NUFS TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SYMPOSIUM

A Semester of Choice: A Differentiated Approach to Online Learning
JARED J. PEO
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Abstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, a small private university in the
Tokai area transitioned from face-to-face learning to online instruction. While it may have been
deemed a success in many ways, it was challenging to meet diverse learning groups’ needs onsuch short notice. To assist students who learn effectively in different ways and have varied
learning preferences and multiple intelligences, the author modified one online course’s design
to offer flexible forms of participation and flexible assignments with various modes ofcompletion. While the primary goal behind the changes was to improve students’ language
development, the teacher additionally set out to foster student motivation and autonomous
learning. This article will explore three participants’ experiences with differentiated learningin an online environment.
A Semester of Choice: A Differentiated Approach to Online Learning
The COVID-19 pandemic that started in the spring of 2020, placed an enormous burden on the
education system in Japan. In response, a small private university in the Tokai area transitioned
from face-to-face learning to online instruction. During the first semester of this study’s course,
most classes took place synchronously online via Zoom. The decision was made with limited
time to prepare an online curriculum, so while it may have been deemed a success in many
ways, it was challenging to meet the diverse learning groups’ needs. In response to the obstaclesof the first semester, the author implemented a differentiated approach to learning based on theprinciples of adult education, motivation, and universal design for learning.
Adult Education
In 2005, Phillip Ozuah provided a commentary on adult learning. He proposed ten principles
concerning how adults learn best. While some of the principles reflect similar ones of pedagogy,
five stand out for this study: “adults learn best when they want or need to learn something,when they are in a non-threatening environment, when their learning styles are met, when theirprevious experience is valued and utilized,” and “when there are opportunities for them to havecontrol over the learning process” (Ozuah, 2005, p. 86). He argues that adult education should
be more focused on immediacy and a need to learn and promote autonomous learning. As
university students are young adults and choose to continue their education and what they study,
this argument seems applicable to higher education.
Ozuah (2005) suggests that adults are more knowledgeable about their learning preferences
due to having much experience in and out of the classroom. Moreover, adult learners are more
likely to be looking for practical solutions to immediate problems. The course’s benefits andgoals need to be clear and personal to meet the students’ expectations. Adult learners oflanguages often have some specific goals, and they will be more driven to study and improve
if they see the required tasks as useful and effective. A great way to meet these expectations is
to offer options so adult learners can control how and what they learn. Keeping theserecommendations in mind can help improve motivation and engagement.

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
Motivation
Motivation is often discussed as a quantifiable characteristic that students have or do not haveor something they can gain or lose. How to improve motivation has been a significant area of
EFL research as motivation has been connected to achievement (Fan, 2012; Masgoret &Gardner, 2003; Pan & Wu, 2013; Peacock, 1997). Greeno, Collins, and Resnick (1996)
categorized prominent theories on motivation into three groups: extrinsic motivation (theBehaviorist/Empiricist view), intrinsic motivation (the Cognitive/Rationalist view), andengaged participation (the Situative/Pragmatist-Sociohistoric view). Although the groups are
not all-encompassing, adherents to these theories have used them to shape research and datainterpretation. The goal of their research is to find interventions teachers can implement to get
immediate and measurable results.
Olmanson (2016) proposes that these perspectives sometimes ignore moments in classrooms
that are not easily measured or described. Instead, motivation might be better expressed as
moments of acceleration and deceleration where individuals, small groups, and entire classes
can experience changes in motivation either together or alone. These moments are
unpredictable and complex, influenced both intrinsically and extrinsically, but not necessarily
exclusively. Following this line of thought, rather than limiting interventions based on one
theory, it would be better to design a course that allows for as many opportunities foracceleration as possible.
Acknowledging that motivation may be too complex to define with one theory, Williams andWilliams (2011) focus on five key ingredients for improving student motivation: “student,
teacher, content, method/process, and environment” (p. 122). Teachers’ and students’ roles
should go beyond traditional views of consumer and producer as students should be seen asnecessary materials for educational success. How and when content is delivered is importantand should be easily accessible. The authors are quick to explain that no one motivational
theory is necessarily better than the others. Instead, they are pieces of a bigger puzzle. Thus,
teachers should consider them when designing courses, trying to include as many of these
ingredients as much as they can.
Universal Design for Learning
Universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework that seeks to design all aspects of a course
to maintain the curriculum goals and objectives while maximizing learning for as many
students as possible (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Smith, 2012; Meyer & Rose, 2000;
Rogers-Shaw, Carr-Chellman, & Choi, 2018; Staskowski, Hardin, Klein, & Wozniak, 2012).
Staskowski et al. (2012) argue that instead of a one-size-fits-all design, the framework requires
a flexible and customizable approach to learning. Although the basis of UDL was to makelearning accessible for students with special needs, Coyne et al. (2012) posit that “designing
for diverse learners results in better learning outcomes for all individuals.” The Center for
Applied Special Technology (CAST) has identified three core principles of UDL: “multiplemeans of representation, multiple means of action, and multiple means of engagement” (ascited in Rogers-Shaw et al., 2018, p. 22). In other words, content for the course should be
provided multimodally (e.g., audio, video, transcriptions, and images). There should be various
ways of completing tasks or assignments (e.g., oral or written). Also, students should haveopportunities to work in groups of various sizes or individually or to use a computer or a
textbook. These options are a few examples of how UDL can be used. The key is to make these
options available for all students to best match their learning needs and preferences.

