Communicative Grammar and Differentiated Teaching in the English
Class: Students’ Perspective
Ana ARÁN SÁNCHEZ
Escuela Normal Rural “Ricardo Flores Magón”
Suggested Citation: Arán, Ana. (2023). Communicative Grammar and Differentiated Teaching in the English Class:Students‘ Perspective. Nagoya JALT Journal, X(1), xxx–xxx.

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to identify students' perceptions about the implementation ofdifferentiated instruction to develop communicative grammar in the English classroom. It
was constructed under the socio-critical paradigm and utilized a qualitative approach, using
the action-research methodology. The population sample comprised first-grade students
enrolled in the bachelor‘s degree program in preschool and elementary education, who wereattending a public university located in the north of Mexico. The experience was documented
during the 2020-2021 school year, through in-depth interviews with key informants andparticipative observation, using a timetable that details the activities, differentiation process,and the target grammar structure. Students were able to identify several elements ofdifferentiation in the subject, which they considered made the English class a motivating andrewarding learning experience.
Keywords: Differentiated Teaching, Communicative Grammar, Higher Education, English
Teaching.

Communicative Grammar and Differentiated Teaching in the English Class: Students’
Perspective
The way English teachers approach grammar content in the class defines the kind of
pedagogy utilized in the teaching and learning process (López-Rama and Luque-Agulló,
2012). However, recent studies in higher education have found that professors often teachgrammar in the same way as they were taught, namely, using traditional approaches (Newby,2015). On the other hand, and according to Rojas (1995), Communicative Language Teachingis based on using the target language in real situations, so students can interact naturally in acommunicative act. Additionally, differentiated teaching or differentiated instruction is amethodology that can be used to work with grammatical contents from the communicative
approach, because it caters to the students‘ particular needs, strengths, and learning
preferences (Heacox, 2014).
Nowadays, English learning at a university level is part of almost all curricula,because of its international importance as a global language. In the case of Normal Rural
Schools, which are higher education institutions in Mexico where students are trained to
become teachers, this subject has been mandatory since the educational reform of 2012. The
2017 program was based on the communicative approach, and some of the principles that areincluded in the syllabus are closely related to the differentiated teaching methodology. This
research used those two aspects to teach one of the most difficult elements of language
instruction, which students often find tedious and complex: grammar. Accordingly, thepurpose of this investigation was to identify students‘ perceptions about their experience ingrammar learning with this teaching approach.
Theoretical Background
The Communicative Approach
Communicative competence is defined as "the skill to use language in social interaction,
based on a negotiation of meanings between two speakers" (Benrenguer-Román, et al., 2016,p.19). When a person acquires this skill, it means they are able to share experiences andexchange ideas according to the context and the people around them, in a fluent and confidentway (Sánchez and Pérez, 2020). As a result, the communicative approach helps students
acquire this competence in the target language, so they are able to share their values, ideas,
and opinions while developing the four skills from a functional and meaningful approach(Zambrano and Alirio, 2001). According to this perspective, language structures are practiced
both orally and in writing (VunPhiHo and The Binh, 2014), so the teaching methodologies
that are derived from this approach are the opposite of traditional methods based on direct
learning by the teacher, as Sánchez and Perez (2000) state.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) asserts that language is always usedwithin a social context, so it should not be taught in an isolated way (Chang, 2011).
Consequently, it is based on the premise that humans are social beings who communicate intheir everyday life within different contexts: the bank, the supermarket, or the movie theatre,
for example. These are situations in which specific vocabulary words and grammar structures
are used, so the aim is that students can be prepared for when they have to face thesecircumstances in real life and use the target language (Beltrán, 2017).
To achieve that goal, realia—authentic materials like magazines, newspapers,
brochures, songs, or movies—are employed; objects that a native speaker uses in their daily
activities and have not been altered for a pedagogical purpose (Chung, 2007). In thisapproach, the traditional roles of teacher and student change. According to Beltrán (2017), thelearner has to be actively involved in the negotiation of meanings, while the professor acts asa guide who helps the student acquire communicative competence.
The Communicative Approach: Grammar.
According to Rojas (1995), communicative grammar competence is "the skill to use
and understand a structure within a variety of situations, in a spontaneous way" (p. 172).
Grammar teaching from this perspective indicates that students are using what they learn in apractical way (Newby, 2015). Consequently, Medina (2000) points out that classwork should
focus on language use in a communicative way. It has two objectives: presenting how thegrammar structures are used, together with their meaning in a specific situation, anddescribing them through authentic written and spoken examples. The main purpose ofcommunicative grammar activities is to convey meaning (Newby, 2015), so language isacquired through frequent conversational practices.
The aforementioned principles should resonate in the methodology employed whenteaching grammar structures: activities should not focus solely on having the student identify
grammar structures and patterns in the target language; they should be able to understandthem in order to use them (Medina, 2000). Rojas (1995) recommends that classes should beplanned to enable students to use the structures naturally, with enough time to acquire themthrough practice in different variations. Therefore, teachers should help students connect the
new grammar contents with the ones they are familiar with (in the target language and even
their native one), so the new contents become familiar by associating them with theirprevious knowledge (López-Rama & Luque-Agullló, 2012).
Thus, one of the most relevant advantages of this teaching perspective, whencompared to more traditional ones, is the active role that students assume in their learning
process. The practical use of the grammar structures increases the sense of accomplishment
and motivation level, since they feel able to communicate in a different language, inmeaningful activities that are connected to their everyday life (Ibid).
Differentiated Teaching

