Considering the increased learner variance and the failure of the ‘one-size-fits-all’ delivery system, technology differentiated instruction seems to be an ideal solution. This teaching philosophy enables educators to modify curricula, resources, learning tasks and products so as to meet students’ needs and abilities. In addition, the integration of technology in the foreign language classroom is considered beneficial for the development of students’ receptive skills; listening and reading comprehension. This study aims at presenting a systematic research conducted in a foreign language school in northern Greece. 100 students, aged 9-11, participated in the research, half of whom received differentiated instruction assisted with technology and constituted the experimental group and the other half, called control group, received traditional, non–differentiated instruction without integrating technology. The level of the students was A1-A2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Data were collected through a needs analysis questionnaire, an interest inventory, a learning style inventory, a pre-, while-, and post- test. Students’ performance was determined through the tests. In addition, experimental students’ performance on listening and reading comprehension was also compared to their age and gender. Findings of the study showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of their reading and listening scores.

1. TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION ON EFL GREEK
LEARNERS’ RECEPTIVE SKILLS
PERFORMANCE
CHRISTINA RAPTI, ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF
THESSALONIKI

2. WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
OR DI?
Differentiation or DI can be defined as an approach to teaching
in which teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching
methods, resources, learning activities, and student products to
address the diverse needs of individual students and small
groups of students to maximize the learning opportunity for each
student in a classroom (Byrnes, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999)

3. RESEARCH IN THE AREA
Findings drawn from several researches on DI have proved the
effectiveness of implementing this teaching method in
heterogeneous classes
“[E]ffective DI promotes the equity dimension of instructional effectiveness
and improves their achievement levels, regardless of their socioeconomic
status” (Valiandes, 2015, p.12).
 Middle school inclusive science classes implementing DI have shown
positive results (Simpkins, Mastropieri, Scruggs, 2009).
 DI based on students’ learning style was effective (Landrum & McDuffie,
2010) .

4. Οther studies showed the positive effects of DI on students’
mathematical learning (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010).
DI improved both teaching and learning (Tomlinson, 1999; Good &
Brophy, 2003).
Bowerman (2005), Corley (2005) and McAdamis (2001) deduce that
students with poor academic performance, sharpened up significantly
 Students’ reading performance was ameliorated (Firmender,Reis &
Sweeny, 2013), as well as their reading fluency and comprehension (
Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller & Kaniskan, 2011).

5. PARTICIPANTS
• Number : 100 students
• Age : 9-11 years old
• Gender : 34 boys – 66 girls
• Proficiency level: A1-A2
(CEFR)
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTUAL
LEARNING STYLES
Visuals
50%Auditor
y
39%
Kinesth
etic
11%

6. MATERIALS
a needs analysis questionnaire
an interest inventory
the learning style survey by Cohen, Oxford and Chi (2001)
reading and listening comprehension tests assigned before, during
and after technology DI
Students’ performance was evaluated through the reading
comprehension and the listening comprehension test scores.

7. PROCEDURE
The 34 boys and 66 girls aged between 9-11, equally divided in two
groups, that is 50 students in the experimental and 50 students in the
control group, participated in the study.
Experimental group: 5 groups of ten students
Control group: 5 groups of ten students
They participated in three 60-minute sessions per week and the overall
study focused on 20 lessons delivered over a 7-week period.

8. PROCEDURE
The design and integration of DI required that teachers be aware of students’
readiness, interests, learning styles and preferences.
FIRST STEPS
Learners were given Cohen, Oxford and Chi’s learning style
survey so as to determine their perceptual learning style and adapt
the lessons accordingly.
The interest inventory and the needs analysis questionnaire were
employed in order to determine students’ interests and needs,
respectively.
Before the implementation of technology differentiated instruction, a
listening and a reading test were taken by the 100 participants of
the research to determine students’ level in both listening and reading
comprehension, as the lessons had to be adapted to each learner’s
abilities.

9. PROCEDURE
NEXT STEPS
After the results of the tests were obtained, students were randomly
divided in 2 major groups (experimental and control).
Experimental students attended 20 lessons of technology differentiated
instruction. The technological tools integrated into differentiated
instruction were: Buncee, Padlet, Prezi, Kahoot, Animaker Edify,
GoAnimate/ Vyond, hp REVEAL, Isuu, QR code app, Audacity and
Google docs.
Control students received traditional instruction with no technological
tools involved in the teaching process. The textbook is common for the 2
major groups and the main units of instruction are the same for the two
groups. Based on the needs analysis questionnaire and the interest
inventory extra content -adapted to the learners’ needs- was added to the

10. PROCEDURE
After students had received 10 lessons (traditional and technology
differentiated), they were asked to take the same listening and reading
test (while- test in listening and reading).
The content of the test-its exercises - remained the same throughout
the 3 phases of the research, that is before the lessons, after the tenth
lesson and at the end of the 20 lessons.
Finally, as soon as students of both experimental and control groups
received 20 lessons in total, they took the post-tests so as to
determine any improvement in terms of their listening and reading
skills.

11. READING TEST RESULTS
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
6
8
10
19.5
21 21
14.09
16.75
18.85
Reading
Pre-test
Reading
While-test
Reading
Post-test
Minimum Maximum Mean
CONTROL GROUP
10 9.5
11.5
19 19
21
13.94 14.56
16.7
Reading
Pre-test
Reading
While-test
Reading
Post-test
Minimum Maximum Mean

12. LISTENING TEST RESULTS
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
7
9
11
19 20 21
14.95
16.5
18.9
Listening
Pre-test
Listening
While-test
Listening
Post-test
Minimum Maximum Mean
CONTROL GROUP
9 9
11
19 20 21
14.69 14.18
15.69
Listening
Pre-Test
Listening
While-Test
Listening
Post-Test
Minimum Maximum Mean

13. IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION ON THE TWO GROUPS
For experimental students Sig.=0.00 for all tests. The same is also true for control group students apart from
Listening-while and pre-tests (Sig=0,49). Thus, traditional methods show poor first stage progress in comparison to
technology differentiated instruction.

14. DISCUSSION
Results show that in every experimental class all listed differences
are significantly greater than zero. This clearly shows that technology
differentiated instruction is effective in terms of receptive skills
improvement. Additionally, what can be derived from the present
research is that when technology differentiated instruction is involved,
there are no major differences in terms of improvement among
experimental classes.
 Traditional methods show poor first stage progress in comparison to
technology differentiated instruction.

15. ADDITIONAL POINTS TO CONSIDER
Gender
Age
Perceptual learning style

16. TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
AND GENDER : MALES AND FEMALES
Results derived from post -tests in reading (Sig. =0.01<0.05) and listening (Sig. =0.00<0.05)
showed that females from the experimental group achieved better results compared to females from
the control group. Male students’ scores improve compared to control students’ scores in reading
(Sig.=0.005<0.05) while-tests. Findings, also, show that in reading (0.001<0.005) and listening
(0.005<0.05) post-tests, males from the experimental group outperformed those of the control group.
Females show a slightly better performance than males.

17. TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
AND AGE: 9-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS
Experimental and control
student performances for
students aged 9 do not differ
significantly in both the
listening and reading pre-,
while and post-tests (Sig. >
0.05 in all cases). Thus,
technology differentiated
instruction and traditional
one display the same results
for 9-year-olds.

18. TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
AND AGE: 10-YEAR-OLD STUDENTSIn both while and post-tests
experimental students performed
significantly better that control
students. More specifically in reading
while-test (Sig.=0.04<0.05) and
listening while-test (Sig.=0.01<0.05)
experimental students outperformed
the control ones. As regards the post-
tests, the experimental group achieved
better results in reading
(Sig.=0.00<0.05) and listening
(Sig.=0.00<0.05), showing that
students at the age of 10 are benefitted
from technology differentiated
instruction.

19. TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
AND AGE: 11-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS
Ιn both while and post-tests
experimental students performed
significantly better that control
students. Ιn reading while-test and
listening while-test
(Sig.=0.04<0.05) experimental
students outperformed control
ones. In post-tests, the
experimental group achieved
better results in reading
(Sig.=0.01<0.05) and listening
(Sig.=0.03<0.05), showing that
students at the age of 11 are
benefitted from technology

20. TECHNOLOGY AND PERCEPTUAL LEARNING
STYLES : VISUAL LEARNERSIn while- and post-tests experimental
students performed significantly better that
control students. In reading (Sig.=0.001<0.05)
and listening (Sig.=0.04<0.05) while-test
visual students of the experimental group
performed better. Results also showed that in
reading (Sig.=0.000<0.05) and listening
(Sig.=0.002<0.05) post-tests, the visual
experimental group outperformed the visual
control group. Therefore, visual learners are
clearly benefited from technology
differentiated instruction. It can be suggested
that the technological tools- employing visual
material- integrated in the instruction,
facilitate the learning process and assist
learners in comprehending audio and written
texts.

21. TECHNOLOGY AND PERCEPTUAL LEARNING
STYLES: AUDITORY LEARNERS
The performances between the two
major groups (auditory control –
auditory experimental) do differ as
regards listening (Sig=0.001<0.005)
and reading (Sig.=0.02< 0.05) while-
tests, since experimental students
achieved better results than control
students. In addition, post-test results
in reading (Sig.=0.00<0.05) and
listening (Sig.= 0.00< 0.05) show
better outcomes for the experimental
students.

22. TECHNOLOGY AND PERCEPTUAL LEARNING
STYLES: KINESTHETIC LEARNERSAs it can be derived from the
table above, there is not any
significant difference in terms of the
listening (Sig=0.454>0.05) and
reading (Sig= 0.291> 0.05) pre-test
scores of the kinesthetic control and
students. What is also noteworthy is
that no significant differences do
exist both in listening
(Sig=0.854>0.05) and reading
(Sig=0.700>0.05) post-tests of
control and experimental kinesthetic
students. Therefore, technology
differentiated instruction is not
effective for kinesthetic learners.