18

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
Differentiated Learning
Differentiated learning is a responsive teaching approach aimed at meeting increasingly diverse
students’ needs. It is a flexible, varied, and empowering approach that leads to sharing
responsibility for learning with the learner. It encompasses activities and assignments andclassroom expectations, assessments, content presentation, and environment. For example,
instead of one timed writing task involving one prompt, a teacher may provide multiple
methods for completing the task: 1. A timed writing task with a prompt and structured outline;
2. A timed writing response with a prompt; 3. A blank sheet of paper. Tomlinson, Brimijoin,
and Narvaez (2008) present the approach as a necessary tool that should be used to enable
students “to do more than would be possible without it” (p. 4). In the example provided, more
students would be able to achieve and challenge themselves more.
Despite offering varied and sometimes leveled assignments, it must be clarified thatdifferentiated learning is not tracking (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Teachers must balance how
participation, group selection, and assignment choices are made. At times, this means teachers
need to allow students to make their own choices. Using the writing task above, the students
could choose their preferred writing task, even if it may be too demanding to complete. The
belief is that students can learn from the experience just as well as the completion. Other times,
the teacher may need to give some specific work to help students progress in critical areas. In
other words, the teacher may guide a student toward one of the three writing tasks.
Differentiated learning is not a new approach to language education. Surfacing in the early
1990s, teachers and researchers viewed differentiated learning as a means of teaching “mixedability” classes (Convery & Coyle, 1993, p. 7). More recently, the approach has expanded from“mixed-ability” to include students from diverse backgrounds and with diverse interests andlearning preferences (Borja, Soto, & Sanchez, 2015). Its student-centered focus makes
differentiated learning a promising approach to language education.
Aims of the Study
A few issues arose concerning the synchronous online classroom and assignments during thefirst semester of the course. The use of English and the amount of participation in small group
work had been inconsistent. It was difficult for the teacher to manage the breakout rooms in ameaningful way. The teacher often had to play the role of an English or participation police
officer moving between breakout rooms and reinforcing the class’s expectations. Even students
who could be considered more motivated to participate were found sitting silently with theirgroups in a breakout room. Additionally, many students were not completing assignments ontime consistently. This issue was particularly a problem when the assignment work was used
to complete small group tasks.
The author decided to use a differentiated approach to online learning to address these issues.
The implemented approach’s goal was to meet more students’ needs by improving student
participation, helping students take more responsibility for their learning, and offering a more
flexible learning approach. Ultimately, this would help students improve their English
proficiency development.
The research question and sub-questions guiding this study are:1) What are students’ perceptions of differentiated learning in a synchronous online
environment?
a.
How do students describe their experiences with differentiated breakout rooms?
b.
How do students describe their experiences with differentiated assignments?
19