The higher education student population is very diverse, tending to have different
proficiency levels due to their previous academic and non-academic experiences, learning
motivation, or interests; they also have different needs and learning preferences. That is why
the differentiated teaching methodology, also known as differentiated instruction, is a viableoption in language teaching, as it considers all of these factors and includes them in theteaching and learning process (Marriot and Zambrano, 2018).
In fact, according to Ismajli and Imami-Morina (2018), this approach emerges as ananswer to students' diversity, as it recognizes that the pace at which individuals progress or
the activities they need to acquire knowledge are not the same. Differentiated Teachingincorporates some aspects of the teaching and learning process that take place in multigrade
schools because the teacher works with a group of students who have different proficiency
levels (Arán and Ríos, 2020). In second language learning, "students need different learning
paths to successfully acquire knowledge and achieve the proposed objectives and standards"(Fabere et al., 2016, p.117). Therefore, the teacher offers the students different routes tolearning, thus achieving better results (Badillo, 2020).
Academic motivation implies that the activities and tasks that students need toaccomplish help them familiarize with theoretical content, but also that they are able to usethat information in a practical way. Additionally, the material should be interesting andrelevant, fostering an active learning process. By considering these principles, the connection
between this methodology and the communicative approach to teaching grammar becomesapparent, as they share common elements such as active learning, practical use of learning
contents, and connecting those with everyday life so they become meaningful. Heacox (2014)
states some of the purposes of differentiated instruction:

Developing challenging and motivating tasks for each learner.

Providing a flexible approach to content, instruction, and product.



Developing activities based on essential topics, processes, and meaningful skills, aswell as using different ways to present the contents.

Tending to students‘ needs, interests, and learning preferences.
According to Tomlinson (2000), teachers can differentiate in three elements of theclass: content, process, or product, based on students‘ aptitude level, interests, or learning
preferences. Content refers to the topics included in the syllabus, process to the activities thatlearners carry out to acquire knowledge, and product is the projects that students construct todemonstrate what they have learned, which are then assessed by the teacher. On the other
hand, aptitude relates to students‘ performance level, interests to the topics that ignite theircuriosity, and learning preference includes different classifications, such as the multiple
intelligences theory or how we process information (visually, orally, or kinesthetically).
These ideas are summarized below.
Figure 1
Differentiation Process
Teacher candifferentiate in:Content

Process

Product

According to:Students' interests

Students' aptitudes

Student' learning
profileNote. Arán and Ríos (2020), based on Tomlinson (2000)
This methodology demands that teachers be aware that each student is different, sothey have to provide effective teaching by adapting the content, process, and productaccording to the students‘ learning style and interests (Fabre et al., 2016). According toMarriot and Zambrano (2018), differentiated teachingcan improve students‘ performancelevels since they get to work with innovative and meaningful activities. Before implementing
this methodology, teachers should identify students' interests, aptitudes, and learning
preferences through different techniques and instruments, such as interviews, classobservation, and assessment (Ismajli &ImamiMorina, 2018), so they can later plan anddesign an adequate learning path. Regarding language teaching and the communicative
approach, using this methodology involves:
Enables the teacher to provide resources that can help students advance from basic communicative
language to an academic discourse required to achieve complex tasks. Since they do not practice thelanguage at home, schools must help overcome that gap and provide changes so they get involved inmeaningful language practice (Marriot and Zambrano, 2018, p.158).

