Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 06 August 2015, At: 20:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Differentiated instruction: Hong Kongprospective teachers’ teaching efficacyand beliefsSally Wai-Yan Wana

a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education,The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongPublished online: 29 Jul 2015.

To cite this article: Sally Wai-Yan Wan (2015): Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospectiveteachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, DOI:10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-07-29

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’teaching efficacy and beliefs

Sally Wai-Yan Wan*

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University ofHong Kong, Hong Kong

(Received 18 June 2013; accepted 23 July 2014)

Catering for learner diversity is one of the key areas in the recent educationalreform in Hong Kong. Pre-service teacher education acts as a fundamental wayto equip pre-service teachers ready for accommodating diverse learning needsand to build up pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. The purpose of the study is toexamine prospective teachers’ teaching beliefs toward differentiated instructionand teaching efficacy. Using a sequential mixed methods design that contains aquestionnaire, focus group interviews, and individual interviews, prospectiveteachers undertaking a 13-session course regarding differentiated instruction asoffered by a local university in Hong Kong participated in the study fromJanuary to April 2013. Changes in teaching beliefs regarding differentiatedinstruction as well as teaching efficacy levels were found. More positive attitudestoward differentiated teaching were found; however, there existed different con-cerns including class management and conflicts with personal teaching beliefs.These concerns may be related to practical experiences and confidence as wellas expectations upon students. Implications for future course development andresearch are discussed at the end of the paper.

Keywords: pre-service teacher education; differentiated instruction; teachingefficacy; teaching beliefs; differentiation

Introduction

Catering for individual differences is one of the key areas in the recent educationalreform in Hong Kong (Curriculum Development Council [CDC], 2002), whereaswhole-school approach and inclusive education are promoted and highlighted by thegovernment educational policy (Education Bureau [EDB], 2008, 2010). A numberof local studies indicate that teachers had big concerns about catering for individualdifferences (Adamson & Tong, 2008). Some studies revealed that teachers were notinadequately prepared for catering for learning diversity (e.g. Forlin, 2007). It wasalso found that teachers had limited views about curriculum and assessment strate-gies for catering for learning diversity (Berry, 2006) and lacked incentives to inte-grate pedagogical content knowledge with the needs of students (Chong, Forlin, &Au, 2007). Therefore, there is an urgent need for differentiated instruction (Gregory,2008; Tomlinson, 2003; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000), emphasizing that teachersdevelop classroom routines that attend to learner variance in readiness, interest, andlearning profile, rather than ‘one-size-fits-all’ (Tomlinson, 2003).

*Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6513

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6513

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6513

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

Differentiated instruction

The term differentiated instruction is nothing new indeed (Tomlinson & Allan,2000). On the basis of constructivist approach (i.e. Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Bruner,1960; Dewey, 1910; Erickson, 1998; as well as Wiggins & McTighe, 1998; Piaget,1969), differentiated instruction aims to address the diverse needs of individuallearners (Hall, 2002; Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Tomlinson et al., 2003).Differentiation involves finding multiple ways to structure a lesson so that each stu-dent is provided with an opportunity to work at a moderately challenging level(Adams & Pierce, 2004). Differentiation is an organized, flexible way of proactivelyadjusting teaching and learning to meet the ability level of students while helping allstudents achieve maximum growth as learners (Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiatedinstruction emphasizes that key elements of curriculum and assessment strategiescan be differentiated by content, process, product as well as learning environment(Chapman & King, 2005; George, 2005; Tomlinson, 1999, 2003). Cooper andTomlinson (2006, p. 2) point out that differentiated instruction works under thefollowing assumptions:

• Students differ in their readiness to learn, in their interests, and in the way theylearn.

• Student variance affects learning process.• Learning must happen within students, not ‘to’ them.• The job of teachers is to teach students and teach content.• Each student needs and deserves a teacher who actively helps him or her toidentify and build upon personal strengths, recognize and address areas ofweakness, and develop a sense of self-efficacy that comes from accomplishingimportant goals.

• The most effective teachers use assessment information to develop and modifyinstructional plans so that the classroom ‘works’ for the diverse students in it.

• Classrooms effective for academically diverse populations define ‘fairness’ asmaking sure that everyone acquires what he or she needs to succeed, not astreating everyone exactly the same.

Differentiation is a term used to describe ‘the process of making educationalexpectations match individual students’ different learning needs’ (Matthews &Foster, 2009, p. 112). At the macro level, suitable modifications may be made incurriculum planning, including the following:

• removing unnecessary or repetitive chunks of content;• enhancing existing units of study by reorganizing or intensifying content; and• connecting a unit of study to other subject areas or disciplines.

At the micro level, teachers could adopt one or more of the following ideas whenworking with the program:

• using flexible grouping practices based on the strengths, interests, andweaknesses of students;

• increasing breadth (i.e. more choices and learning style variations); and• increasing depth (i.e. different levels of content for different ability levels).

2 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Differentiated instruction in Hong Kong

Facing a ‘pedagogical shift’ in the twenty-first century (Swaffield & Guske,2011), there has been an urgent call for catering for diversity in Hong Kongclassrooms (CDC, 2000, 2002; Forlin & Rose, 2010; Sin & Law, 2012). Beingconsistent with more emphasis on human rights, social justice, and equity in theworldwide trend (Forlin & Lian, 2008), inclusive education has been promoted inHong Kong schools. Catering for diversity is thus urgently required and has beenemphasized more in the Hong Kong curriculum reform. For example, one of thekey issues addressed in the CDC’s (2002) Basic Education Guide is catering forindividual differences. At the same time, the use of a whole-school approach inthe classrooms is recommended and encouraged by the government (EDB, 2008,2010). Thus, every teacher plays a vital role in catering for diversity inclassrooms every day.

Few studies were done on the perceptions and applications of pedagogicaldesigns for catering for individual differences in different sectors including kinder-gartens and primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong (e.g. Carless, 2001; Forlin& Rose, 2010; Li, 2003; Lo, 2009; Lo & Pong, 2005). Local studies indicated thatboth primary and secondary teachers make relatively few adaptations to accommo-date differences among their students (Chan, Chang, Westwood, & Yuen, 2002;Forlin, 2008, p. 79; Wan & Wan, 2012; Wan, Wan, Lam, Noguera, & Alvarez,2013), whereas teachers lacked confidence and were unprepared for differentiatedteaching practice. This is consistent with the findings of other studies outside HongKong, revealing that teachers are ill prepared, struggling toward inclusive education,and lack the support in delivering effective instruction in the daily classroomteaching (Dee, 2011; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).

Pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs and teaching efficacy

Teaching efficacy has emerged as an important construct in teacher education overthe past decades. There is no consistent definition of teaching efficacy (Chan,2008a). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), based on Berman, McLaughlin, Bass,Pauly, and Zellman (1977, p. 4), defined teaching efficacy as ‘the extent to whichthe teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance.’ Teach-ing efficacy is generally regarded as ‘teachers’ beliefs in their ability to actualize thedesired outcomes’ (Wheatley, 2005, p. 748), in which beliefs, acting like a filterthrough which instructional judgments and decisions are made (Fang, 1996), affectand shape the attitude of the individual toward the task at hand (Ahsan & Anjum,2012). Any curriculum change relies on what teachers know and believe (Isler &Cakiroglu, 2009) as teaching beliefs and perceptions ‘are closely linked to teachers’strategies for coping with challenges in their daily professional life and to their gen-eral well-being, and they shape students’ learning environment and influence studentmotivation and achievement’ (Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment [OECD], 2009, p. 89). Changes or innovations bring about uncertain-ties, whereas teachers struggle and decide how to act, and more likely fall back ontheir beliefs and belief systems and how they perceive (Pajares, 1992). Teacherbeliefs have been defined by Kagan (1992, p. 65) as ‘tacit, often unconsciously heldassumptions about students, classrooms, and the academic material to be taught.’Calderhead (1988) suggests that:

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

For students, an awareness of the processes of learning to teach might enable them toanalyze their own experiences in professional development, to identify those areas ofknowledge and skill that must be built up, and to recognize the potential professionallearning for their own practice. (p. 63)

In the previous studies, teaching efficacy was found to be positively related to stu-dent achievement and learning outcomes (Cakir & Alici, 2009). It is regarded as akey role in affecting classroom behaviors that affect teachers’ efforts, persistence,and resilience in the face of difficulties with students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984;Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1997). It is alsofound that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy tend to be more enthusiastic inteaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984), more attentive to individual differences(Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and more committed to teaching (Evans & Tribble,1986).

Different scholars have contributed to the development of instruments for assess-ing teaching efficacy. Gibson and Dembo (1984) applied the concept of self-efficacyto teaching with a two-factor dimensional construct of teacher efficacy, includinggeneral teaching efficacy (GTE) (i.e. belief that any teacher’s ability to bring aboutchange is bounded by the environment) and personal teaching efficacy (PTE) (i.e.belief that he or she has the skills and abilities to influence student learning andbehavior).