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
MethodParticipants
The course for this study was a compulsory course for non-English majors, offered to secondyear students. During the fall semester, the classes met synchronously online for twelve weeks
and asynchronously for three weeks. Classes met twice per week for 90 minutes. A
differentiated approach was administered to two sections of the course consisting of 65 students(86% female), 33 students in one class and 32 in the other. Most of the students fit within the
CEFR B1-B2 range upon entering the course. Despite seeming reasonably homogenous, thestudents had diverse backgrounds, learning preferences, English fluency levels, motivation,and confidence.
Three of the female students volunteered to participate in semi-structured in-depth interviews,
which made up the primary source of data collection. The interviews took place at the end of
the semester and were used to understand their experiences with the class’s differentiatedapproach (see Appendix). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and then analyzed andcoded for themes. Archival records, surveys, and participant observations were also used.
Pseudonyms are used in all references to participants.
Application of Differentiated Learning
Two significant changes to the course were adopted to provide students with multiple options
to develop their English skills and facilitate active participation during online classes. The firstchange took place with the Zoom breakout rooms. Zoom is a video communication applicationthat allows a host to hold meetings with multiple participants simultaneously. One function
available for hosts allows them to send participants into breakout rooms to interact privately ingroups. During the second semester, students were often given a choice to join one of threestyles of breakout rooms: all-English, mostly-English, and no-requirement. The style of theroom was not a requirement but rather an expectation for that room. Participants who chose tojoin a room style would be expected to, and they would expect their group members toparticipate accordingly. Students would indicate their room style preference by adding a 1 for
all-English, 2 for mostly-English, or 3 for no-requirement before their Zoom ID.
A maximum number of participation points were allotted to each style to provide some
extrinsic motivation. The maximum number of points (10/10) could be earned by students whojoined the all-English style, while fewer points could be earned for the mostly English and norequirement groups (8/10 and 6/10 respectively). Group sizes were limited to about 3-5
students per group, which meant there were often nine or ten breakout rooms. With so many
breakout rooms in one class, students were required to complete participation surveys about
their groups at the end of each class. The surveys asked students to compare their participation
with that of their group members. Also, they commented on any issues or technical problems
they may have had. The purpose of this change was to help improve confidence and speaking
time, reduce anxiety, make the groups more enjoyable, and provide options that could match
student motivation and interest in a topic. It was not a mode of tracking students as they could
choose any room style no matter their proficiency level, and they could migrate between styles
daily.
The second significant change to the class was a change to assignments and how they werecompleted. Each assignment was divided into three sections. The first section included thenecessary work needed to participate fully in the next class. This section included tasks suchas previewing reading sections, vocabulary practice, and some critical responses to the topic.
Six out of ten points were awarded to this section. The second section added a research element.
20

