positive attitude towards how the class was taught, and

how the materials were given. From the responses of a few

students, it was revealed that at the beginning especially

the reserved and timid students apprehended and dreaded

participating. But later on and because of the supportive

teaching and learning classroom ambiance where

constructive feedback was implemented, they started to

eagerly participate, even more than in other previous

English levels. Many students declared that they overcame

their fear of expressing their ideas in English whether in

written or orally because of the effective and productive

classroom community. They agreed that the continuous

encouragement and reinforcement of high classroom

behaviour and academic expectations contributed to raising

their confidence levels. Thus, it made students believe in

themselves and fulfil the requirements of the

task/assignment.

A student in Spring 2018 said that “Because of role-

playing, stimulation, grouping, the objective feedback, and

continuous follow-up, my level of confidence has been

raised”. Another argued, “The different materials given,

and the discussions made in class and online had

strengthened my self-confidence and instilled in me a sense

of belonging both in class and at work” (Fall 2019).

Moreover, one of the students in Fall 2019 expressed his

opinion saying, “Because of the fairness, trust, positive

feedback, relevant materials, and assessment in this

supporting environment, my self-esteem and confidence

have been rebuilt. I’m no longer terrified of presenting or

speaking in English

In addition to the focus group discussions held twice a

semester, there was also a qualitative tool used to acquire

the information required to answer the third research

question which was the open-ended questions in

Questionnaire 3 (submitted to experimental groups).

4.1.2.2 Open-Ended Questions

The open-ended questions found in the semi-structured

questionnaire given to the experimental groups were

analysed to generate further explanations of their answers

to the closed-ended questions in regard to specific

examined elements.

The open-ended questions found in Questionnaire 2 are as

follows:

- In your opinion, what are the benefits of taking Business

English using the differentiated instructions and blended

learning?

- In what way(s) was the course given in the differentiated

blended way relevant to your further education or

employment?

To analyse the qualitative open-ended questions, content

analysis was employed, and coding techniques were

utilized. In general, the qualitative responses of the 94

students in the experimental groups were collected and

carefully examined. Afterwards, the repeated themes were

identified and categorized. Subsequently these repeated

themes were coded to render them researchable. At the

end, and after grouping and breaking down the codes, a

collection of themes and the perception of their frequency

were completed.

Regarding the first question, the recurring themes were

different learning styles, English skills, engagement (which

was subcategorized into student’s grouping and students’

discussions with other students and instructors), self-

confidence, and useful knowledge through learning and

using technology.

Mostly, all the students had an affirmative decisive

perspective about differentiated instruction in blended

environment. They expressed that it was beneficial in their

learning and realized that their different styles were

attended to. The materials and tasks were presented in

different ways: visual, oral, aural, social, etc. Some of the

materials and tasks referred to the various amounts of

content with different exercises presented in Google

Classroom to suit their majors. These exercises were also

appropriate to their English levels which were gradually

improving through the different tasks that were carefully

designed to enhance their English writing and oral skills.

In addition, positive remarks were disclosed regarding the

engagement in the classroom and in Google Classroom. As

mentioned previously, the engagement was subdivided into

students’ groupings and the discussions and

communication that took place first among the students

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 768

and second among the students and instructors. For both

subcategories, many students identified them as useful,

valuable, and constructive. This theme was also linked to

the themes of acquired knowledge and the development of

students’ self-confidence.

Regarding the acquired knowledge, the majority of

students said that the knowledge acquired in Business

English was appropriate and sufficient for them to

communicate both in and out the workplace with accuracy

and fluency in written and oral settings.

As for the theme of self-confidence, most students stated

that they enjoyed the class. They expressed that they were

more confident about their success in their current or future

jobs. They conveyed being comfortable with the class’ load

and environment (in class and in Google Classroom).

Furthermore, some students stated that working with high-

achieved classmates had helped them understand the

concept or task better than when explained by the

instructors.