In Hong Kong, few local instruments were developed to explore teaching effi-cacy. Based on Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), Hui, Kennedy, and Cheung(2006) and Cheung (2006, 2008) used a short form of Chinese version of the 12items of Teachers’ Efficacy Scale (C-TSE) that was used for examining pre- andin-service teachers’ self-efficacy in general. However, a long-form version(i.e. 24-item) is more preferable for testing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy becausethe factor structure often is ‘less distinct’ for these respondents (Hoy, 2008). Takinglocal educational reform into consideration, Chan (2008a, 2008b) developed an18-item domain-specific teacher self-efficacy instrument to assess teacher function-ing related to changes in the teacher’s role in education reforms in Hong Kong.

Differentiated instruction and teaching efficacy

Pre-service teacher education acts as a fundamental way to equip pre-service teach-ers ready for accommodating diverse learning needs (Forlin, 2008). It is found thatinitial teacher education is effective in developing and establishing teacher efficacyand beliefs (Sergiovanni, 2000; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Boe, Shin, and Cook(2007) contended that teacher preparation affects teachers’ perceptions of well pre-paredness for catering for student learning. Jung (2007) also found that there existimpacts of teacher preparation on teachers’ attitudes and confidence in inclusiveeducation. At the same time, different studies pointed out that teacher education can-not address the needs of the ‘complex realities,’ including differentiated teaching, ineveryday classrooms (Ruys, Defruyt, Rots, & Aelterman, 2013, p. 95). Dee (2010)furthered that pre-service teachers’ struggles with differentiated practice due to lackof knowledge cause their negative attitudes and deficiency in differentiation.

Yet there are very few studies focusing on pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefsand teaching efficacy regarding using differentiated instruction in general classrooms(Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Little attention was drawn to studying pre-service or in-service teachers’ teaching efficacy in teacher education and differentiated instruction

4 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

to cater for learning diversity education in the local context. Thus, to fill this criticalgap in the literature, the general purpose of this mixed methods study is to investi-gate pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs and efficacy for the use of differentiatedinstruction during a teacher preparation training course in a Hong Kong university,with specific objectives of the study as follows:

(1) To assess the extent to which pre-service teachers’ level of teaching efficacyupon differentiated instruction changes during the teacher training courseregarding catering for learning diversity through differentiated instruction;and

(2) To examine the extent to which pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs regard-ing differentiated instruction changes during the teacher training courseregarding catering for learning diversity through differentiated instruction.

Methodology

Research design

The study examines the extent to which pre-service teachers perceive their teachingefficacy (i.e. general teacher efficacy, personal teacher efficacy), and teaching beliefsabout differentiated instruction during a teacher preparation course. The study aimsat exploring the following research questions:

(1) What are pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs with respect to differentiatedinstruction?

(2) What are pre-service teachers’ levels of teaching efficacy?

A sequential mixed methods pre- and post-test research design is thus applied,aiming to investigate two hypotheses, namely (a) the pre-service teachers’ teachingbeliefs of differentiated instruction will be changed and (b) the pre-service teachers’teaching efficacy level will be increased at the end of the course.

Participants, setting, and course description

The study was administered to a convenient sampling group of pre-service teachersenrolling in a 13-session Bachelor of Education elective module in the academicyear 2012–2013 in a local university. The course was called Differentiated Instruc-tion (in a pseudonym). The duration of each session was 1 h 45 min. The coursewas a combination of theories and practical applications of differentiated instruction,covering a wide range of topics related to differentiated instruction, namely defini-tions and rationale of differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms, roles ofa teacher in a differentiated classroom, learning environment in a differentiatedclassroom, strategies for managing a differentiated classroom (i.e. classroom routi-nes, learning stations, discovering learner needs), basic understanding of inclusiveeducation and gifted education, differentiated curriculum design, teaching strategiesfor differentiating curriculum by content, process and product, readiness, interestand learning profile as well as differentiated assessment strategies. Other thanlectures, different types of learning experiences are provided for pre-service teachers,such as workshops, professional sharing by experts, in-class and online groupdiscussions, poster presentation, and a school visit.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Data collection

Instruments

Together with an extensive literature review of teacher efficacy studies, a question-naire was developed according to the studies by Scott and Spencer (2006), Gibsonand Dembo (1984), as well as Casey and Gable (2012). The questionnaire was ofhigh reliability in the previous studies. There are four parts in the questionnaire,Part 1 comprising teaching beliefs about differentiated teaching practice, Part 2teaching efficacy, Part 3 readiness for differentiation, and Part 4 demographicinformation. The participants were asked to rate their level of agreement toward theitems in Parts 1 and 2 by responding on a six-point Likert response scale, rangingfrom strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (6). In the post-test, three open-endedquestions were used to elicit participants’ understanding of learner diversity, readi-ness for differentiated instruction as well as concerns upon the use of differentiation.Besides, an interview guide was developed for focus group interviews and individ-ual interviews. Semi-structured guiding questions were designed to obtain in-depthinformation. This paper focuses on the discussion of the findings of the pre- andpost-tests regarding teaching beliefs upon differentiated instruction and teachingefficacy, together with the qualitative data as obtained from the interviews.

Concerning the content validity of the questionnaire and interview design, theresearcher asked for professional advice from three experts specialized in teachingefficacy, differentiated instruction, and curriculum research methods, respectively(Gable & Wolf, 1993). As the questionnaire is bilingual, the Chinese version wasread and revised after consultation with two Chinese tutors. Finally, the question-naire was pilot tested among a group of pre-service teachers who were not includedin the sample. The pilot study was carried out in early January. After collecting thequestionnaire results, a focus group interview was conducted to draw opinions andcomments on the questionnaire design (Table 1).

Procedures

Two phases of data collection were carried out in the study. In the first phase (i.e.pre-test), the questionnaire was first used to collect data concerning quantitativeresearch questions that focus on teachers’ teaching efficacy, and teaching beliefs ofdifferentiated instruction among diverse students, followed by focus group inter-views and individual interviews with pre-service teachers that target at obtainingthick descriptions of relationships between pre-service teachers’ teaching efficacyand teaching beliefs about differentiated instruction among diverse students for thepurpose of better understanding the relationship among them (Creswell, 2009) (seeFigure 1). Information from the quantitative data was used as a basis for the qualita-tive data collection through focus group interviews and individual interviews. In

Table 1. Number of participants in the study.

Pre-test Post-test

Survey 34 27Focus group interview Nil 2 (Each group contained four participants)Individual interview 7 5

6 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

the second phase of data collection (i.e. post-test), a repeated procedure as used inthe first phase was carried out at the end of the course.

Both focus interviews and individual interviews used a convenient samplingmethod. In the first phase of data collection, there was a total of seven individualinterviews with students in mid-January to early February, while five studentsinvolved in the first interview were interviewed in the second phase of data collec-tion (i.e. in late March 2013). Two of the participants involved in the first interviewwere not interviewed due to their unavailability. Two focus group interviews wereconducted in the second data collection phase (i.e. in late March 2013). Focus groupinterview was not carried out in the first data collection phase due to time constraint.The participants in the interviews included those majoring in different subject areasand those who were not majoring in education. All the interviews were carried outon campus.

Ethical considerations

Permission was approved by the university to conduct the study. In the data collec-tion process, it is important to build up the trust relationship with the participants.The researcher informed them about the purpose of the research and indicated theextent of commitment required. The research data were kept confidential. A consentform was distributed to all participants. The participation of all pre-service teacherswas voluntary and they had the rights to withdraw at any time. It was clearly statedbefore the questionnaire and interview that no person would be identified. Aftergaining all participants’ consent, the questionnaire was distributed and collected bya research assistant. The research assistant explained the purpose of the study to theparticipants who were asked to complete the questionnaires within 30 min. Concern-ing the interviews, the researcher re-stated that the purpose of study and the namesof the participating teachers would be kept confidential and pseudonyms for individ-ual participants would be applied in order to protect their identities.

Data analysis

Questionnaire

The quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using the StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies,

Post-test

QUAN Quali

Pre-test

QUAN Quali

Target Group Data Collection

Data Analysis

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Intervention

Figure 1. Pre- and post-test design using sequential mixed methods approach.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to analyze data from thequestionnaire. In the quantitative survey, the reliability of Part 1 teaching beliefsupon differentiated instruction is high in pre- and post-tests, i.e. .94 and .92, respec-tively. However, the reliability of Part 2 teaching efficacy is fairly acceptable in pre-and post-tests, i.e. .56 and .79, respectively (see Appendix 1).

Focus group interview and individual interview

Data gathered from the focus group interview and individual semi-structured inter-view was reported and analyzed by clarifying the information into categories,themes, and dimensions according to the key research questions. The qualitativeanalysis of the focus group interview and individual semi-structured interviewincluded coding the raw data, repeated listening to the interview audiotapes, andreviewing the copies of the transcribed interviews by reading and re-reading. Color-coding method was used to generate and categorize emerging themes and issues(Stake, 1995). The researcher merged quantitative and qualitative data-sets of eachtest in order to compare, triangulate (Stake, 2000), and determine to the extent towhich the data could be converged and confirmed.