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
Students were provided with a task that required research outside the textbook to complete it.
The final section added a response or reflection. Students were often asked to record a Flipgrid
video or write a reflective paragraph or two connecting the topic to their own lives. Two points
could be earned for each of the final two sections. The first section of an assignment was the
only section that students were expected to complete.
The additional sections of the assignments were diverse and multimodal to offer students morepaths to the content. The purpose of this change was to make it easier to participate in classand connect with the content personally. The change also promoted autonomous learning by
making students responsible for completing two sections of an assignment. It also allowed
students to skip sections of an assignment due to a busy schedule, a lack of interest in the topic,
or any personal reason. By completing these two sections, students would have more
information to bring into small group conversations, and they would be doing more to improvetheir English.
It was important for the teacher to review the expectations and possible points before choosing
a breakout room style and introducing assignments. During small group activities in breakout
rooms, the teacher would move between groups to facilitate discussion, share ideas, andencourage students when necessary. During these short observations, the teacher would takenotes to later compare with student surveys.
Findings
Five themes, three about the breakout room styles and two about the assignments, emerged
from the analysis of the semi-structured interviews: the breakout room styles provided a more
comfortable environment for speaking English, increased speaking time and opportunities, andencouraged English use; the assignments were more interesting and useful than in the firstsemester, and they were flexible and promoted student responsibility. The following
paragraphs will look deeper into these themes using the students’ own words to support thefindings.
Breakout Room Styles Provided a More Comfortable Environment for Speaking English
All three participants commented on how the new breakout room styles provided a more
comfortable speaking environment.
“For breakout rooms, it is the best environment to practice English for me because otherclassmates are also willing to speak English.” — Riko talking about the all-English breakoutroom.
“I like speak English, but my English is so bad…If I can’t understand English, so my friends
use Japanese to explain. So, I can understand my friends say.” — Kanako talking about themostly-English breakout room.
“I feel very comfortable choose the level because I want to use English a lot…this semester
I can choose, so use the all English room and I can use a lot of English.” — Tomoka“So, I feel other member also tried harder, and they speak English so much, so I feel very
comfortable, and also I can try to harder.” — Tomoka
Students commented that they were more likely to use more English when they could choose
their breakout rooms. For Riko and Tomoka, this meant that they could use the amount ofEnglish they desired. Both students consistently chose the all-English breakout room style forsmall groups. Tomoka further explained that when her group members spoke English, it
21A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
encouraged her to participate more. On the other hand, Kanako had less confidence in her
English ability and felt more comfortable without the pressure of only using English. Although
Kanako typically joined the mostly-English breakout room style, she did try to join the allEnglish style once. By joining the other style, she realized that she was more comfortable inthe mostly-English style room. This gained knowledge is an advantage of the differentiatedlearning approach. Students need to understand their proficiency levels to make more effective
strides in their learning.
Breakout Room Styles Increased Speaking Time and Opportunities
At times during the semester, students were not allowed to choose their breakout room styles.
In these cases, students were grouped randomly. Riko and Tomoka discussed issues they had
in these rooms compared with room styles they could choose.
“In the breakout room, I noticed that some of them start to speak Japanese when the teacher
don’t come to the small breakout room. But, in — after changing to the new activity, they
speak more English than before.” — Riko comparing the new style to randomly grouped
breakout rooms.
“I feel a little bit disappointed, and even though I try to focus on my way, but I tend to do
the way they do…if I join such — those students, I tend to speak Japanese more even though
I wanted to speak English all the time.” — Riko talking about joining a randomly grouped
breakout room with unwilling members.
“So, I feel so happy because of — I can study harder, and also I don’t feel
frustrated…because I want to study harder and use English more, but so other member don’t
speak so I can’t speak English.” — Tomoka comparing the new style to randomly grouped
breakout rooms.
Both Riko and Tomoka talked about how members influence them in their groups. If groupmembers were less interested in using English or participate less, Riko felt disappointed. In
randomly-grouped breakout rooms, the students who want to speak English the whole time are
more likely to be grouped with students who do not share their views. As Riko mentioned,
students may perform in English while the teacher is in the breakout room, and teachers may
be unaware of this situation. Riko elaborated that she felt awkward talking to her classmates inEnglish if they were using Japanese. Instead of encouraging others to speak in English, shewould use Japanese as well.
Breakout Room Styles Encouraged English Use
All three members talked about using more English in the breakout room styles than in
randomly-grouped breakout rooms.
“For me, it is hard to balance the Japanese and English portions, and I guess that eventhough students are in the second level of the class, most of the students maybe — it is just a
guess, but most of them speak Japanese than English. So, if I were in the breakout room, I
would not practice English as much as I do..” — Riko discussing why she joins the allEnglish breakout room.
“I want to English better and more fluently, so we choose level class. So high-level classmember is always speak English, so I am influenced good English feeling.” — Kanako
discussing choosing a breakout room.

22

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING“So, I feel other member also tried harder, and they speak English so much, so I feel very
comfortable, and also I can try to harder.” — Tomoka (used earlier, multiple themes).
Riko assumed that students in mostly-English breakout rooms were not speaking as much
English as she was in the all-English breakout rooms. Her assumption was based on previous
experience, and it parallels responses from the previous theme. Kanako claimed that the allEnglish breakout room influenced her to speak English, while Tomoka used more English
because she felt comfortable. Tomoka’s response hints at how she felt when she joined the allEnglish breakout room. When she joined the more demanding breakout room, she felt nervous
about speaking because her self-efficacy diminished. Having multiple options allowed Tomoka
to discover a comfortable environment and build confidence.
The Assignments Were More Interesting and Useful Than in the First Semester
Riko and Kanako specifically commented that the assignments were more interesting anduseful than the first semester. Tomoka also shared this sentiment, but she did not elaborate.
When asked if there was anything they did not like about the assignment changes, allparticipants said they had nothing to share.
“I think the homework became less than the first semester, but the content is more narrowand deeper. So, I could learn more deep into the topic.” — Riko
“Yeah, I like the video section, so it is very interesting homework and my video — my friends
watched, so received comments. I am very happy friends comment.” — Kanako discussing
the Flipgrid activities on assignments
Riko makes a critical statement: the homework was less time-consuming yet facilitated further
engagement with the content. She also shared a similar opinion to Kanako about using Flipgrid
videos for assignments.
The Assignments Were More Flexible and Promoted Student Responsibility
All three participants commented positively about having choices, and they claimed that thesechoices were not available in other courses. Being given choices made them feel more
responsible for their learning.
“And the new assignments, we can decide the homework by our responsibility so that somestudents are working hard to complete all of the steps and some of them just want —necessary thing.” — Riko
“But, so we can choose section — homework, so it is so good because video homework.
Some people are bad at video, so we can choose video section, so it is so good.” — Kanako“So, I feel that the change was so helpful for me because this semester also I had a lot of
homework to do… So, I can choose according to my English level or my schedule. So, I cantry to do my best.” — Tomoka discussing the flexible homework.
Tomoka was the only participant to comment that she did not always complete all threehomework sections. However, she emphasized this as a positive point as she was busy withother classes, which helped her avoid stress. Kanako may have often joined the mostly-English
breakout rooms, but she completed all three sections of the assignments because she likes
English and believes more opportunities to use English will lead to more significant
improvement. Riko was the only participant to discuss the assignments in a slightly negative23