The fact that the communicative approach is part of the new active teaching trends,
which are opposed to the traditional ones, makes differentiated instruction a useful option inlanguage learning (Ismajli and Imami-Morina, 2018). A concrete example of this statement iswhen working with reading assignments in the English classroom and providing students
with multilevel texts, so they can use texts that are aligned with their own reading level andparticular skills, thus advancing from common language points to a more advanced level(Marriot and Zambrano, 2018, p.158).
MethodThis research utilizes the interpretative framework since its purpose is to examine asituation in a particular context (Ricoy, 2006). According to Walker (2022), the aim tounderstand guides this paradigm because it seeks to give meaning to participants' perceptions.
Likewise, the chosen approach is qualitative, focusing on individuals' actions according totheir experiences (Rodríguez, Gil, and García, 1996) and considering that educational reality
is a social construct (Sánchez, 2013). Following the qualitative tradition, it employs the casestudy methodology, which explores various situations within a specific phenomenon(Chaverra et al., 2019). This methodology examines the phenomenon in its natural setting andutilizes an intensive type of study (Heale and Twycross, 2017).
Participants and the Research Context
The current syllabus for English teaching at Normal Schools used in the bachelor‘s
degree for preschool education and elementary education is based on the communicative

approach. One of the program‘s principles states that teachers should focus on meaningfulcommunication, with the purpose of developing activities in which the student is able toconvey meaning. Additionally, vocabulary and grammar structures should be taught as part ofconversations or texts (SEP, 2018).
Learning units are organized into three contexts: personal, community, andprofessional. In the personal context, students learn to introduce themselves and talk about
their family and hobbies. In the community context, contents are related to the learner‘s placeof origin, including topics such as flora and fauna, traditional food, and handicrafts. Finally,
the professional context pertains to their future job, covering vocabulary related to subjects,
actions that teachers do, and school materials.
Additionally, there is another syllabus principle related to differentiated instruction,
which states that teachers must "differentiate teaching according to students‘ needs andinterests" (SEP, 2018, p.12). This element is based on the recognition that groups are diverse,with students having varying proficiency levels, previous experiences with the target
language, interests, learning styles, and personal goals. In order to incorporate these aspects,
SEP (2018) recommends that teachers design and implement a wide range of class activities,
as well as introduce tasks that involve different proficiency levels.
This research was conducted at the "Ricardo Flores Magón" Rural Normal School(ENRRFM), a public university in the north of Mexico. It was implemented during the2020-2021 school year with 120 students of the bachelor‘s degree in preschool andelementary education. Of those students, 20 were randomly chosen as key informants forin-depth interviews to explore their perceptions about the class‘ methodology and approach.
ENRRFM is a teacher training school that functions as a boarding school for low-income
women. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, since March 2020, students had to leaveschool and temporarily return to their homes. Consequently, face-to-face classes werecancelled, and the institution had to gradually introduce online education, using synchronoussessions via Zoom or Google Meet, and asynchronous activities using Google Classroom.
A diagnostic instrument was implemented with the students who participated in thisintervention to ascertain their previous academic experiences with English, as well as theirself-assessment of the four basic skills. Multiple intelligences or learning preferences tests
were not used. Therefore, it was decided that, for each task, different proficiency level
activities would be proposed, and the students were free to choose the one they felt most
comfortable with. Tables 1 and 2 showcase the semester‘s content, the grammar structure thatwas taught, and the kind of differentiation that was implemented.
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
Two instruments were used: in-depth interviews and participant observation. The first one is
helpful for collecting information such as knowledge, beliefs, and opinions about a certain
topic, with the advantage that the researcher has the opportunity to interact personally witheach individual (Varguillas and Ribot de Flores, 2007). Similarly, it is based on the idea thateach person gives new meaning to their experiences, articulating them as part of theirpersonal history, and thus contributing to the understanding of the object of study in question(Díaz-Barriga, 2007). On the other hand, participant observation helps the researcher to