Findings and discussion

Response rate and participants

In the pre-test, a total of 34 participants returned the questionnaire, resulting in anoverall response rate of 87.18%, while a total of 27 participants returned the ques-tionnaire in the post-test, resulting in an overall response rate of 90%. There was achange in the number of participants after the add–drop period. Seven participantsquitted the course. Participants’ background was quite diverse, majoring in differentsubject areas such as Chinese Language Education, English Language Education,Liberal Studies, and Physical Education, yet very few of them were from otherfaculties instead of the education faculty. However, most of the participants (i.e.more than 90%) did not have teaching practicum (see Table 2).

Table 2. Demographic information about the participants in the study.

Pre-test (N = 34) Post-test (N = 27)

Year level Year 1: 12 (35.3%) Year 1: 9 (33.3%)Year 2: 1 (2.9%) Year 2: 1 (3.7%)Year 3: 19 (55.9%) Year 3: 15 (55.6%)Year 4: 2 (5.9%) Year 4: 2 (7.4%)

Major area of study Chinese Language: 5(14.7%)

Chinese Language: 3(11.1%)

English Language: 9 (26.5%) English Language: 8(29.6%)

Liberal Studies: 5 (14.7%) Liberal Studies: 5 (18.5%)Physical Education: 11(32.4%)

Physical Education: 8(29.6%)

Others: 4 (11.8%) Others: 3 (11.1%)With teaching practiceexperience

4 (11.8%) 3 (11.1%)

8 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Changing pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs about differentiated instructionpractice

Overall, positive changes were found in the teaching beliefs of differentiated teach-ing at the end of the course. In the pre-test, individual mean items ranged from 3.70to 4.62, while the post-test ranged from 2.04 to 3.52 (see Table 3). In other words,there was a tendency toward positive agreements upon the survey items. There weresome changes in the items with the lowest and highest mean scores (see Table 3).The highest decrease is found in item A8 ‘Effective classroom managementimproves teaching and learning’ (49.75%), while the item with the lowest decreaseis A3 ‘If I allow some students to present assignments in a variety of ways, I maybe giving some students an unfair disadvantage’ (i.e. 5.88%).

Prospective teachers seemingly did not have clear ideas about differentiatedteaching practice at the beginning of the course. However, upon the completion of

Table 3. A comparison of pre- and post-tests of prospective teachers’ beliefs aboutdifferentiated teaching practice.

Items

Pre-test(N = 34)a

Post-test(N = 27)a

± (%)Mean SD Mean SD

A1 I can assist some students to learn with the useof carefully prepared prompts

3.94 1.15 2.67 1.04 −32.23

A2 A student’s comprehension of text will bedependent on activating prior knowledge

4.26 1.21 2.52 1.09 −40.85

A3 If I allow some students to present assignmentsin a variety of ways, I may be giving somestudents an unfair disadvantage

3.74 1.33 3.52 1.19 −5.88

A4 Students who have difficulty maintainingconcentration and completing a task andtherefore develop more effective routines

4.30 1.24 2.70 1.07 −37.21

A5 When I help some students make links and buildon previous knowledge, I am encouragingsuccess in learning

3.79 1.18 2.30 1.07 −39.31

A6 If I teach and visually display context-specificvocabulary, students’ writing will be enhanced

4.12 1.18 2.37 1.04 −42.46

A7 Prior to teaching a new skill, it is necessary toanalyze a task and ascertain the knowledge andskills that are required

4.62 1.62 2.41 1.12 −47.84

A8 Effective classroom management improvesteaching and learning

4.06 1.39 2.04 1.16 −49.75

A9 If I provide graphic organizers for students torecord their work, it will lead to a betterunderstanding of material

4.29 1.58 2.37 1.01 −44.76

A10 Cultural diversity among students will lead todifferent interpretations of the same text

4.15 1.26 2.15 1.06 −48.19

A11 By posing different questions, I can testunderstanding at various levels

4.29 1.38 2.19 1.00 −48.95

A12 All students can learn, given an appropriateeducational environment

4.06 1.32 2.37 1.08 −41.63

A13 All students can be successful in my class 3.70 1.29 2.78 1.16 −24.86A14 I can ensure that all students experience success

by adapting the curriculum3.76 .86 2.74 1.02 −27.13

aTo 2 d.p.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

the course, they expressed that they learnt more and grasped more about thetechniques and skills about how to do differentiated teaching. For example, in thepre-test, while 44.1% of the participants strongly disagreed with item A7 ‘Prior toteaching a new skill, it is necessary to analyze a task and ascertain the knowledgeand skills that are required,’ occupying the highest percentage among all the otheritems, this item has the highest mean score, that is 4.62 (SD = 1.62) as well (seeTable 4). However, in the post-test, no participants showed a strong disagreementtoward this item. In the first phase of data collection, during the interviews, noinformants mentioned prerequisite knowledge for designing a task. Just one studentmentioned:

… actually, for me, what they (students) have to learn, I won’t think. Because there aredifferent strategies so I can have different activities to help them. But I can’t thinkabout them. (Student D, individual interview, February 19, 2013)

Even so, most of the informants put foci on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ in their firstinterviews. For example, this student said that:

… try to design some tasks from students’ interest perspective, to help them, such aswhen doing composition, as Chinese is in a modular design, each module has compe-tencies, possibly narrative writing, then using exercises to help them grasp skills innarrative writing, for instance, writing about actions, students will feel bored, then usesome not so boring topics. Once [I] told them to describe a dad’s sneezing process,giving 10 min, let them feel this task, first, fresh; second, challenging; third, this iswithin their abilities. (Student N, individual interview, February 20, 2013)

After the course, the participants shared about what they learnt. For instance:

I learnt grouping methods, that means, other than lecturing by the teacher, there can bemany different ways for students to learn actively, like group dynamics, group discus-sion, there are still many methods. (Student Y, focus group interview, March 15, 2013)

What I learnt is how to use the time within one lesson. That means, apart from tea-cher-oriented talk, within the lesson time, there can be student-oriented activities, forexample, giving them more time for discussion, and giving more time for them, afterdiscussion, they can do different things like report or presentation, that also can be away of learning. (Student V, focus group interview, March 15, 2013)

I learn the advantages and disadvantages about different types of grouping such ashomogeneous grouping or heterogeneous grouping, that means, I know when I can usethem. When handling learner diversity, how to use the hook, and use assessmentmethod to understand their readiness, then we can use different activities to get theirattention such as Q&A time. (Student D, focus group interview, March 15, 2013)

Actually during the course, different methods were taught, but whether they can beapplied to every class in the same way is not the case. That means, we need to adjustto different needs of the class and use different methods. Before the course, thoselearning problems were thought to be unsolvable; however, after the course, there arestill ways to solve them, but you have to be flexible and make adjustments. (Student L,focus group interview, March 15, 2013)

I think that it [the course] is an eye-opener that allows me to realize a number of con-cepts that I have never stumbled upon. Since my teaching practicum was ended, Ihave, through this experience, come to review some of inadequacies during the teach-ing practicum period … For instance, a large portion of our learning process is in factan aural experience. I, by habit, applied aural learning a lot throughout my teachingpracticum and neglected some other learning methods that could be potentially moreeffective. As I progress through my teaching practicum, I come to realize that aurallearning merely makes up 20–30% of our full learning abilities, and that other

10 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table

4.Teachingbeliefs

aboutdifferentiatedteaching

practice(pre-test)(N

=34).

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

A1

Icanassistsomestudentsto

learnwith

theuseof

carefully

prepared

prom

pts

3.94

1.15

0% (0)

17.6%

(6)

11.8%

(4)

32.4%

(11)

35.3%

(12)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

A2

Astudent’s

comprehension

oftext

will

bedependenton

activ

ating

priorknow

ledge

4.26

1.21

2.9% (1)

5.9% (2)

14.7%

(5)

26.5%

(9)

38.2%

(13)

11.8%

(4)

0% (0)

A3

IfIallow

somestudentsto

presentassignmentsin

avarietyof

ways,Imay

begiving

somestudentsan

unfairdisadvantage

3.74

1.33

5.9% (2)

14.7%

(5)

17.6%

(6)

29.4%

(10)

26.5%

(9)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

A4

Studentswho

have

difficulty

maintaining

concentrationand

completingatask

andthereforedevelopmoreeffectiveroutines

4.30

1.24

2.9% (1)

8.8% (3)

5.9% (2)

29.4%

(10)

38.2%

(13)

11.8%

(4)

2.9% (1)

A5

WhenIhelp

somestudentsmakelin

ksandbuild

onprevious

know

ledge,Iam

encouragingsuccessin

learning

3.79

1.18

2.9% (1)

11.8%

(4)

20.6%

(7)

38.2%

(13)

20.6%

(7)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

A6

IfIteachandvisually

displaycontextspecificvocabulary,

students’writin

gwill

beenhanced

4.12

1.18

2.9% (1)