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
way: “I am a little bit stressed about the homework option because that’s my personality – I
try to complete all of them to get full points even though I am busy.” On the other hand, she
was well aware of the choice, and she decided to complete the assignments.
Discussion
Findings from this study should be considered carefully. The goal for this research was tointerview five to ten participants, but only three volunteered. While the three participants were
diverse in many ways, their congruent trait was being highly-motivated. While this does notdiscredit any of their answers, it does suggest that some students may not have been interested
in sharing their opinions because they did not find the changes useful or practical. Despite thisdeficiency, some valuable insights were gained when interviews were compared to participant
observations and surveys. These insights will be examined along with the discussion of thefindings.
Concerning breakout rooms, there is potential with differentiated learning to improve
motivation, speaking and learning opportunities, and student ownership of their learning,
especially for highly motivated students. By offering students a choice, they can be in a more
comfortable learning environment. All three participants discussed this, including Kanako,
who preferred the mostly-English breakout room. Relevant to participant observations, thestudents who often joined the no-requirement breakout rooms seemed to lack confidence, notproficiency. It might be assumed that students would improve confidence, negotiation of
meaning, listening skills, and speaking skills with more opportunities to speak. However, thisresearch did not evaluate learning outcomes, so it is impossible to make this claim. One
valuable point was that participants could recognize proficiency levels and learning preferences
due to the options.
Unfortunately, there were some negative observations with the breakout rooms. Participants inthe study spoke of being more influenced by unwilling group members than positive rolemodels. In other words, they were more likely to use Japanese if their group members used itthan asking group members to use English. This situation was especially evident in
observations of mostly-English breakout rooms. It also seemed to progress throughout thesemester, implying some novelty to the breakout room change. More consideration would beneeded to balance accountability with flexibility. Also, this breakout room change wasexperimented with in smaller classes ranging from eleven to seventeen students. It was more
likely that students could not join their preferred breakout room styles because no otherclassmates requested the same style. Finally, most students continued to use the same breakout
room styles the entire semester. More migration between room styles would have been
preferred.
Assignment changes were favorably welcome. All interviewed participants shared positive
opinions about these changes. Additionally, many students in both classes had complained ofbeing overworked and spending too much time online, so it was not a surprise that having lessrequired work was appreciated. The more in-depth content that Riko talked about has thepotential to boost motivation because it can help build a purposeful connection to the material.
Multimodal tasks offer multiple paths to the content, increasing accessibility. While theresponses to the assignments were overwhelmingly positive, some students continued tounderachieve when completing them. This observation may not be unusual considering thestudents are non-English majors, but it does warrant more consideration.

24

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
As is expected with research, hindsight and more time with the relevant literature have led topossible alternatives for future courses. Regarding breakout room styles, variation in groupsizes calls for more consideration. For convenience, most groups consisted of four or five
students. However, this ignores students’ learning preferences of smaller groups orindependent work. Additionally, smaller groups could provide more opportunities for
improving English skills and confidence. With more group possibilities, how to assessparticipation and survey students becomes an issue.
Assignments were provided as one assignment with three sections. However, it may be wiser
to offer multiple smaller assignments of less value. For example, provide students with five or
six multimodal possibilities and allow them to choose up to four to be completed. Thisadjustment would allow students to have more control of how and what they study.
The surveys conducted asked students to rank the group members based on participation,
themselves included. There was an additional area for comments. Because they were limited
in information, these surveys primarily served as aids to grade participation. However, one
observation emerged. Most students tended to be more critical of themselves than groupmembers. For example, one student ranked herself as the lowest participant in her group when
the teacher felt she had been the most active. Furthermore, students were unlikely to criticize
group members for not participating. This behavior implies that students were not developinggroup interdependence as much as anticipated. Perhaps, they did not want to be held
responsible for a classmate receiving a low participation score and thus did not feel responsible
for helping classmates improve.
Limitations
This study’s most significant limitation was its number of participants. While the insights
gained should not be dismissed, the study would benefit from interviews with students having
negative impressions of the changes or with less-motivated students. Differentiated learning
aims to help all students do more than they could without it. Thus, alternative voices are
possibly more crucial.
Another limitation of this study was the method of data collection being limited to English ininterviews. More students may have participated in interviews, and participants may haveoffered more detailed answers if they were able to use their L1.
Conclusion and implications
Differentiated learning is a rewarding and worthwhile approach, but implementing andresearching it are time-consuming endeavors. Offering variation and choices in group activities
and assignments can increase participation, facilitate more comfortable learning environments,
and develop more interest in assignments. For participants in this study, the differentiatedapproach helped them take more responsibility for their learning.
Despite the benefits of the approach, some aspects of differentiated learning should beresearched further. Large classes like those in this study can be challenging to manage andoffer the timely feedback necessary for language development. With such demand required
from a teacher, more research needs to be done on learning outcomes to understand its
effectiveness in higher education better. More research should also employ classroom
observations (online or in-class) to understand student engagement and motivation better. The
author encourages teachers to learn more about this approach as diverse students are alreadypresent in classrooms and will continue to increase in the future.
25