23. RESULTS-DISCUSSION
The results that emerged from the study indicated:
Though in the listening and reading pre-test both groups performed in
the same way, the experimental group students outperformed the
control group students in both while- and post-listening and reading
tests. Clearly, the fact that differentiated instruction is an approach to
teaching and learning founded on inclusive education theories, proves
the consequent improvement in students’ scores.
Though control group students did not have the same successful
performance as the experimental group students, they had the same
performance levels among them. Thus, it can be suggested that even
though students were at a similar level, technology differentiated
instruction is more effective than traditional as it leads to improved
receptive skills performance.

24. Correlations among experimental classes showed no statistically
significant differences in terms of their scores. This shows that despite
the fact that two out of the three classes had another educator,
instruction was effective as it was targeted to each learner’s needs.

25. Impact of Age, Gender, Perceptual Learning Style
Age is clearly a variable that determines mature students’ scores.
Technology differentiated instruction is more beneficial for older children
than younger ones. In particular, though 10-year-old and 11-year-old
students’ pre-test listening and reading scores did not significantly differ,
they performed significantly better in while- and post- listening and reading
tests. However, 9-year-old students did not achieve better results in both
tests.
Technology differentiated instruction seems to be more beneficial than
traditional for both sexes but it is noteworthy that females from the
experimental group performed even better than males. This finding proves a
number of theories that stipulated the fact that the female brain is much
more developed in areas responsible for language comprehension and
production (Boettger, 2017). Therefore, in both cases brain development is
central to the effectiveness of this teaching method while there seems to be
a certain age limit that prevents learners from the advantages of technology
differentiated instruction.

26. Clearly, it can be suggested that visual and auditory students
benefited from the Web 2.0 tools involved in the teaching process. On
the other hand, kinesthetic students did not show any significant
improvement in any of the tests. This may be imputed to the fact that
students in this research were not tested for ADHD and studies suggest
that there is an overlap between kinesthetics and children diagnosed
with ADHD. Therefore, it can be derived that -though differentiated
instruction is founded on the principles of inclusive education and
struggling students could be effectively assisted – technology
differentiated instruction is not so effective for these learners or it can
be hypothesized that teachers could not deal with distraction issues
when learners were asked to execute tasks in front of the computer
screen or that this 7-week period was not enough for them. Obviously,
the basic limitation of our research is the fact that the learners
participating in the research were not tested for any type of learning
difficulty and hence further future research should consider learning
difficulties students may suffer from, so as to ensure accurate results.

27.  Auditory learners can improve their performance in receptive skills
due to the fact that this type of instruction incorporates technological
tools and materials that cater to their strengths. Videos (with or
without subtitles), audiovisual presentations on Buncee, Glogster,
Prezi, Padlet definitely contributed to their receptive skills
improvement.

28. REFERENCES
Bowerman, M. (2005). Technology for all: Successful strategies for
meeting the needs of diverse learners. T.H.E. Journal, 32 (10), 20-23.
Böttger, H. (2017). About Boyz 'n' Girlz: Consider the
differences. Grundschule Englisch, (58), 31–33.
Byrnes,J. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instructional
contexts. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chamberlin, M. & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated
instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college
students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29, 113-139,
doi:10.1093/teamat/hrq006
Cohen, A.D.; Oxford, R.L.; Chi, J.C. Learning Style Survey: Assessing
Your Own Learning Styles. Available online:
http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/LearningStyleSurvey_MAXSA

29. Corley, M. (2005). Differentiated instruction: Adjusting to the needs of all
learners. Connecting Research and Practice,7 (C), 1-25.
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading
comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms:
The need or differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 57(I), 3e14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460084.
Good, T.L, & Brophy, J.E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.)
Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
Landrum,T. & McDuffie K. (2010) Learning Styles in the Age of
Differentiated Instruction, Exceptionality, 18:1, 6-17, DOI:
10.1080/09362830903462441
McAdamis,S. (2001). “Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety
of student needs”. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1-5.

30. Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R.
B. (2011). The effect of differentiated instruction and enrichment
pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462e501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891.
Simpkins P., Mastropieri A., Scruggs, T. (2009). Differentiated
curriculum enhancements in inclusive fifth-grade science classes.
Remedial and Special Education, 30, pp. 300-308
Tomlinson,C.A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to
the Needs of the Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supeervision and Curriculum Development.
Valiandes, S. 2015. Evaluating the Impact of Differentiated Instruction
on Literacy and Reading in Mixed Ability Classrooms: Quality and
Equity Dimensions of Education Effectiveness. Studies in Educational
Evaluation 45: 17–26.10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.005