5.9% (2)

17.6%

(6)

32.4%

(11)

32.4%

(11)

8.8% (3)

0% (0)

A7

Prior

toteaching

anew

skill,itisnecessaryto

analyzeatask

and

ascertaintheknow

ledgeandskillsthat

arerequired

4.62

1.62

2.9% (1)

14.7%

(5)

8.8% (3)

8.8% (3)

20.6%

(7)

44.1%

(15)

0% (0)

A8

Effectiv

eclassroom

managem

entim

proves

teaching

andlearning

4.06

1.39

5.9% (2)

11.8%

(4)

11.8%

(4)

20.6%

(7)

41.2%

(14)

8.8% (3)

0% (0)

A9

IfIprovidegraphicorganizers

forstudentsto

record

theirwork,

itwill

lead

toabetterunderstandingof

material

4.29

1.58

5.9% (2)

11.8%

(4)

8.8% (3)

20.6%

(7)

26.5%

(9)

26.5%

(9)

0% (0)

A10

Culturaldiversity

amongstudentswill

lead

todifferent

interpretatio

nsof

thesametext

4.15

1.26

2.9% (1)

8.8% (3)

17.6%

(6)

20.6%

(7)

41.2%

(14)

8.8% (3)

0% (0)

A11

Byposing

differentquestio

ns,Icantestunderstandingat

various

levels

4.29

1.38

2.9% (1)

11.8%

(4)

5.9% (2)

35.3%

(12)

20.6%

(7)

23.5%

(8)

0% (0)

A12

Allstudentscanlearn,

givenan

appropriateeducational

environm

ent

4.06

1.32

2.9% (1)

8.8% (3)

20.6%

(7)

32.4%

(11)

17.6%

(6)

17.6%

(6)

0% (0)

A13

Allstudentscanbe

successful

inmyclass

3.70

1.29

5.9% (2)

11.8%

(4)

17.6%

(6)

41.2%

(14)

11.8%

(4)

8.8% (3)

2.9% (1)

A14

Icanensure

that

allstudentsexperience

successby

adaptin

gthe

curriculum

3.76

.86

0% (0)

8.8% (3)

23.5%

(8)

50.0%

(17)

17.6%

(6)

0%(0)

0% (0)

Notes:SA

=strong

lyagree;

MA

=mod

eratelyagree;

A=agreeslightly

morethan

disagree;D=disagree

slightly

morethan

agree;

MD

=mod

eratelydisagree.

a To2d.p.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table

5.Teachingbeliefs

aboutdifferentiatedteaching

practice(post-test)(N

=27).

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

A1

Icanassistsomestudentsto

learnwith

theuseof

carefully

prepared

prom

pts

2.67

1.04

7.4% (2)

44.4%

(12)

29.6%

(8)

11.1%

(3)

7.4% (2)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A2

Astudent’s

comprehension

oftext

will

bedependenton

activ

ating

priorknow

ledge

2.52

1.09

18.5%

(5)

33.3%

(9)

29.6%

(8)

14.8%

(4)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A3

IfIallow

somestudentsto

presentassignmentsin

avarietyof

ways,

Imay

begiving

somestudentsan

unfairdisadvantage

3.52

1.19

7.4% (2)

7.4% (2)

33.3%

(9)

33.3%

(9)

14.8%

(4)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

A4

Studentswho

have

difficulty

maintaining

concentrationand

completingatask

andthereforedevelopmoreeffectiveroutines

2.70

1.07

11.1%

(3)

37.0%

(10)

25.9%

(7)

22.2%

(6)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A5

WhenIhelp

somestudentsmakelin

ksandbuild

onprevious

know

ledge,Iam

encouragingsuccessin

learning

2.30

1.07

29.6%

(8)

25.9%

(7)

29.6%

(8)

14.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A6

IfIteachandvisually

displaycontextspecificvocabulary,students’

writin

gwill

beenhanced

2.37

1.04

18.5%

(5)

44.4%

(12)

22.2%

(6)

11.1%

(3)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A7

Prior

toteaching

anew

skill,itisnecessaryto

analyzeatask

and

ascertaintheknow

ledgeandskillsthat

arerequired

2.41

1.12

25.9%

(7)

29.6%

(8)

22.2%

(6)

22.2%

(6)

0%(0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A8

Effectiv

eclassroom

managem

entim

proves

teaching

andlearning

2.04

1.16

40.7%

(11)

33.3%

(9)

11.1%

(3)

11.1%

(3)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A9

IfIprovidegraphicorganizers

forstudentsto

record

theirwork,

itwill

lead

toabetterunderstandingof

material

2.37

1.01

22.2%

(6)

33.3%

(9)

29.6%

(8)

14.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A10

Culturaldiversity

amongstudentswill

lead

todifferent

interpretatio

nsof

thesametext

2.15

1.06

33.3%

(9)

29.6%

(8)

29.6%

(8)

3.7% (1)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A11

Byposing

differentquestio

ns,Icantestunderstandingat

various

levels

2.19

1.00

29.6%

(8)

33.3%

(9)

25.9%

(7)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A12

Allstudentscanlearn,

givenan

appropriateeducational

environm

ent

2.37

1.08

25.9%

(7)

29.6%

(8)

25.9%

(7)

18.5%

(5)

0%(0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A13

Allstudentscanbe

successful

inmyclass

2.78

1.16

14.8%

(4)

25.9%

(7)

33.3%

(9)

18.5%

(5)

7.4% (2)

0% (0)

0% (0)

A14

Icanensure

that

allstudentsexperience

successby

adaptin

gthe

curriculum

2.74

1.02

14.8%

(4)

18.5%

(5)

48.1%

(13)

14.8%

(4)

3.7% (1)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Notes:SA

=strong

lyagree;

MA

=mod

erately

agree;

A=agree

slightly

more

than

disagree;D=disagree

slightly

more

than

agree;

MD

=mod

erately

disagree;

SD=strong

lydisagree;NR=no

respon

se.

a To2d.p.

12 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

possibilities should exist in the classroom as well. For example, how they [students]use graphics to stimulate ‘thinking’ and ‘coordinate learning’ is something worthre-evaluating. (Student K, individual interview, March 12, 2013)

Now I can find out the possible ways to remediate the instruction during my tutorialteaching … I can use more appropriate methods as I did not realize those methodsbefore the course, for example, now I would use the mindmapping for building upideas when I find that they are unable to write their ideas. (Student T, individualinterview, March 7, 2013)

Er … I think the seating in the classroom, because previously when I was in the sec-ondary school, I would sit like that. It’s like rows by rows. … I think in this course Ilearnt some methods, used another perspective to see this issue, there can be somebetter methods … (Student I, individual interview, March 14, 2014)

The participants encountered changes in their perceptions and attitudes toward theuse of differentiated instruction. The qualitative data showed that the course helpedwiden their horizons about differentiated instruction and they learnt different meth-ods about differentiation including how to draw attention, grouping methods, usinggraphic organizers. They also realized that they had to be more flexible in managingdifferent students’ needs (Table 5).

Changes in pre-service teachers’ teaching efficacy

Interestingly, changes can be found in the mean scores of both general teacher effi-cacy and PTE (see Table 6). In the pre-test, PTE (x = 3.23, SD = .59) is strongerthan GTE (x = 3.73, SD = .56) (see Table 7). On the contrary, GTE (x = 3.40,SD = .66) is stronger than in PTE (x = 4.12, SD = .50) in the post-test. The changein GTE (i.e. decreased by 8.85%) is weaker than PTE (increased by 27.55%) (seeTable 8). These indicated a shift from personal abilities and skills to external factorsat the end of the course. For example, item B17 ‘Even a teacher with good teachingabilities may not reach many students’ showed the largest decrease, i.e. 31.55%.However, the biggest increase (of 47.12%) in the mean score was found in item B12‘If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew thenecessary steps in teaching that concept’ (see Table 9).

Besides, there were very minimal changes in participants’ perceptions upon theextent to which a teacher can play in affecting student learning. For example, itemB10 ‘Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement when allfactors are considered’ was found to be with the smallest increase in the mean score,i.e. 16.21%. In this connection, in the pre-test, item B7 ‘When a student gets a better

Table 6. A comparison of pre- and post-tests of prospective teachers’ teaching efficacyitems.

Pre-test(N = 34)a

Post-test(N = 27)a


General teaching efficacy (Items: B2, B3, B4, B9, B10,B13, B15, B17, B20, B21)

3.73 .56 3.40 .66 −8.85

Personal teaching efficacy (Items: B1, B5, B6, B7, B8,B11, B12, B14, B16, B18, B19, B22)

3.23 .59 4.12 .50 +27.55

aTo 2 d.p.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table 7. A comparison of pre- and post-tests mean scores of prospective teacher self-effi-cacy items.