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING

BIO DATA
Jared J. Peo has been teaching EFL/ESL at the university level for over 7 years. His time at
NUFS has helped him focus his research and personal development on interculturalcompetence, motivation, autonomous learning, extensive reading, and study abroad.
References
Borja, L. A., Soto, S. T., & Sanchez, T. X. (2015). Differentiating Instruction for EFL Learners.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(8), 8.
Convery, A., & Coyle, D. (1993). Differentiation—Taking the initiative. Centre for Informationon Language Teaching and Research.
Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by Design: A
Universal Design for Learning Approach for Students With Significant Intellectual
Disabilities.
Remedial
andSpecial
Education,
33(3),
162–172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381651.
Fan, J.-J. (2012). A Study on Students’ Learning Motivation of EFL in Taiwanese Vocational
College. 2(3), 10.
Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In Handbook of
Educational Psychology (pp. 15–46). Routledge.
Masgoret, A. -M., & Gardner, R.C. (2003). Attitudes, Motivation, and Second Language
Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Conducted by Gardner and Associates.
Language Learning 53(1), 123-163.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal Design for Individual Differences. Educational
Leadership, 58(3), 39–43.
Olmanson, J. (2016). What does Motivated Mean? Re-Presenting Learning, Technology, andMotivation in Middle Schools via New Ethnographic Writing. Middle Grades Review,2(2). http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol2/iss2/3.
Ozuah, P. O. (2005). First, there was pedagogy and then came andragogy. Einstein Journal of
Biology and Medicine, 21(2), 83–87.
Pan, C.-Y., & Wu, H.-Y. (2013). The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading
Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. English Language
Teaching, 6(5), p13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n5p13.
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT
Journal, 51(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.2.144.

26

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J., & Choi, J. (2018). Universal Design for Learning:
Guidelines for Accessible Online Instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530.
Staskowski, M., Hardin, S., Klein, M., & Wozniak, C. (2012). Universal Design for Learning:
Speech-Language Pathologists and Their Teams Making the Common Core
Curriculum Accessible. Seminars in Speech and Language, 33(02), 111–129.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1310312.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making
revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. ASCD.
Williams, K., & Williams, C. (2011). Five key ingredients for improving motivation.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 11. http://aabri.com/manuscripts/11834.pdf.
Appendix
A Differentiated Approach to Online Research: Interview Protocol
1.

What changes have you noticed this semester?

2.

How do you feel about the changes?

3.

How do you feel when a teacher gives you options for homework, participation, etc.?

4.

One major change you had this semester was the different breakout rooms: there were
3 styles. How did you feel about this change?

a.

Which room did you usually join? Why?

b.

Did you ever join another room style? Why/Why not?

c.

Did you ever feel any pressure to join a specific group? Explain.

d.

How did you feel about your group members’ participation and English use?

5.

Another major change was the options on the homework. How did you feel about thischange?

6.

How often did you complete all parts of the homework? Explain.

7.

Do you feel these changes were useful for you? Explain.

8.

Did you enjoy the changes to the class? Explain.

9.

Was there anything you didn’t like about these changes?

10.

What did you learn from this new style (having options)?

27

A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING
11.

What could be done differently?

12.

What advice would you give students who have a class like this?

13.

Is there anything you would like to say that I did not ask you about?

28