Though no negative responses were given concerning the

first open-ended question, eight students out of 94 stated

their indifference about the method’s benefits applied in

class. They explained their attitude by claiming that they

were already familiar with the materials especially the ones

pertaining to writing business correspondences and oral

business communication. They had gained the knowledge

through their work experience. In addition, three of them

stated that their companies had previously enrolled them in

a program to improve their English communication skills.

Moving to the second open-ended question, the majority of

the 94 students expressed that the course helped them with

their oral skills in other academic major courses. The

reason was that the vast oral practices done in Business

English had rendered oral presentations in other courses

easy and natural. Sixty students emphasized the importance

of the words and phrases given and practiced in different

situations either in their learning or at their workplace.

Some of the students elaborated that what they learned and

practiced mirrored real-life situations in the workplace.

Others added that they now understood how to interact

orally or/and through writing in the different contexts they

had encountered. Because of these facts, their engagement

in the course heightened.

Fourteen students out of the whole related that they do not

work, but because of the course, their Business English

skills had been improved, and they felt that they had higher

opportunities to land a job when interviewed.

Others confessed that though they have good English skills

at the workplace, the rich materials given, and the way the

course was conducted, made them acknowledge its

increased benefits in their workplace, as they acquired

added information regarding the appropriate style to use in

different contexts and with different participants.

Out of the 94, six students said that though the materials

and the teaching and learning method were useful and

applicable in their workplace, they already knew how to

effectively communicate in English; they added that they

had the competent knowledge about the specific terms to

be used in specific situations both in written and oral

contexts.

4.2 Discussion

The collection and interpretation of the required data

served to comprehensively clarify and answer the research

question pertaining to students’ intrinsic motivation,

readiness, knowledge, and engagement in English for

business purposes.

Because of the implementation of the differentiated

instructions which respected the students’ different needs,

varying English level, styles, and majors, students were

highly motivated and engaged and actually practiced what

they learned. They felt a sense of belonging to the course,

and appreciated how it mirrored the social situations they

were facing in the workplace. In addition, and because of

limited class time, blended learning was utilized via

Google Classroom and Skype to give ample opportunities

for the students to effectively practice what they were

learning. They were not confined within the wall of the

classroom, and they were learning and practicing language

knowledge outside it as well. At the end, after examining

and analysing the quantitative and qualitative collected

data, it can be inferred that differentiating the content,

process, and product promoted students’ intrinsic

motivation, knowledge, and readiness and engagement in

Business English. The data acknowledged that students

were engaged and devoted to learn, understand, and apply

the given materials because of the gratification and

fulfilment the acquired knowledge had contributed.

By implementing the differentiated instructions and

blended learning, students’ aims surpassed the extrinsic

motivation, as it went further to achieving intrinsic

motivation as well. They felt a belonging to the community

whether in class or at their workplace. Moreover, the

intervention done through heterogeneous or/and

homogeneous grouping played a crucial role in them taking

outstanding responsibility in their learning individually and

as group(s).

Furthermore, interacting with other classmates and not

being confined in individual tasks reduced negative

competition. It also increased the realization of

teambuilding and leadership importance during learning.

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 769

Consistently and because of the associated discussed

elements, self-esteem and confidence developed and/or

increased in this environment which accentuated trust,

routine, practice, structure, and fairness. This kind of

environment is the preferred milieu for acquiring and

practicing the needed knowledge.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As proven by earlier studies, teaching these core skills

necessitates implementing many strategies and procedures,

such as roleplaying, working in groups, and performing

written and oral tasks; for example, reports, memos, job

interviews, presentations, etc.

The study highlighted and clarified the major components

of differentiated instruction which improved students’

academic learning, accomplishment, and satisfaction inside

and outside the classroom. The findings of this study might

be considered of importance to other instructors in higher

education because it presented how differentiation of

content, process, and product is fundamental to suit

students’ diversity.

The results collected from questionnaires, focus groups,

and open-ended questions concerning the research question

indicated that the level of students’ intrinsic motivation,

knowledge, readiness, and engagement was heightened

when differentiated instruction in a blended environment

was administered in Business English for the experimental

groups. It was proved that the disparate and numerous

strategies, practices, and authentic activities such as role-

playing, simulation, and students’ groupings had a great

impact on students’ accomplishments. Students’ learning

autonomy, problem-solving skills, confidence, motivation,

and communicative skills were developed and

strengthened.