Items

Pre-test(N = 34)a

Post-test(N = 27)a


B1 When a student does better than usual, manytimes it is because I exert a little extra effort

3.18 .97 4.19 1.04 +31.76

B2 The hours in my class have little influence onstudents compared to the influence of their homeenvironment

3.79 .91 3.07 .92 −19.0

B3 The amount a student can learn is primarilyrelated to family background

3.76 1.28 3.30 1.07 −12.23

B4 If students aren’t disciplined at home, they aren’tlikely to accept any discipline

3.74 1.36 3.74 1.10 .0

B5 I have enough training to deal with almost anylearning problem

3.71 1.38 3.59 .97 −3.23

B6 When a student is having difficulty with anassignment, I am usually able to adjust to his/herlevel

3.21 .77 4.26 .98 +32.71

B7 When a student gets a better grade than he/sheusually gets, it is usually because I found betterways of teaching that student

3.03 .97 3.96 1.02 +30.69

B8 When I really try, I can get through to mostdifficult students

3.32 .95 4.44 .85 +33.73

B9 A teacher is very limited in what he/she canachieve because a student’s home environmentlargely influence on his/her achievement

3.74 .93 3.22 .97 −13.9

B10 Teachers are not a very powerful influence onstudent achievement when all factors areconsidered

3.35 1.10 3.89 1.19 +16.12

B11 When the grades of my students improve, it isusually because I found more effectiveapproaches

3.03 .90 4.33 .92 +42.90

B12 If a student masters a new concept quickly, thismight be because I knew the necessary steps inteaching that concept

3.12 1.00 4.59 1.08 +47.12

B13 If parents would do more for their children, Icould do more

3.97 1.09 3.26 1.13 −17.88

B14 If a student did not remember information I gavein a previous lesson, I would know how toincrease his/her retention in the next lesson

3.12 1.02 4.07 1.04 +30.45

B15 The influences of a student’s home experiencescan be overcome by good teaching

3.35 .95 4.11 .93 +22.69

B16 If a student in my class becomes disruptive andnoisy, I feel assured that I know sometechniques to redirect him/her quickly

3.21 1.07 4.04 .94 +25.86

B17 Even a teacher with good teaching abilities maynot reach many students

4.21 1.01 2.89 1.22 −31.35

B18 If one of my students couldn’t do a classassignment, I would be able to accurately assesswhether the assignment was at the correct levelof difficulty

3.53 1.05 3.50 .95 −.85

B19 If I really try hard, I can get through to even themost difficult or unmotivated students

3.41 1.02 4.04 .85 +18.48

(Continued)

14 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teachingthat student’ has the lowest mean score (x = 3.03, SD = .97), while in the post-test,the item got a mean score of 3.96 (SD = 1.02), in which 0% of the participantsstrongly disagreed with it and 7.4% strongly disagreed in the post-test. 5.9%strongly agreed in the pre-test, but 0% strongly agreed in the post-test.

At the same time, participants found external environment plays a much moreinfluential factor in affecting student learning. One participant shared his view that:

I don’t disagree with teacher’s teaching skill and passion affect students very much.However, if students live in a horrible family, including eating and sleeping, they areaffected and how can you tell them to have a good psychological condition to study?Finally, that is still the parents who play the first role model of students. If their familycannot incorporate and is in disharmony, they are deeply affected … (Student J, indi-vidual interview, March 19, 2013)

Another participant shared a similar view, saying that:

No matter what, the environment does matter, that means when the government does itwell, schools do well, I believe, families also bring about the concept of education tothem [students]. (Student K, individual interview, March 7, 2013)

This reveals that pre-service teachers seemingly found themselves insufficient intheir own skills and abilities to influence student learning and behaviors (Gibsonand Dembo, 1984; Sergiovanni, 2000). At the same time, they believed that familybackground played a more fundamental role in helping students to learn.

Expectations on students

The participants in the study showed quite low expectations on students. It is sur-prisingly found that item A13 ‘All students can be successful in my class’ has thelowest mean score (x = 3.70, SD = 1.29) in the pre-test, while this was the secondhighest mean item in the post-test (x = 2.78, SD = 1.16). In the pre-test, 8.8% of theparticipants strongly disagreed that students could not be successful, while 35.3%strongly agreed that students could be successful. Meanwhile, in the post-test,

Table 7. (Continued).

Items

Pre-test(N = 34)a

Post-test(N = 27)a


B20 When it comes right down to it, a teacher reallycan’t do much because most of a student’smotivation and performance depends on his orher home environment

3.45 1.12 3.33 1.11 −3.48

B21 Some students need to be placed in slowergroups so they are not subjected to unrealisticexpectations

3.91 1.00 3.15 1.20 −19.44

B22 My teacher training program and/or experiencehas given me the necessary skills to be aneffective teacher

3.21 .81 4.07 1.11 +26.79

Notes: SA = strongly agree; MA = moderately agree; A = agree slightly more than disagree; D =disagree slightly more than agree; MD = moderately disagree; SD=strongly disagree; NR = no response.aTo 2 d.p.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table

8.Prospectiv

eteacherself-efficacy

items(pre-test)(N

=34).

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

B1

Whenastudentdoes

betterthan

usual,manytim

esitisbecauseI

exertalittle

extraeffort

3.18

.97

0% (0)

23.5%

(8)

47.1%

(16)

20.6%

(7)

5.9% (2)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B2

The

hoursin

myclasshave

little

influenceon

studentscomparedto

theinfluenceof

theirhomeenvironm

ent

3.79

.91

0% (0)

8.8% (3)

23.5%

(8)

50.0%

(17)

14.7%

(5)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B3

The

amount

astudentcanlearnisprim

arily

relatedto

family

background

3.76

1.28

2.9% (1)

14.7%

(5)

23.5%

(8)

29.4%

(10)

20.6%

(7)

8.8% (3)

0% (0)

B4

Ifstudentsaren’tdisciplin

edat

home,they

aren’tlik

elyto

accept

anydisciplin

e3.74

1.36

8.8% (3)

2.9% (1)

35.3%

(12)

20.6%

(7)

23.5%

(8)

8.8% (3)

0% (0)

B5

Ihave

enough

training

todeal

with

almostanylearning

problem

3.71

1.38

2.9% (1)

17.6%

(6)

29.4%

(10)

17.6%

(6)

20.6%

(7)

11.8%

(4)

0% (0)

B6

Whenastudentishaving

difficulty

with

anassignment,Iam

usually

able

toadjustto

his/herlevel

3.21

.77

0% (0)

14.7%

(5)

55.9%

(19)

23.5%

(8)

5.9% (2)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B7

Whenastudentgetsabettergradethan

he/she

usually

gets,itis

usually

becauseIfoundbetterwaysof

teaching

that

student

3.03

.97

5.9% (2)

20.6%

(7)

44.1%

(15)

23.5%

(8)

5.9% (2)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B8

WhenIreally

try,Icangetthroughto

mostdifficultstudents

3.32

.95

2.9% (1)

11.8%

(4)

47.1%

(16)

26.5%

(9)

11.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B9

Ateacherisvery

limitedin

whathe/she

canachievebecausea

student’shomeenvironm

entlargeinfluenceon

his/herachievem

ent

3.74

.93

0% (0)

11.8%

(4)

20.6%

(7)

52.9%

(18)

11.8%

(4)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B10

Teachersarenotavery

powerfulinfluenceon

studentachievem

ent

whenallfactorsareconsidered

3.35

1.10

5.9% (2)

11.8%

(4)

41.2%

(14)

23.5%

(8)

17.6%

(6)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B11

Whenthegrades

ofmystudentsim

prove,itisusually

becauseI

foundmoreeffectiveapproaches

3.03

.90

5.9% (2)

14.7%

(5)

55.9%

(19)

17.6%

(6)

5.9% (2)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B12

Ifastudentmasters

anew

conceptquickly,thismight

bebecauseI

knew

thenecessarystepsin

teaching

that

concept

3.12

1.04

2.9% (1)

26.5%

(9)

38.2%

(13)

20.6%

(7)

11.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0% (0)

B13

Ifparentswould

domorefortheirchild

ren,

Icoulddo

more

3.97

1.09

2.9% (1)

5.9% (2)

20.6%

(7)

35.3%

(12)

32.4%

(11)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B14

Ifastudentdidnotremem

berinform

ationIgave

inaprevious

lesson,Iwould

know

how

toincrease

his/herretentionin

thenext

lesson

3.12

1.01

0% (0)

29.4%

(10)

41.2%

(14)

20.6%

(7)

5.9% (2)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B15

The

influences

ofastudent’s

homeexperiencescanbe

overcome

bygood

teaching

3.35

.95

0% (0)

17.6%

(6)

41.2%

(14)

32.4%

(11)

5.9% (2)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

(Contin

ued)

16 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

B16

Ifastudentin

myclassbecomes

disruptiv

eandnoisy,Ifeel

assuredthat

Iknow

sometechniques

toredirect

him/her

quickly

3.21

1.10

5.9% (2)

14.7%

(5)

47.1%

(16)

20.6%

(7)

8.8% (3)

2.9% (1)

0% (0)