identify the activities that individuals perform in their natural environment (Kawuilich, 2005).
It also facilitates gathering information which is "more direct, enriched, profound, andcomplex... in a systematic way" (Sánchez, 2013, p.96).
Data Analysis Instruments and Procedures
The information gathered using the participant observation technique was recorded ina teacher‘s log, where relevant class aspects of each session, both positive and negative, were
documented. These aspects are detailed in tables 1 and 2. The in-depth interviews with the
key informants were recorded and later fully transcribed. Strauss and Corbin‘s (2002)
procedure was used to analyze the information, divided into three phases: description,
conceptual organization, and theory. In the first stage, the information from both instrumentswas combined, to be later organized and classified according to different categories, which isthe second step. Finally, the theory and background research were linked to the obtained data
to explain the results.
Results/Findings
Two analytical categories were established after evaluating the information from the
instruments: differentiated teaching and communicative grammar. Both the key informants'
perceptions expressed in the in-depth interviews and the observation registers were integrated
into those categories.
Differentiated TeachingThis category was divided into two sections: one related to process and productdifferentiation, and another one for differentiation in aptitude, interest, and learning profile.
What differentiation activities are effective in terms of process and product?
For practical reasons, only process and product differentiation were planned in the
English class. The key informants expressed that they are given the opportunity to add apersonal touch to their activities and can make them using the format that is more adequate
for them. They highlighted that this is the only class where they have this freedom because in
the other ones, they always have to use Word format.
They also remarked that each task has a variety of delivery modes, and they canchoose the one they feel more comfortable with. For example, with oral communication
activities, they can either record an audio note or a short video. Additionally, they explainedthat for most of the activities, they have to use their creativity, which made them moreinteresting. In this way, one of the principles that Heacox (2014) establishes about
differentiated teaching is accomplished by giving students a wide variety of formats to workwith. Some of the key informants considered another differentiation element in classregarding the learning evidence; they were able to hand in their work by uploading it toGoogle Classroom or sending them to the teacher using an instant messaging application. Forstudents who lived in very isolated communities, the teacher designed a booklet that was sent
to them by regular mail, and once they were done, they sent it back to school for revision. It
is imperative that the teacher provides students with different paths towards learning.
Regarding assignment variety, teachers explained that usually, the activities differ, andeach time they focus on a different skill; the possibility of choosing helps maintain theirinterest. They also pointed out that some tasks involve all of the class, for example, when theteacher shows a video or a song and they have to participate by identifying a specificgrammar structure. In other occasions, they have to work in pairs to elaborate and record arole-play dialogue, and in other instances, they work individually, for example, by taking aselfie with their favourite food and describing it. Many of the students noted that most of theassignments‘ content involves their everyday life, so they find them practical, and they arelearning something that is close to their personal context. This finding is connected withdifferentiated teaching and the communicative approach because the students use the contents
seen in class in a practical way, and they are meaningful for they resemble their daily life.
About the process, learners observed differentiated instruction when the teacher uses
different games, like bingo, charades, and hangman. One of the activities that were mentioned
the most and turned out to be memorable for the students was when, in a videoconference
session, the teacher prepared a recipe and explained the ingredients and the steps whenworking with the topic of food. In this way, the key informants conveyed that different
activities were used during the teaching and learning process, so they could get familiarizedwith the class‘ contents. This finding ties to Fabre et al., (2016) principle that states: teachers
should offer students different learning paths.
In conclusion, differentiation activities that are effective in terms of both process andproduct include providing students with an assortment of formats to work with, offering themlearning paths that include a variety of activities and including different types of work(individual, paired, team-based and as a whole group).