Also, through the analysis of the questionnaires’ results

regarding students’ engagement and motivation, high

positive percentages obtained from the experimental

groups were juxtaposed with the negative responses of the

control groups in which one-fits-all PPP method was

implemented. The negative responses highlighted the

problems of having limited time and practice for

participation, discussion, analysis, and reflection on the

acquired knowledge. Moreover, there were limited

opportunities for self and peer evaluations. All of these

limitations resulted in the students’ slight and insignificant

accomplishment of acquiring problem-solving skills,

increasing their learning autonomy, and developing their

self-confidence and motivation in the course given.

Furthermore, there was progress in the other core skills:

analysing, critical thinking, solving problems, planning,

sharing and constructing knowledge. In addition, this

approach improved self-confidence, lowered anxiety in the

process, and increased intrinsic motivation. The findings of

this study are consistent with the findings obtained from

Ernest and Ernest (2005) and Tomlinson (1999, 2003)

which concluded in obtaining positive reactions of students

who were subjected to differentiated instructions,

especially when students’ different styles and intelligences

(Gardner, 1983), learning interests, and needs were taken

into consideration when differentiating.

These results conform to the findings of Whyte (2011) who

asserted that students appreciated the opportunities given to

them to shift from silent participants into active ones

through the different modes of interactions: student-

content, student-students, and student-instructors either

face-to-face or online, and in this case Google Classroom

and Skype. By experiencing this kind of pedagogical

mode, they took responsibility for their own learning. They

were aware of the importance of English language in

today’s life and of the significant place it holds in the

educational field and in the workplace. They gained

interest in learning, acquiring, and improving their

communicative competences as shown by the results of the

collected data. Through the different contents, tasks,

participations, as well as peers’ and instructors’ assistance,

the students’ productive skills, pragmatic awareness, and

general performances developed throughout the semester.

These findings also parallel Vygotsky’s theory of

constructivism (1978) in which the zone of proximal

development (ZPD) is an essential attribute. This theory

emphasizes the cultural and social aspects in the teaching

and learning process. The theory argues that knowledge is

established and built up, and that learners learn from each

other. The student must be involved in the process of

learning with the cooperation and help of other learners

and a qualified teacher.

For this reason, Lebanese universities ought to regularly

appraise their pedagogical methods and strategies to cope

with the diverse students’ needs, technological

advancements, and the Lebanese and international business

markets. Businesses are struggling with students/graduates

who are saturated with theoretical knowledge but lack

communicative, technological, and social skills. Extensive

exposure to authentic materials and real-life practices in

using the target language must be included in Lebanese

universities’ language curricula for the purpose of fulfilling

the students’ various needs and expectations. To achieve

this, it is recommended that universities in Lebanon

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 770

cooperate with the Ministry of Higher Education to

reconsider universities’ curricula and implement

pedagogical methods and procedures that adhere and

conform to the demands of the workplace environment

with English as an international language. It is necessary to

mention that modifying the curricula is not sufficient if it is

not coordinated with the theoretical and practical

awareness of differentiated instruction. To accomplish this,

seminars and workshops ought to be organized for the

instructors to gain the required knowledge for

implementation. First, they must understand the strategy

and its components while observing the implementation of

differentiated instruction during the training, and then

perform it during the workshop activities and later in

teaching their students. Instructors need to apply

differentiated instruction to accommodate students’ various

learning styles (Tomlinson, 2001). Instructors have to be

trained to design appropriate lessons, tasks, activities,

learning materials and resources, and adopt cooperative,

supportive, and interactive teaching techniques.