B17

Evenateacherwith

good

teaching

abilitiesmay

notreachmany

students

4.21

1.01

0% (0)

5.9% (2)

17.6%

(6)

32.4%

(11)

38.2%

(13)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

B18

Ifoneof

mystudentscouldn

’tdo

aclassassignment,Iwould

beable

toaccurately

assess

whether

theassignmentwas

atthecorrect

levelof

difficulty

3.53

1.05

2.9% (1)

5.9% (2)

47.1%

(16)

29.4%

(10)

8.8% (3)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

B19

IfIreally

tryhard,Icangetthroughto

even

themostdifficultor

unmotivated

students

3.41

1.02

0% (0)

17.6%

(6)

38.2%

(13)

35.3%

(12)

2.9% (1)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

B20

Whenitcomes

rightdownto

it,ateacherreally

can’tdo

much

becausemostof

astudent’s

motivationandperformance

depends

onhisor

herhomeenvironm

ent

3.45

1.12

2.9% (1)

20.6%

(7)

20.6%

(7)

35.3%

(12)

17.6%

(6)

0%(0)

2.9% (1)

B21

Som

estudentsneed

tobe

placed

inslow

ergroups

sothey

arenot

subjectedto

unrealistic

expectations

3.91

1.00

0% (0)

8.8% (3)

20.6%

(7)

47.1%

(16)

17.6%

(6)

5.9% (2)

0% (0)

B22

Myteachertraining

program

and/or

experience

hasgivenmethe

necessaryskillsto

bean

effectiveteacher

3.21

.81

0% (0)

17.6%

(6)

50.0%

(17)

26.5%

(9)

5.9% (2)

0%(0)

0% (0)

Notes:SA

=strong

lyagree;

MA

=mod

erately

agree;

A=agree

slightly

more

than

disagree;D=disagree

slightly

more

than

agree;

MD

=mod

erately

disagree;

SD

=strong

lydisagree;NR=no

respon

se.

a To2d.p.

Table

8.(Contin

ued).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table

9.Prospectiv

eteacherself-efficacy

items(post-test)(N

=27).

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

B1

Whenastudentdoes

betterthan

usual,

manytim

esitisbecauseIexertalittle

extraeffort

4.19

1.04

0%(0)

3.7%

(1)

22.2%

(6)

37.0%

(10)

25.9%

(7)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

B2

The

hoursin

myclasshave

little

influence

onstudentscomparedto

theinfluenceof

theirhomeenvironm

ent

3.07

.92

0%(0)

29.6%

(8)

40.7%

(11)

22.2%

(6)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B3

The

amount

astudentcanlearnis

prim

arily

relatedto

family

background

3.30

1.07

0%(0)

29.6%

(8)

25.9%

(7)

29.6%

(8)

14.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B4

Ifstudentsaren’tdisciplin

edat

home,they

aren’tlik

elyto

accept

anydisciplin

e3.74

1.10

0%(0)

7.4%

(2)

44.4%

(12)

22.2%

(6)

18.5%

(5)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

B5

Ihave

enough

training

todeal

with

almost

anylearning

problem

3.59

.97

0%(0)

14.8%

(4)

29.6%

(8)

37.0%

(10)

18.5%

(5)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B6

Whenastudentishaving

difficulty

with

anassignment,Iam

usually

able

toadjustto

his/herlevel

4.26

.98

0%(0)

7.4%

(2)

14.8%

(4)

22.2%

(6)

55.6%

(15)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B7

Whenastudentgetsabettergradethan

he/

sheusually

gets,itisusually

becauseI

foundbetterwaysof

teaching

that

student

3.96

1.02

0%(0)

3.7%

(1)

33.3%

(9)

33.3%

(9)

22.2%

(6)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

B8

WhenIreally

try,Icangetthroughto

mostdifficultstudents

4.44

.85

0%(0)

0%(0)

11.1%

(3)

44.4%

(12)

33.3%

(12)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

B9

Ateacherisvery

limitedin

whathe/she

canachievebecauseastudent’shome

environm

entlargeinfluenceon

his/her

achievem

ent

3.22

.97

3.7%

(1)

11.1%

(3)

59.3%

(16)

11.1%

(3)

14.8%

(4)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B10

Teachersarenotavery

powerfulinfluence

onstudentachievem

entwhenallfactors

areconsidered

3.89

1.19

0%(0)

11.1%

(3)

29.6%

(8)

29.6%

(8)

18.5%

(5)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

B11

Whenthegrades

ofmystudentsim

prove,

itisusually

becauseIfoundmoreeffective

approaches

4.33

.92

0%(0)

0%(0)

18.5%

(5)

40.7%

(11)

29.6%

(8)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

(Contin

ued)

18 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

B12

Ifastudentm

astersanewconceptq

uickly,

thismight

bebecauseIknew

thenecessary

stepsin

teaching

thatconcept

4.59

1.08

0%(0)

0%(0)

18.5%

(5)

29.6%

(8)

25.9%

(7)

25.9%

(7)

0%(0)

B13

Ifparentswould

domorefortheir

child

ren,

Icoulddo

more

3.26

1.13

7.4%

(2)

7.4%

(2)

51.9%

(14)

25.9%

(7)

0%(0)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

B14

Ifastudentdidnotremem

berinform

ation

Igave

inaprevious

lesson,Iwould

know

how

toincrease

his/herretentionin

the

next

lesson

4.07

1.04

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

18.5%

(5)

48.1%

(13)

22.2%

(6)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

B15

The

influences

ofastudent’s

home

experiencescanbe

overcomeby

good

teaching

4.11

.93

0%(0)

3.7%

(1)

22.2%

(6)

37.0%

(10)

33.3%

(9)

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

B16

Ifastudentin

myclassbecomes

disruptiv

eandnoisy,Ifeel

assuredthat

Iknow

some

techniques

toredirect

him/her

quickly

4.04

.94

0%(0)

3.7%

(1)

25.9%

(7)

37.0%

(10)

29.6%

(8)

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

B17

Evenateacherwith

good

teaching

abilities

may

notreachmanystudents

2.89

1.22

14.8%

(4)

18.5%

(5)

40.7%

(11)

18.5%

(5)

3.7%

(1)

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

B18

Ifoneof

mystudentscouldn

’tdo

aclass

assignment,Iwould

beable

toaccurately

assess

whether

theassignmentwas

atthe

correctlevelof

difficulty

3.50

.95

3.7%

(1)

7.4%

(2)

33.3%

(9)

40.7%

(11)

11.1%

(3)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B19

IfIreally

tryhard,Icangetthroughto

even

themostdifficultor

unmotivated

students

4.04

.85

0%(0)

3.7%

(1)

18.5%

(5)

51.9%

(14)

22.2%

(6)

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

B20

Whenitcomes

rightdownto

it,ateacher

really

can’tdo

muchbecausemostof

astudent’smotivationandperformance

dependson

hisor

herhomeenvironm

ent

3.33

1.11

0%(0)

25.9%

(7)

33.3%

(9)

25.9%

(7)

11.%

(3)

3.7%

(1)

0%(0)

(Contin

ued)

Table9.

(Contin

ued).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Table

9.(Contin

ued).

Item

sMeana

SD

SA

MA

AD

MD

SD

NR

B21

Som

estudentsneed

tobe

placed

inslow

ergroups

sothey

arenotsubjectedto

unrealistic

expectations

3.15

1.20

7.4%

(2)

22.2%

(6)

37.0%

(10)

14.8%

(4)

18.5%

(5)

0%(0)

0%(0)

B22

Myteachertraining

program

and/or

experience

hasgivenmethenecessary

skillsto

bean

effectiveteacher

4.07

1.11

0%(0)

11.1%

(3)

14.8%

(4)

37.0%

(10)

29.6%

(8)

7.4%

(2)

0%(0)

Notes:SA

=strong

lyagree;

MA

=mod

erately

agree;

A=agree

slightly

more

than

disagree;D=disagree

slightly

more

than

agree;

MD

=mod

erately

disagree;

SD

=strong

lydisagree;NR=no

respon

se.

a To2d.p.

20 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

though 0% strongly disagreed with that, there were still 5.9% of participants whostrongly agreed on that. There was a stronger tendency about disagreement upon thisitem, in which 61.8 and 25.9% of the participants tended to disagree in the pre- andpost-tests, respectively. However, this finding is quite different from the findings ofthe study by Scott and Spencer (2006), who reported that 41% of participatingin-service teachers reported that all students were unsure if all students could be suc-cessful. This indicated that the participants had more positive attitude at the end ofthe course.