What differentiation activities are effective in terms of aptitude and learning profile?
Due to time restriction issues and author's recommendations regarding thismethodology, differentiation was focused on aptitude and learning profile, leaving out interest.
Following Ismajli and Imami-Morina‘s (2018) recommendations of getting to know students
by using different instruments, a diagnostic test was applied to identify the learners‘ English
proficiency level. Using that information, the teacher started assigning different-level
activities to each student; basic ones for beginners and more complex versions for advanced
pupils. As the first semester progressed, the strategy changed, and the teacher started todesign three different kinds of asynchronous activities: basic, complex, and more complex,
but now students had the opportunity to choose according to their level.
It was probable that most of the students were going to select the basic level,
regardless of their proficiency level, because it was simpler and required less effort. But thisdid not happen: students who had a lower grade in the diagnostic exam usually answered the
medium-level activities. When asked about that in the interview, they explained that it was totry to improve their English because if they only worked on simple tasks, they were not going
to improve their skills. This finding is connected to another one of Heacox‘s (2014) principles
of differentiated teaching concerning teachers designing activities that are challenging to thelearner.
And students who had a high proficiency level continued to select and work withmore complex tasks so they could solidify their abilities. Their reasoning was that, working
this way, their classmates who had a basic level could learn at their own pace, while they do
not feel limited to continue to improve. This element underlines Marriot and Zambrano‘s(2018) statement about the benefits of using class activities according to the learner‘s aptitudelevel so they can evolve from a beginner stage to a more advanced one.
About aptitude differentiation during the process, the key informants expressed that,during video conferences, the teacher started a new topic with basic content and tasks, andgradually included more complex activities. In connection to that, students emphasized thatteachers should not assume that all of them have a high proficiency level in English justbecause they are higher education students. The learners that had basic skills mentioned thatthey considered that they were able to improve a little bit since the start of the school year
because the English course started with simple contents. They also mentioned that they felt
comfortable asking questions and that it helped that the teacher explained the tasks again
when they didn‘t understand them, which in turn helped them advance. These testimonies
illustrate how differentiated teaching takes into consideration students‘ diversity, for it
respects each individual's learning rhythm (Ismajli &Imami-Morina, 2018).
Concerning learners‘ profiles, differentiated instruction focused on learning stylepreferences, mainly visual and oral. In this regard, students were able to identify activities
such as images, texts, and slides for visual learners; songs, dialogues, audios, andconversation for oral learners, and some that included both, like videos.
Differentiation in product regarding learning style, the key informants described thatusually the assignments involved two skills, such as reading a text and identifying the mainideas, or listening to a conversation and answering comprehension questions. Nevertheless,they were not able to recognize that they were able to carry out assignments in different
modalities, each of them focusing on a learning preference.
For example, for the daily routines content, they had the option to record a voice note,record a video, or make a PowerPoint presentation. This way, the element of differentiatedinstruction responding to students‘ needs and learning preferences (Heacox, 2014) was
addressed in class.
In conclusion, one example of a differentiation activity that is effective in terms ofaptitude consists of providing students with tasks at different level and letting them choose
the one that they feel most comfortable with, so they are challenged yet can progress from a
beginner phase, to a more advanced one. Additionally, content should be taught starting fromthe most basic elements and then progressing to more advanced ones, so the teacher takes
into consideration the students‘ diversity. Finally, regarding learning profiles, class activities
should include visual, oral and kinaesthetic tasks to accommodate learners‘ preferences.
Communicative Grammar
The key informants were asked if the teacher took into consideration their previous
knowledge regarding class topics, since it is one of the main components of thecommunicative grammar approach. They explained that the teacher did frequent reviews of
the topics seen in class, asking them what they remembered about it and monitoring theirwritten participations in the chat box. However, the students did not mention that an informal
diagnostic was implemented before starting a new unit to identify their knowledge level andthus adapting the planning, but they mentioned that the teacher observed what they did or did
not understand about each topic. This is related to what López-Rama and Luque-Agulló(2012) say about the learner connecting what they already know about a certain subject towhat they are learning.
After implementing a brief diagnostic exercise, the teacher gave a brief introduction
about the topic so all the students could get familiarized with it in case it was new for them
before advancing with more complex issues. Regarding this strategy, students explained thatby not taking for granted that all of them are acquainted with a specific subject matter, it
helps them understand the contents of each unit better. Another core principle of thecommunicative grammar approach is to practice the four language skills. Students pointed
out that they worked on listening comprehension by listening to dialogues, conversations, andsongs; reading comprehension with different types of texts, such as short articles and comic
strips. Regarding written expression, they said that they designed a brochure, an infographic,
and also participated in the chat. Oral communication was developed with class participation,interviews, and role-plays. Also, the key informants were able to identify exercises where
they had to use various skills at the same time. These sorts of activities correspond to therecommendation of integrating language structures in one or more language skills as part ofthe communicative approach to grammar teaching (López-Rama & Luque-Agulló, 2012).
Participants indicated that strategies, both in synchronous and asynchronous activities,
were diversified, which made the subject less complex and tedious. Especially when
considering that online learning involves a considerable amount of time in front of a screen,
which can be both physically and mentally demanding. They also highlighted that even if
theoretical content is addressed in class, there is always time to use it in a practical way, as
Newby (2015) and Rojas (1995) state. Regarding class interaction, they reflected upon thefact that sometimes they had to participate in a written way, and in other instances orally. This
was a conscious choice by the teacher in order to work on the class contents in acommunicative way.
Students also identified class activities that were helpful to understand the content thatwas taught, and they were able to work on it in an autonomous way with asynchronous
exercises, which were meaningful to them. In the teacher‘s log, it was documented thatstudents showed a more positive attitude and increased motivation when they were working
with popular songs or short videos of TV series and movies that they were familiar with,which were used to show grammar structures in a natural context and real situations; a way tofavor meaningful learning (Rojas, 1995).
Discussion
Given the previously stated results, it is concluded that participants of this study wereable to identify various differentiation elements in the English course, which they believe
helped improve their motivation and interest towards the class. It should be noted that the key
informants indicated another positive aspect that is related to this methodology but was notpreviously considered as part of it by the teacher/researcher: the option to turn in assignments
using different ways, not only uploading them in Google Classroom but also via instantmessage or regular mail. Another relevant finding is that it worked better to let the students