Based on the promising findings and results achieved from

this study regarding students’ improvement in learning

autonomy, knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and

engagement inside and outside the classroom, it is prudent

and recommended to implement the strategies of

differentiated instruction in a blended learning

environment. Most importantly, differentiated instruction

must communicate and consider an innovative pedagogy

which could encourage and advocate transformation of

knowledge and practical integration. It is not only essential

for students’ performance in a specific class and/or course,

but it could have everlasting effects on motivation, self-

efficacy, and achievement. Conceding that differentiated

instruction is thoroughly implemented, it can exhibit

systematic and structured effectiveness and encourage

students who have diverse and distinctive learning

backgrounds and experiences to respond to the heightened

challenges of the global society.

REFERENCES

[1] Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic

componential model of creativity and innovation in

organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research

in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.

[2] Anderson, K.M. (2007). Tips for teaching differentiating

instruction to include all students. Preventing School

Failure, 51(3), 49-53.

[3] Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Minute

paper. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for

college teachers, 148-153.

[4] Annous, S., & Nicolas, M. O. D. (2014). Journal of

Business.

[5] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory

of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2): 191–

215.

[6] Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and

presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and

motivation. The Journal of Educators Online,7(1): 1-30.

Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/

[7] Barry, K., & King, L. (2002). Beginning teaching and

beyond. Tuggerah.

[8] Bolkan, J. (2015). Students taking online courses jumps 96

percent over 5 years. Retrieved from

https://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/06/24/report-

students-taking-onlinecourses-jumps-96-percent-over-5-

years.aspx

[9] Borja, L. A., Soto, S. T., & Sanchez, T. X. (2015).

Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. International

Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(8), 30-36.

[10] Brew, L.S. (2008). The role of student feedback in

evaluating and revising a blended learning course. Internet

and Higher Education, 11, 98-105.

[11] Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and

teaching (Vol. 4). New York: Longman.

[12] Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2005). Internet access: The last

mile. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(1): 16-18.

[13] Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (Eds.) (2002). Applied

metacognition Retrieved from

http://www.questia.com/read/107598848

[14] Carless, D. R. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP

debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English

Language Teaching.

[15] Chang, M. (2011). EFL teachers’ attitudes toward

communicative language teaching in Taiwanese

college. Asian EFL Journal, 53(1), 17-34.

[16] Chesley, G. M., & Jordan, J. (2012). What’s missing from

teacher prep. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 41-45.

[17] Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to blended

learning.

[18] Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in

European higher education. Language teaching, 39(1), 1-14.

[19] Creswell, J. (2011). Educational Research: Planning,

conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative

research. Pearson.

[20] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Self-determination and

intrinsic motivation in human behavior. EL Deci, RM Ryan.–

1985.

[21] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination

theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development,

and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

Canadienne, 49(3), 182.

[22] Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with

interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers &

Education, 54(2), 350-359.

[23] Dowling, T. (2017). Presentation, Practice and Production

(PPP) and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT): A

Defence and a Critique. Language and Culture: The Journal

of the Institute for Language and Culture, (21), 139-154.

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 771

[24] Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through

their individual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston.

[25] Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J.L., & Moskal, P.D. (2004).

Blended learning. Educational Center for Applied Research

Bulletin, 7, 12(1): 41-49.

[26] EL-Annan, S. H. (2012). Mismanaging Knowledge and

Education and their Effects on Employment in Lebanon and

the Middle East. Journal of Education and Vocational

Research, 3(1), pp. 9-16.

https://doi.org/10.22610/jevr.v3i1.44.

[27] Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business

English (pp. 25-38). Oxford.

[28] Ernst, H. R., & Ernst, T. L. (2005). The promise and pitfalls

of differentiated instruction for undergraduate political

science courses: Student and instructor impressions of an

unconventional teaching strategy. Journal of Political

Science Education, 1(1), 39-59.

[29] Fischer, C., Malycha, C., and Schafmann, E. (2019). The

Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic

Motivators on Creativity and Innovation. Frontiers in

Psychology.

[30] Flaherty, S., & Hackler, R. (2010). Exploring the Effects of

Differentiated Instruction and Cooperative Learning on the

Intrinsic Motivational Behaviors of Elementary Reading

Students. Online Submission.

[31] Fox, J., & Hoffman, W. (2011). The differentiated

instruction book of lists (Vol. 6). John Wiley & Sons.

[32] Frendo, E. (2005). How to teach business English. Harlow,

UK: Longman.

[33] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple

intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

[34] Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple

intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

[35] Gardner, H. E. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple

intelligences for the 21st century. Hachette UK.

[36] Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning:

Uncovering its transformative potential in higher

education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

[37] Gill, S. K., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in Asian and

European higher education. The Encyclopedia of Applied

Linguistics.

[38] Ginns, P. & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning:

Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face

teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10,

53-64.

[39] Graham, C.R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition,

current trends, and future directions. In Handbook of

Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs: 3-

21. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

[40] Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of language teaching. The

Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd ed. Oxford:

Longman, 164-188.

[41] Hughes, J. N. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and

school adjustment: Progress and remaining

challenges. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 319-

327.

[42] Hyde, C. (2013). Task-based language teaching in the

business English classroom (Doctoral dissertation).

[43] Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless

flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped

classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of

computers in education, 2(4), 449-473.

[44] Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. ASCD.

[45] Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student

engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 141:5-20.

[46] Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic

development. International Journal for Academic

Development, 6(1).

[47] Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993).

Hove: Language teaching publications.

[48] Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J.

(2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A

meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the

creativity literature. Organizational behavior and human

decision processes, 137, 236-263.

[49] Maftoon, P., Sarem, S. N., & Hamidi, H. (2012). A Closer

Look at Different Aspects of Language Teaching/Learning

and Learner Identity. Theory & Practice in Language

Studies, 2(6).

[50] Metcalf, L. B. (2003). Blended eLearning: Integrating

Knowledge, Performance Support and Online Learning.

Massachusetts: HRD Press Inc.

[51] Morgan, D. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social

research. Portland State University, OR, USA, 20(8): 1045-

1053. Retrieved from:

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

[52] Nehme, N. F. (2013). Is the Grammar-Instruction Approach

an Old-Fashioned Method in Comparison to the

Communicative Approach in Non-Native Contexts? A Case

Study of Students and Teachers’ Perceptions.

[53] Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015).

Increasing student engagement using asynchronous

learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171-180.

[54] Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupshenyuk, D.

(2008). Blended teacher professional development: A

synthesis of three program evaluations. The Internet and

Higher Education, 11(3-4), 201-210.

[55] Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and performance in

language teaching. RELC Journal, 41(2): 101–122.

Retrieved from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688210372953

[56] Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.).

(2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of

current practice. Cambridge university press.

[57] Rodriguez, A. (2012). An analysis of elementary school

teachers' knowledge and use of differentiated instruction.

[58] Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2011). Temperament as an

Indicator of Language Achievement. Online

Submission, 5(4), 33-52.

[59] Sampath, D., & Zalipour, A. (2010). Effective teaching

strategies for learners of business communication: A case

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 772

study from INTI university college, Malaysia. Intercultural

Communication Studies, 19(3), 256-266.

[60] Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action

plan for education reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[61] Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Goals

and goal orientations. Motivation in Education: Theory,

Research, and Applications, 170-209.

[62] Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for

understanding effective language.

[63] Shaaban, K. (2018). Challenges of Teaching English in

Tertiary Education in the Arab World.

[64] Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative

learning through group investigation (Vol. 1234). New

York: Teachers College Press.

[65] Sharpe, R. et al. (2006). The undergraduate experience of

blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice

undertaken for the Higher Education Academy. Retrieved

from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research.htm

[66] Shih, R.C. (2010). Blended learning using video-based

blogs: Public speaking for English as a second language

students. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,

26(6):883-897.

[67] Sim, M. (2013). Ups and downs of teaching Business

English terminology. University of Oradea.

[68] Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction

in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8),

1152-1162.

[69] Soprana, V. (2017). A theoretical outline of the importance

of cross-cultural and pragmatic awareness in the business

scenario. BERT: Porto Alegre, 8(1): 101-121. Retrieved

from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/2178-3640.2017.1.27462.