At the beginning of the course, during the interviews, most of the informantsalso showed uncertainties, worries, and anxiety about handling learner diversityissues. For example, this student mentioned about her needs in learning aboutdifferentiated strategies, stating that:

I want to know how to use strategies to cater to learner diversity. I always have athought, till this moment I still cannot escape from this thought, that is, do the studentsreally have learning diversity, or lack incentive to learn? (Student D, individualinterview, February 19, 2013)

In spite of gaining more knowledge and skills regarding how to use differentiatedstrategies as discussed in the previous section, participants still think they wereunable to get students on the track of learning. This participant shared her view that:

I think there must be SEN students in a class … Actually I feel I can’t manage them,so I can’t stop thinking what strategies I can use to attract their attention. At least whenthey are naughty, I can flexibly make use of their naughtiness. When facing this situa-tion, because I think I have taught what I want to teach and they can listen to what Italk, I will be very satisfied already. (Student T, individual interview, March 7, 2013)

Perhaps one of the reasons why participants’ expectations were low was because oftheir perceptions of SEN students and related problems arising from SEN students.This implies that there is a potential need for sustaining and clarifying the partici-pants’ beliefs and perceptions upon different types of students through differentways of professional development such as providing opportunities for learning aboutcurriculum adaptation and teaching strategies in tackling learner diversity, casestudy, discussion of differentiation issues as well as reflection upon previouslearning experience (Nespor, 1987; Tillema, 1994).

Class management

Managing disciplines or classroom routines is a common topic for prospective tea-chers. There was a big change in the agreement with item A4 ‘Students who havedifficulty maintaining concentration and completing a task and therefore developmore effective routines,’ with a mean score of 4.30 (SD = 1.24) in the pre-test and2.70 (SD = 1.07) in the post-test. Item A8 ‘Effective classroom managementimproves teaching and learning’ indicated the biggest decrease in the mean score,4.06 (SD = 1.39) (pre-test) and 2.04 (SD = 1.16) (post-test). Such decreases in themean scores of both items reflect that the participants showed more concerns abouteffective routines and classroom management. Class management seems to berelated to class size and time factors that affect differentiated teaching practice. Oneprospective teacher expressed that:

I found the variation too great even when only 10 students are managed. I will try mybest to do it. (Student K, individual interview, January 31, 2013)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

… I thought there are many kinds of differences in the class, yet time is very limitedfor each class, which makes it difficult to help all of them. (Student J, individualinterview, February 8, 2013)

Another prospective teacher further elaborated that:

… I think … my grasp of education and my understanding of students that could beshown in my classroom management. He/she can even cater minimum requirementsand can effectively instruct students clearly so that students can absorb the teaching.(Student K, individual interview, January 31, 2013)

After the course, participants still shared similar thoughts about the importance ofclassroom management. For example:

Actually I think the most horrible thing … for novice teachers … is classroom manage-ment. Because I am afraid there won’t be any chance for me to implement thetechniques. I am afraid there is loud noise, or some students who do not listen andsleep in the class … (Student K, individual interview, March 7, 2013)

This further reveals that there is an urgent call for the development of classmanagement skills during teacher preparation courses.

Experience, training, and confidence

Real teaching experiences and training are perceived as a crucial factor in differenti-ated teaching practice. In the pre-test, a total of 11.8% participants ‘strongly dis-agree’ with item B5 ‘I have enough training to deal with almost any learningproblem,’ occupying the highest percentage in showing a strong disagreementamong all the other items; in contrast, only 2.9% showed ‘strongly agree’ with thisitem. In the post-test, there appeared 0% of participants showing ‘strongly agree,’which was the same as in the pre-test. A slight change in the mean score in this itemwas found in the pre- and post-tests, that is x = 3.71 (SD = 1.38) and x = 3.59(SD = .97), respectively.

Uncertainties about how to teach or use differentiated strategies are always foundin prospective teachers’ expression when being asked about to what extent theywere able to handle learner diversity. Putting theory into practice was expected byprospective teachers but they expressed that this ideal might not exist in reality.During the interview, when being asked why they did not have confidence incatering for learner diversity, experience seemingly was perceived to be important indriving their incentive in using differentiated instruction.

[It] is about experience. When I have learned a lot in class or from books but theycouldn’t be applied in the classroom, they are wasted. (Student K, Year 3, individualinterview, January 31, 2013)

Experience seems to be linked with confidence in using differentiated instruction.Another prospective teacher explained that:

… I’m still worried if I could really apply the strategies; if students will listen to me orif the strategies will really be effective. Although the professor has told us about thestrategies, we have no experiences of applying it so we will be uneasy. I think I needto be more confident. The key problem in starting the TP [teaching practice] is the lackof confidence. I have lots of worries and am afraid if I can do a good job. Maybe I willhave to learn more strategies because students will complain if you have only limitedactivities in class. (Student N, individual interview, February 8, 2013)

22 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Because in the teaching practicum you really need to do teaching, you need manytheories and methods in the heart, but you also have to see if they can be applied inreality. Because what I am most concerned is when students totally reject to listen toyou, actually how good the teacher is actually is useless. (Student K, individualinterview, March 7, 2013)

In other words, this indicated that there is a strong need for applications orpracticing differentiated strategies that are learnt in the course.

Conflicts with personal teaching beliefs: fairness or equity?

Apart from perceiving that being unable to control the ‘external’ factors (for exam-ple, family background) in affecting teaching, prospective teachers seemingly faceinternal struggles about the use of differentiated strategies. In the pre-test, 5.9% ofthe participants in the survey showed a strong agreement in item A3 ‘If I allowsome students to present assignments in a variety of ways, I may be giving somestudents an unfair disadvantage’ (x = 3.74, SD = 1.33). In the post-test, this item gota mean score of 3.52 (SD = 1.19), with a decrease of 5.88%. Such a decreasereflects that the pre-service teachers more likely tended to agree with this concernabout unfairness. Fairness in assessment is always found as one of the difficulties indoing differentiated instruction. This finding is consistent with other studies, forexample, Chan et al. (2002), Wan et al. (2013) and Yuen, Westwood, and Wong(2004), who found that in-service teachers perceived differentiated assessment to bethe most difficult part when practicing differentiated instruction in the Hong Kongcontext as they were concerned about its fairness in the examination-orientedenvironment.

Conclusion

Attempting to inform teacher education practices in Hong Kong, this study hasexplored a group of prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and teaching beliefsabout differentiated instruction. There were changes in both teaching beliefs upondifferentiated instruction and teaching efficacy during the course. Given that teach-ing efficacy and teaching beliefs are crucial to student achievement and desirableteaching effectiveness, it is important to be aware of the prospective teachers’ learn-ing needs and develop suitable teacher education programs while their concerns arewell addressed.

Course development in teacher education

As differentiation can be dynamic and flexible, teacher educators can provide appro-priate information on differentiated strategies to suit the individual needs on theirstudents in diverse classrooms under a positive learning environment (Dee, 2010;Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012). The teacher education programs should provideexplicit instruction and guidance for the implementation of differentiated instruction.Theory into practice is always a concern in teacher education. The course content aslearnt should be demonstrated in the teaching practicum in order to be able to putlearnt skills and knowledge into practice.

To be specific, in developing the course about differentiated instruction, conceptsof differentiation and differentiated instruction strategies should be clearly presented


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

while practical experiences should be adequately given, and opportunities for collec-tive reflections upon experiences should be provided. Information about a range ofdifferentiated strategies should be given to increase the repertoire and skills of theparticipants. Flexible grouping, curriculum compacting, tiering as well as assessmentstrategies within the framework of Tomlinson’s (1995) ‘Progression of independentneeds’ can be introduced. At the same time, during the coursework, interventionsfor bolstering confidence in using differentiated instruction should be introduced soas to enable participants to ‘act toward and construe each other in new and positiveways’ (Gibbs & Miller, 2014, p. 7).

Meanwhile, prospective teachers need to master classroom techniques and routi-nes of managing differentiated instruction ‘to prevent frustration when they confrontwith the realities of classroom life’ (Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007, p. 672; Marzano,Marzano, & Pickering, 2003). Classroom management and strategies in usingdifferentiation should be well addressed and discussed during the course, whereasreflections on their past learning histories shall be facilitated. The course participantscan have chances to express their concerns and share information about differenti-ated teaching with the in-service teachers who have training in differentiatedinstruction.

Limitations and future research directions

There are some limitations in the study. First, due to a limited number of partici-pants, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to prospective teachersfrom other courses or universities. ANOVAs and Chi-square tests could not be usedto explore relationship among teaching efficacy and beliefs based on demographicdata. The development of the survey can be further examined in other groups ofpre-service teachers engaging in other courses. There can be an investigation intothe relationship between demographics and teaching beliefs and efficacy. Second,pre-service teachers’ teaching beliefs and teaching efficacy may be subject tochanges as the teacher education programme is still underway. Follow-up studies,for example, in the form of longitudinal study, can thus be done to investigate howthis group of pre-service teachers perceives and applies what they learnt from thecourse into the teaching practicum and classroom teaching in reality. Further studiescan be conducted on a bigger sample of prospective teachers and in-service teachersin order to explore relationships between teaching efficacy, teaching beliefs aboutdifferentiation, and demographic characteristics. There is a need to explore factorsthat influence the development of a strong sense of self-efficacy and use of differ-entiated instruction strategies (Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007) for the long-termdevelopment of teaching efficacy and to provide effective differentiation skills toteachers. Moreover, with reference to the feedback from this study, amendments andadjustments to the course contents and structure will be made. In order to sustainand improve the development of the course, there can be a study about the course toget ongoing feedback and examine the effects on pre-service teachers’ teachingefficacy and beliefs toward differentiated instruction.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

24 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

FundingThis work was supported by The Chinese University of Hong Kong Direct Grant forResearch 2012–2013 [Project code: 2058002].