choose the level of the task they wanted to work with than when the teacher was the one
assigning them according to their proficiency level. This way, pupils that had a basic English
level aimed to improve and strengthen their language skills by doing more complex exercises
than the ones that the teacher/researcher was going to assign to them.
Another important finding is that students expressed that teachers should not assume
that all students have the same proficiency level in the English language. Offering them tasks
that have a different degree of skill helps them feel comfortable in class, as the learners thathave had limited contact with the second language can progress at their own pace, while theones that are more advanced can continue improving their abilities. Likewise, the key
informants pointed out that several principles of the communicative grammar approach were
fulfilled through a variety of activities and by taking into consideration their previous
knowledge. Specifically, they noted that they were able to connect the new contents withthose they already knew.
Conclusion
Differentiation activities that are effective in terms of both process and product,
include providing students with an assortment of formats to work with, offering themlearning paths that include a variety of activities and including different types of work(individual, paired, team-based and as a whole group). Regarding differentiation on aptitude,
teachers can provide students with tasks at different levels, so they can choose the one they
feel more comfortable with. Additionally, content should be taught starting from the mostbasic elements and then progressing to more advanced ones, so the teacher takes into
consideration the students‘ diversity.
Results show that differentiated instruction is a viable alternative to implementing thecommunicative teaching approach in the English class, especially for grammatical content.
Given that this research was implemented in a specific social and geographical context, andwith a relatively small group of students, its findings cannot be replicated exactly.

Nevertheless, it can be concluded that differentiated teaching proved to be a useful alternative
to addressing grammar in the English class, and it has the potential to improve students‘
performance as they increased their motivation and interest towards the subject. Future linesof research should explore the implementation of similar projects in other educational levels
and geographical contexts.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the students who participated in this research for their enthusiastic
collaboration.

BIO DATA
Ana Arán Sánchez holds a PhD in Educational Sciences. She works as a full-time English
teacher and researcher at a public Mexican university located in the North of
Mexico.https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7149-3461

References
Alvarez, Z. &Menegotto, A. (2004). Sobregramáticascomunicativas del inglés y del español[Regarding commuicativegramar of English and Spanish]. AristasRevista de estudios
e investigaciones, 2, 15-31.
https://www.academia.edu/26547173/Sobre_gram%C3%A1ticas_comunicativasdel_
ingl%C3%A9s_y_del_espa%C3%B1ol
Arán, A. y Ríos, V.L. (2020). El aprendizaje del inglés mediante la enseñanza diferenciada[English learning throughdifferentiated Teaching] Educando para Educar,39, 53-74.
https://beceneslp.edu.mx/ojs2/index.php/epe/article/view/67
Badillo, L.F. (2020). Adaptación curricular y enseñanza diferenciada en el bachillerato
universitario. [Curricular adaptation and differentiated Teaching an University
baccalaureate]. Revista del Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades para el Bachillerato,
12(32), 35-39. https://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/eutopia/article/view/77398
Beltrán, M- (2017). El aprendizaje del idioma inglés como lengua extranjera [Learning
English as a foreign language]. Bol. Redipe, 6(4), 91-8.
https://doi.org/10.36260/rbr.v6i4.227
Berenguer-Román, I., Torres-Berenguer, I. & Roca-Revilla, M. (2016). La competencia
comunicativa en la enseñanza de idiomas. [The communicativecompetence inlanguage Teaching]. Dominio de las Ciencias, 2(2), 25-31.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5761589
Chang, S. (2011). A Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative
Approach in Teaching English Grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13-24.
http://dx.doi.org.10.5539/elt.v4n2p13
Chung, S.F. (2017). A communicative approach to teaching grammar theory and practice.
The English Teacher, 34, 33-50.https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18896808

Chaverra, B.E., Gaviria, D.F. & González, E.V. (2019). El estudio de caso como alternativa
metodológica en la investigación en educación física, deporte y actividad
física.[Case study as a methodological alternative in researching physical education,
sports and physical activity].Conceptualización y aplicación. Retos, 35, 422-427.
https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/article/view/60168
Díaz-Barriga, A. (2007). La entrevista a profundidad.[The in-depth interview].TRAMAS.
Subjetividad y Procesos Sociales, (3),161-178.https://tramas.xoc.uam.mx/index.php/tramas/article/view/54
Fabre, P., Calero, J.L. & Albán, J.J. (2016). La enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera
en el Ecuador [Teaching English as a foreign language in Ecuador]. Didasc@lia:
Didáctica y Educación, 7(2), 109-122.
http://revistas.ult.edu.cu/index.php/didascalia/article/view/479
Heacox, D. (2014). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: how to reach andteach all learners. FreespiritPub

Heale, R., &Twycross, A. (2017). What is a case study?.Evidence-based nursing, 21 (1), 7-8
https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845
Ismajli, H. &Imami-Morina, I. (2018). Differentiated Instruction: Understanding andApplying Interactive Strategies to Meet the Needs of all the Students. International
Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 207-218. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1183415
Kawulich, B. (2005). La observaciónparticipantecomométodo de recolección de datos[ParticipativeObservation as a data collectionmethod].FQS, 6(2).
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/
López-Rama, J. & Luque-Agulló, G. (2012). The role of grammar teaching: from
communicative approaches to the common European framework of reference forlanguages. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, (7),179-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2012.1134
Marriot, H. & Zambrano, A.M. (20018). Implementando la instrucción diferenciada en elaula de clase de idioma extranjero [Implementingdifferentiated Teaching in a theforeignlangauge classroom]. INNOVA Research Journal, 3(5), 155-166.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6778652
Medina, L. (2000). Gramadinámica: unapropuestateóricometodológica para
estimularcompetenciacomunicativa a partir de la gramática. [Gramadynamics: atheoretical and methodological proposal to stimulate the communicative competencefrom grammar]. Onomázein, 5, 295-299.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=134518327019
Newby, D. (2015). The role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A cognitive Communicative
approach. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(2), 13–34.
http://dx.doi.org.10.32601/ejal.460614
Sánchez, V. y Pérez, O. (2020). Communicative Approach in the Teaching-Learning Processof English as a Foreign language. Revista ConCiencia, 5(2), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.32654/CONCIENCIAEPG.5-2.1
Ricoy, C. (2006). Contribución sobre los paradigmas de investigación. [Contribution about
Research paradigms]. Educação. Revista do Centro de Educação, 31(1), 11-22.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=117117257002
Rojas, O. (1995). Teaching communicative grammar at the discourse level. Encuentro:
revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas, 8, 173-189.
http://hdl.handle.net/10017/902
Rodríguez, G., Gil, J. & García, E. (1996). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa[Qualitative Research methodology]. Ediciones Aljibe: Granada.

Salazar, V. (2006). Gramática y Enseñanza comunicativa del español-lengua extranjera[Grammar and communicative Teaching of Spanish as a foreign language]. Marco
Ele, Revista de Didáctica Español Lengua Extranjera, 2, 1-34.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=92152371005
Sánchez, R. (2013). La observación participante como escenario y configuración de ladiversidad de significados. [Participative observation as a scenery and configurationof meanings diversity]. En Observar, escuchar y comprender. Sobre la tradición
cualitativa en la investigación social. México: FLACSO.
SEP (2018). Plan de estudios licenciatura en educación primaria.[Syllabus for the elementary
education bachelor‘sdegree]
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas yprocedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada.[Qualitative Research basis.
Techniques and procedures to develop grounded theory]. Colombia: Universidad de
Antioquía.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades.Eric Digest.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443572
Zambrano, L. & Alirio, E. (2001). Aplicación del enfoquecomunicativo a laenseñanza-aprendizaje del inglésenlosestablecimientosensecundaria deNevia.[Implementation of the communicative approach for English learning in
Nevia‘s middle school].Entorno, 2(14), 27-32.
https://doi.org/10.25054/01247905.364
Varguillas, C.S. & Ribot de Flores, S. (2007). Implicaciones conceptuales y metodológicas enla aplicación de la entrevista en profundidad. [Conceptual and methodologicalimplications of implementing in-depth interviews]. Laurus, 13(23), 249-262.
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=76102313

Vu Phi Ho, P. & The Binh, N. (2014). The Effects of Communicative Grammar Teaching on
Students‘ Achievement of Grammatical Knowledge and Oral Production. English
Language Teaching, 7 (6). http://dx.doi.org.10.5539/elt.v7n6p74

Table 1
First Semester
Contents

GrammarContext

Category

Activities

Differentiation

Describe photographs of famous families, songsin learningand movies with verb to be. Participation in

profile/process

Google Classroom forum to present their

Structure
Introducing my

Verb to be

Personalfamilyfamilies.
Describing

Descriptive

rooms in a
house

Personal

Differentiation

Choose one of three possible dialogues (basic,

adjectives. Thereincomplex and more complex), answer listening

is/there are

aptitude/process

comprehension questions..

Differentiation

Record a video, audio note or make Power Pointin learning

presentation explaining a day in the students‘ life

A/an
Sharing daily

Simple present

Personal

routines

profile/productExchange

Descriptive

information

Community

Differentiation

Students choose one ecosystem, they have toadjectives. Therein learning

research its fauna and flora and make aninfo

about flora andis/there areprofile/productgraphic, short documentary video o brochure

fauna

A/an

about it.

Simple present
Describe

Present

actions thatteachers andProfessional

Differentiation

Teacher shows a comic strip and classrooms

continuousin learning

photos so students describe the actions using the

Action verbs

profile/process

present continuous. In the video conference,

students

teacher plays ―charades‖ with the action verbs

perform

vocabulary.

Explain the

Modal verbs

Professional

Differentiation

Teacher reads a Dr. Seuss story that includes

characteristics

in learningmodal verbs, and shows videos teachers.

of a great

profile/process

Students have to classify the characteristics of ateacherNote. Elaborated by the author.

good teacher according to the modal verbs.

Table 2
Second Semester
Contents

GrammarContext

Category

Activities

Structure
Make, accept

Present

and reject plans

continuous

Personal

Differentiation in

Choose one of the 3 possible oral

aptitude/productcommunication activities (basic, more
complex, complex), invent a role playabout making plans.

Give indications

Wh-questions

Personal

to get to a place.

Differentiation in

Identify wh-words in a song, role play

aptitude/process

about giving instructions, Google
Classroom forum participation andfeedback

Explain a

Simple Present

Community

Differentiation in

Choose one of the following activities: takerecipe‘slearning

a selfie with my favourite dish, make aingredients andprofile/processtutorial recipe video or write a recipe.

Differentiation in

Multiple choice exercise to describe a

steps
Describe

Wh-questions

Community

handcrafts

Descriptive

learning profile,handcraft, locate in a world map the origin

adjectives

processof different handcrafts and identify the

Verb to be

traditional object that the teacher shows on
Zoom.

Give advice

Have/hasabout health

Modal verbs

Community

Differentiation in

Choose one reading text of the 3 possible

interest/productoptions (basic, more complex andproblems

complex), answer reading comprehension
questions.

Talk about

Have/hassubjects of a

Present

schedule

continuous

Personal

Differentiation inSong with school subjects, telling time

aptitude/process

dictation and using the students ‗schedule
to exchange information about subjects anddaily activities.

Note. Elaborated by the author.