[70] Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research

basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947.

[71] Teodorescu, A. (2013). Traditional vs. modern approaches in

business English teaching in the economic field. Knowledge

Horizons-Economics, 5(2), 153-156.

[72] Tett, L., Crowther, J., & O'Hara, P. (2003). Collaborative

partnerships in community education. Journal of Education

Policy, 18(1), 37-51.

[73] Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom:

responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

[74] Tomlinson, S. (2005). Education in a post welfare society.

McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

[75] Tomlinson, C. (2014). The differentiated classroom:

Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria,

VA: ASCD.

[76] Tomlinson, C. & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing

a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. USF

Information Technology. (2009). Retrieved from University

of South Florida: https://www.usf.edu/it/about-us/it-

news/skype-for-business.aspx.

[77] Tomlinson, C. & Santangelo, T. (2009). The application of

differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments:

Benefits, challenges and future directions. International

Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,

20(3), 307-323.

[78] Twigg, C. A. (2003a). Improving learning and reducing

costs: Lessons learned from Round 1 of the Pew grant

program in course redesign. Troy, NY: Center for Academic

Transformation. Retrieved

from http://www.thencat.org/PCR/R1Lessons.html

[79] Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic

versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory:

Another look at the quality of academic

motivation. Educational psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.

[80] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development

of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

[81] Whipple, K. A. (2012). Differentiated instruction: A survey

study of teacher understanding and implementation in a

southeast Massachusetts school district (Doctoral

dissertation, Northeastern University).

[82] Whyte. S. (2011). Developing and integrating teacher

competences in language acquisition, pedagogy and

technology. Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis: 220-232.

[83] Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). How parents

can maximize children’s cognitive abilities. Handbook of

Parenting Volume 5 Practical Issues in Parenting, 168.

[84] Willis, P. E. (1990). Common culture (p. 85). Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.

[85] World Bank. (2008). The road not travelled, education

reform in the Middle East and North Africa. World

Bank, Washington DC.

[86] Wong, W., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN:

Drills are OUT. Foreign language annals, 36(3), 403-423.

[87] Zhang, Z. (2007). Towards an integrated approach to

teaching business English: a Chinese experience. English for

Specific Purpose, 26: 399-410.

[88] Zhang, L., & Atkin, C. (2010). Conceptualizing Humanistic

Competence in the Language Classroom by TJP--A Chinese

Case. International Education Studies, 3(4), 121-127.

[89] Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and

motivation: Historical background, methodological

developments, and future prospects. American Educational

Research Journal, 45(1): 166–183.

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 773

Appendix A

Students’ Motivation and Learning Autonomy

Spring 2018

Experimental Group

Fall 2019

Experimental Group

Spring 2019

Experimental Group

Control Group

Spring 2018

Control Group

Fall 2019

International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(3)

May-Jun 2020 |Available online: https://ijels.com/

ISSN: 2456-7620

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.53.31 774

Control Group

Spring 2019

Differentiated Instruction by Hong Kong Chinese Language Teachers for Non-Chinese Speaking Students in Mainstream Classrooms: The Roles of Teacher-Student Relationships and Teacher Motivation

Article

Dec 2024
ASIA-PAC EDUC RES

With more and more non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students learning in Hong Kong mainstream classrooms, differentiated instruction has been called for application in Chinese language education to consider the diverse learning needs of all students. However, factors influencing Chinese language teachers’ use of differentiated instruction remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the influence of teacher-student relationships and teachers’ work motivation on differentiated instruction, as well as the mediating role of work motivation in the relationships between teacher-student relationships and differentiated instruction. Two hundred and ninety Chinese language teachers from Hong Kong primary schools participated in the survey. The results showed that after controlling for demographic factors (i.e., gender, length of service, years of teaching NCS students, and in-service training), both dimensions of the teacher-student relationships (i.e., closeness and conflict) positively predicted differentiated instruction. Autonomous motivation positively predicted differentiated instruction, while controlled motivation did not significantly predict differentiated instruction. Furthermore, autonomous motivation partially mediated the positive effect of closeness on differentiated instruction. Contributions, implications, and limitations are discussed.

Evaluating Content Validity of an Instrument to Assess Teachers' Practice of Differentiated Instruction (IATPDI)

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

The present study developed and evaluated the content validity of a survey questionnaire titled, "Instrument to Assess Teachers' Practice of Differentiated Instruction (IATPDI)." The items of IATPDI questionnaire were adapted from the pre-existing survey questionnaires and existing literature on differentiated instruction. To quantify the content validity of IATPDI questionnaire, a pre-developed survey questionnaire with 40 items was emailed to two established content experts to: (1) rate each item in terms of its clarity and relevancy to the measured domain; (2) evaluate which item should be deleted or revised; and (3) get recommendation about whether additional items are needed to adequately tap the domain of interest. The Delphi method was used to collect the data. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi process culminated in a revised and refined IATPDI questionnaire with 40 simplified items divided into four sections. The content validity of IATPDI questionnaire was quantified by calculating the content validity index (I-CVI and S-CVI) and modified kappa statistics, which indicated the high content validity of the 40 items. Taken together, the results show that the IATPDI questionnaire is a content valid instrument.

Challenges of Teaching English in Tertiary Education in the Arab World

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2019

Kassim A. Shaaban

A critical look at the current state of English language teaching (ELT) in the Arab world shows that because the teaching of English starts in the first grade or even earlier in most countries, one would expect that by the time learners reached university, they would have no problem pursuing their studies through the medium of English. However, expectations are one thing, and reality is another. On the ground, there are frequent complaints from all stakeholders in the education process (students, parents, teachers, and school administrators) about the low proficiency levels attained by learners as they exit high school. University English language proficiency tests, such as TOEFL, IELTS, AUB-EN, and SAT, show that only about 20-25 percent of applicants to universities get the required scores for joining regular study programs, and the remaining admitted students would have to join an intensive English remedial course before they could take major courses (Shaaban, 2013). The recent trends in the field of education in response to the demands of the globalized job market placed great emphasis on the development of what came to be known as ‘21st-century learning skills’ such as critical thinking and problem solving, intra- and inter-cultural communication, creativity and innovation, digital knowledge, effective oral and written communication, and collaboration and teamwork (Scott, 2015; Suarta et al, 2017). These new educational expectations have added to the burden of language communication educators, a burden that could be made lighter only through restructuring of curricula and teaching practices in order to primarily provide these practitioners with the proper training to help them sharpen and redirect their goals, skills, attitudes, and practices in order to fulfill their mission adequately

The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2019

Despite the vast amount of research focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the effects of extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation have been scarcely investigated. Extrinsic factors can be seen as synergistic extrinsic motivators when they have a positive effect on the outcome. The present study investigates synergistic extrinsic motivators that organizations can use to foster creativity and innovation of their intrinsically motivated knowledge workers. The analysis is based on Amabile and Pratt’s dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations combined with elements from Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory. The quantitative data stemmed from 90 knowledge workers of an international consulting company who participated in an online self-assessment. In exploratory factor analyses, extrinsic motivation items consolidated two factors “relational rewards” and “transactional rewards”, while creativity and innovation items resulted in a one-factor solution, called “creativity/innovation performance”. The results of hierarchical regression analyses confirmed the widely found positive effects of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative performance. Moreover, the results supported the hypothesis that the extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, moderated the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity/innovation performance significantly and positively. The findings showed the higher the perceived probability of receiving relational rewards and the higher the intrinsic motivation, the greater the positive effect on creative/innovative outcomes. At the same time, the results did not confirm the hypothesis, that the moderator transactional rewards had a statistically significant effect on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance. Finally, the empirical evidence provided practical implications on how to stimulate the creativity/innovation performance of knowledge workers within organizations.

Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change

Article

Full-text available

Mar 1977

Albert Bandura

Presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Factors influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arise from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. (21/2 p ref)

Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investigation

Book

Full-text available

Jan 1992

The book describes the theoretical background of Group Investigation (GI), presents the essence of GI, outlines how to set the stage for GI, presents five examples of GI projects in various subjects and grades, research studies of its effectiveness, and, finally, two examples of teacher training workshops for GI.

Is the Grammar-Instruction Approach an Old-Fashioned Method in Comparison to the Communicative Approach in Non-Native Contexts? A Case Study of Students and Teachers’ Perceptions

Article

Dec 2016

Nancy Nehme

With the height of the new and updated approaches in English Language Teaching (ELT), the communicative approach rises among them as the ultimate solution against the so-called oldfashioned methods. Therefore, in a globalized world, institutions in the non-native realms started to adopt the new trends to cope with the international change that occurred in the English teaching field. Grammar Translation was and is still used at an educational level because it is considered to be more effective in teaching a foreign level with restricted opportunities of use. Thus in English Foreign Language (EFL) circumstances, can a communicative approach fulfill its effectiveness in terms of proficiency without grammar instruction? Are EFL students fully adept to acquire a foreign language without a focus on its rules? Do teachers promote the communicative approach to be solely used in their classrooms? This paper examines this concern by taking into account those questions from students and teachers’ perceptions in an English language course in a private university in North Lebanon. This paper will discuss both students and teachers’ attitudes towards both the communicative and grammar approaches in terms of learning and teaching the English language in an EFL context

Guide to Blended Learning

Book

Nov 2018

The Guide to Blended Learning is an introduction using technology and distance education teaching strategies with traditional, face-to-face classroom activities. This Guide has been designed to assist teachers adopt blended learning strategies through a step-by-step approach taking constructivist and design-based approach and reflecting on decisions taken to provide authentic learning experience in their own contexts. It provides a general discussion of types of blended learning in reference to the level of education, the needs of the students, and the subject being taught. This discussion and associated activities also review pedagogy, materials, and technology usage. Divided into eight chapters, each of these provide an overview video that triggers learning events for the teachers to focus and work on implementing blending learning.

Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd Ed.

Book

Jan 1993

Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior

Book

Jan 1985

I: Background.- 1. An Introduction.- 2. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination.- II: Self-Determination Theory.- 3. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Perceived Causality and Perceived Competence.- 4. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Interpersonal Communication and Intrapersonal Regulation.- 5. Toward an Organismic Integration Theory: Motivation and Development.- 6. Causality Orientations Theory: Personality Influences on Motivation.- III: Alternative Approaches.- 7. Operant and Attributional Theories.- 8. Information-Processing Theories.- IV: Applications and Implications.- 9. Education.- 10. Psychotherapy.- 11. Work.- 12. Sports.- References.- Author Index.

Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions

Article

Jan 2004

Charles R. Graham

The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning

Article

Nov 2016
RES ORGAN BEHAV

Leveraging insights gained through a burgeoning research literature over the past 28 years, this paper presents a significant revision of the model of creativity and innovation in organizations published in Research in Organizational Behavior in 1988. This update focuses primarily on the individual-level psychological processes implicated in creativity that have been illuminated by recent research, and highlights organizational work environment influences on those processes. We revisit basic assumptions underlying the 1988 model, modify certain components and causal connections, and introduce four new constructs into the model: (1) a sense of progress in creative idea development; (2) the meaningfulness of the work to those carrying it out; (3) affect; and (4) synergistic extrinsic motivation. Throughout, we propose ways in which the components underlying individual and team creativity can both influence and be influenced by organizational factors crucial to innovation.

The Influence of Differentiated Instruction on Lebanese Students’ Motivation, Knowledge, and Engagement

Abstract

Recommended publications

What Is Teaching? Inside the Black Box of What Teachers Do

A influência da motivação intrínseca e do engajamento multidimensional no desempenho do aluno, sob a...

Using Students’ Assessment Mistakes and Learning Deficits to Enhance Motivation and Learning

EU Simulations and Engagement: Motivating Greater Interest in European Union Politics