ORCIDSally Wai-Yan Wan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6513

ReferencesAdams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2004). Critical questions about tiered lessons. In C. Tomlinson

(Ed.), Instructional strategies: A facilitator’s guide (pp. 256–262). Alexandria, VA:ASCD.

Adamson, B., & Tong, A. S. Y. (2008). Leadership and collaboration in implementingcurriculum change in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9,180–189.

Ahsan, N. M., & Anjum, T. (2012). A study of Pakistani teachers’ beliefs and perceptionsabout teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research inBusiness, 4, 128–143.

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices ofspecial education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education:The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,17, 86–95.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programssupporting educational change. Vol. VII factors affecting implementation and continua-tion (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. 140 432).

Berry, R. (2006, May 21–26). Teachers’ assessment practices for classroom diversity. Paperpresented at the 32nd International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA)Annual Conference, Singapore.

Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginningteachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special Education, 41,158–170.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivistclassrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cakir, O., & Alici, D. (2009). Seeing self as others see you: Variability in self-efficacy ratings

in student teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 541–561.Calderhead, J. (1988). Knowledge structures in learning to teach. In J. Calderland (Ed.),

Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–169). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.Carless, D. (2001). Curriculum innovation in the primary EFL classroom: Case studies of

three teachers implementing Hong Kong’s target-oriented curriculum (TOC) (Unpub-lished PhD thesis). University of Warwick. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/36390/1/WRAP_THESIS_Carless_2001.pdf

Casey, M. K., & Gable, R. K. (2012, May 2–4). Perceived efficacy of beginning teachers todifferentiate instruction. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the New EnglandEducational Research Association (NEERO), Portsmouth, NH.

Chan, D. W. (2008a). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary schoolteachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 181–194.

Chan, D. W. (2008b). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy amongChinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 24, 1057–1069.

Chan, C. W. M., Chang, R. M. L., Westwood, P., & Yuen, M. (2002). Teaching adaptively:How easy is it in practice? A perspective from Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific EducationalResearcher, 11, 27–58.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

http://orcid.org

http://orcid.org

http://orcid.org

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6513

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/36390/1/WRAP_THESIS_Carless_2001.pdf

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/36390/1/WRAP_THESIS_Carless_2001.pdf

Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). Differentiated assessment strategies one tool doesn’t fit all.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cheung, H. Y. (2006). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-serviceteachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 32,435–451.

Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghaiprimary in-service teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 103–123.

Chong, S., Forlin, C., & Au, M. L. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course onattitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 35, 161–179.

Cooper, J. S., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). An educator’s guide to differentiating instruction.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curriculum Development Council. (2000). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculumdevelopment consultation document. Hong Kong: CDC.

Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Basic education guide – Building on strengths(Primary 1 – Secondary 3). Hong Kong: The Printing Department.

Dee, A. L. (2010). Preservice teacher application of differentiated instruction. TeacherEducator, 46, 53–70.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Health.Education Bureau. (2008). Catering for student differences: Indicators for inclusion.

Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_6596/Indicators-082008_E.pdf

Education Bureau. (2010). Operation guide on the whole school approach to integratededucation. Hong Kong: Printing Department. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_7385/ie%20guide_en.pdf

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173).Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commit-ment to teaching among preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 80,81–85.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,38, 47–65.

Forlin, C. (2007). Classroom diversity: Towards a whole-school approach. In S. N. Phillipson(Ed.), Learning diversity in the Chinese classroom: Contexts and practice for studentswith special needs (pp. 95–123). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Forlin, C. (2008). Education reform for inclusion in Asia: What about teacher education? InC. Forlin & M.-G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion and teacher education: Towards anew era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 61–73). Abingdon:Routledge.

Forlin, C., & Lian, J. (2008). Contemporary trends and issues in educational reform for spe-cial and inclusive education. In C. Forlin & M.-G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion andteacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region(pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Routledge.

Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive educationin Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 13–22.

Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston,MA: Kluwer.

Gencer, A. S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish preservice science teachers’ efficacy beliefsregarding science teaching and their beliefs about classroom management. Teaching andTeacher Education, 23, 664–675.

George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom.Theory Into Practice, 44, 185–193.

Gibbs, S., & Miller, A. (2014). Teachers’ resilience and well-being: A role for educationalpsychology. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20, 609–621. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.844408

26 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_6596/Indicators-082008_E.pdf

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_6596/Indicators-082008_E.pdf

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_7385/ie%20guide_en.pdf

http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_7385/ie%20guide_en.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.844408

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.844408

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 569–582.

Gregory, G. H. (2008). Differentiated instructional strategies in practice: Training, imple-mentation, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affec-tive characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing theGeneral Curriculum. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications forUDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Cur-riculum. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated

Hoy, A. W. (2008). Anita Woolfolk Hoy. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://people.ehe.osu.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/#Long

Hui, S. K. F., Kennedy, K. J., & Cheung, H. Y. (2006). Hong Kong and Macao pre-serviceteachers’ sense of efficacy: A cross-cultural investigation using the Chinese version of the12-item TSE (C-TSE). Asia-Pacific Education Research, 15, 41–62.

Isler, I., & Cakiroglu, E. (2009, January 28–February 1). Teachers’ efficacy beliefs andperceptions regarding the implementation of new primary mathematics curriculum.Proceedings of CERME 6, Lyon, France.

Jung, W. S. (2007). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion. Education, 128,106–113.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,27, 65–90.

Li, Y. L. (2003). What makes a good kindergarten teacher? A pilot interview study in HongKong. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 19–31.

Lo, M. L. (2009). The development of the learning study approach in classroom research inHong Kong. Educational Research Journal, 24, 165–184.

Lo, M. L., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). Catering for individual differences – Building on variation. InM. L. Lo, W. Y. Pong, & P. Chik (Eds.), For each and every one: Catering for individualdifferences through learning studies (pp. 77–96). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management thatworks: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2009). Being smart about gifted education: A guidebook foreducators and parents (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Meijer, C., & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. TheJournal of Special Education, 22, 378–385.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 19, 317–328.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Creating effectiveteaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: Author.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Piaget, J. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. The

Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247–253.Ruys, I., Defruyt, S., Rots, I., & Aelterman, A. (2013). Differentiated instruction in teacher

education: A case study of congruent teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 19, 93–107.Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differ-

entiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education,34, 309–327.

Scott, W., & Spencer, F. (2006). Professional development for inclusive differentiated teach-ing practice. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 35–44.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, andpersonal meaning in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html

http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated

http://people.ehe.osu.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/#Long

http://people.ehe.osu.edu/ahoy/research/instruments/#Long

Sin, K. F., & Law, S. Y. (2012). The construction of an institute–school–community partner-ship of teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusiveteacher education: An international perspective (pp. 203–211). Oxon: Routledge.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of efficacy among pre-service and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30,214–221.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stake, R. E. (2000). A modest commitment to the promotion of democracy. New Directions

in Evaluations, 85, 95–107.Swaffield, B. C., & Guske, I. (Eds.). (2011). Global encounters: Pedagogical paradigms and

educational practices. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Tillema, H. H. (1994). Training and professional expertise: Bridging the gap between new

information and pre-existing beliefs of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10,601–615.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all lear-ners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and class-rooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K.,… Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, inter-est, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive con-struct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Wan, E. W. P., & Wan, S. W.-Y. (2012, July 17). An exploratory study of teachers’ use ofdifferentiation strategies in a Hong Kong primary school. Paper presented at the 12thAsia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness 2012, Dubai, UAE.

Wan, S. W.-Y., Wan, E. W. P., Lam, P. H. C., Noguera, J. S., & Alvarez, I. (2013, May 1).An exploratory study of Hong Kong primary teachers’ use of differentiated strategies inthe classroom. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting “Education and Poverty:Theory, Research, Policy and Praxis”, San Francisco, USA.

Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiatedinstruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 54–63.

Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teachingand Teacher Education, 21, 747–766.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Yuen, M. T., Westwood, P., & Wong, G. (2004). Meeting the needs of students with specific

learning difficulties in the mainstream education system: Data from primary school teach-ers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Special Education, 20, 67–76.

Appendix 1

(1) Reliability of survey items in teaching beliefs upon differentiated instruction in pre-and post-tests

Cronbach’s α N of items

Pre-test .938 14Post-test .921 14

28 S.W.-Y. Wan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

(2) Reliability of survey items in teaching efficacy.

Cronbach’s α N of items

Pre-test .562 22Post-test .788 22


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

20:

14 0

6 A

ugus

t 201

5

Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs

Documents

Transcript of Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs