See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329894253

ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre

Innovations in ELT Practices

Article · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 36

4 authors, including:

Yusnamariah Md Yusop
English LAnguage Teaching Centre Malaysia
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ESL Practitioner Journal 2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusnamariah Md Yusop on 24 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

EMPLOYING
DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION IN
DESIGNING LESSONS
FOR LINUS2.0 PUPILS

ZIKRI EFFANDY BIN ZAINUDIN

YUSNAMARIAH MD YUSOP 59
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low
proficiency Year One pupils. The study involved ten Year One pupils and two English
teachers in two public schools in Mersing, Johor. Data collection included video recordings
and interviews with teachers. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews data.
Two main themes emerged which are teachers’ preparation and lesson planning. The
themes described the elements needed by teachers in designing their lessons to cater
the needs of the LINUS 2.0 pupils in employing the differentiated instruction
Keywords: LINUS2.0, differentiated instructions, reading, remedial online materials

INTRODUCTION

The Primary School Standard Curriculum, Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) was
introduced by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia (MoE) in 2011. The implementation of
this new curriculum is to develop pupils’ ability to listen, speak, read, and write in English
meaningfully, purposefully and with confidence. Realizing the importance of mastering
these skills, and at the same time being aware of the issue of pupils who are still having
problems mastering the skills especially the reading skill in English, the MoE has taken
the initiative to expand the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS) programme to
include English Literacy (LINUS2.0) in 2013.

LINUS 2.0 (LBI) aims to ensure all pupils master Malay literacy, English literacy and
numeracy at the end of Year Three (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013). The pupils are
screened twice a year when they are in Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 to determine their
level of literacy and numeracy. Those who fall behind will have to go through remedial
classes until they are qualified to be placed in the mainstream curriculum. The objective
of this early intervention programme is to improve the quality of teaching and learning of
English as well as to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning remedial English.

In year 1, pupils are either streamed based on their achievement on a placement test
at the beginning of the school or they are placed based in the class on a first come first
serve basis. The latter scenario creates a situation whereby classes consist of pupils with
mixed abilities. Having mixed ability pupils in a classroom, requires teachers to teach two
groups of pupils which are: the group that fulfils the LBI 2.0 screening requirements and
the one that does not. Unlike the LINUS programme, where the pupils will attend separate
remedial class during Bahasa Melayu and Mathematics lessons taught by remedial
teachers, pupils who do not fulfil the LBI 2.0 constructs will stay in the class together with
60 other pupils learning the same lesson during the English period. In a baseline study done
in the year 2014 it was found that only 50.1% of Year One pupils who had their first LINUS
2.0 screening in March qualified to be in the mainstream curriculum based on the results
of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, and 63.3% in September screening
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

(Ministry of Education, 2014). This meant that being in the same class as mainstream
screened students did not have any positive impact on students’ learning. for LINUS
2.0 set by the MoE was 83% and the cohort was unable to meet the set KPI. (Ministry of
Education, 2016).

Furthermore, having mixed ability pupils in one classroom requires teachers to be able
to design a lesson based on the pupils’ proficiency levels. In an effort to help the pupils
acquire these skills, the Ministry of Education developed a Teacher’s Module specifically
to cater for the needs of the pupils with remedial learning during the lesson (Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2014). However, in spite of having the Teacher’s Module and
remedial courses for 7750 English teachers conducted by MoE where they are taught
techniques in English remedial teaching, the results of the second screening of the first
cohort of 2014 LINUS 2.0 pupils showed that 78.3% of the pupils cleared the screening.
The Key Performance Index (KPI)

Against this background, this paper demonstrates ways teachers might design lessons to
address the problem of teaching pupils of mixed ability. In particular, this paper discusses
ways to use online materials to teach groups of low proficiency pupils. The focus of
this paper is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low proficiency Year
One pupils in selected Malaysian classroom. Teachers are required to select and apply
differentiated instructional strategies to address the needs of LINUS 2.0 pupils. The
differentiation which has been incorporated in the lesson design is a key part of the
investigation reported in this paper. Teachers’ capacity to design lessons for construct 1
to 5 is examined closely in this paper.

LITREATURE REVIEW

LINUS2.0 Programme
Literacy and Numeracy Screening for English Language (LINUS2.0) programme is one
of the initiatives by Ministry of Education in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-
2025 to increase the rate of literacy in English Language among Malaysian lower primary
pupils. It was introduced in 2013 to help Year 1 pupils to master basic skills in English
Language after three years of primary education. (Buku Pengoperasian LINUS2.0, 2015).
In order to achieve this, the pupils need to be screened twice a year; namely in March
and September.

There are two components in LINUS 2.0: the oral and written test screening. There are
12 constructs in both instruments for the oral as well as for the written screening. The
instruments emphasise on phonics, phonemes blending and segmenting which are 61
considered as the fundamental aspects of the English KSSR syllabus. For the pupils to
pass the oral and written screening they are required to master phonemic skills. Hence,
teachers need to find materials that can draw pupils’ attention and interest in learning
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

these basic language skills which support reading. These twelve constructs are as follow:

Construct 1 : Able to identify and distinguish shapes of the letters of the alphabet
Construct 2 : Able to associate sounds with the letters of the alphabet
Construct 3 : Able to blend phonemes into recognizable words.
Construct 4 : Able to segment words into phonemes
Construct 5 : Able to understand and use the language at word level
Construct 6 : Able to participate in daily conversations using appropriate phrases
Construct 7 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in linear texts
Construct 8 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in non-linear
texts
Construct 9 : Able to read and understand sentences with guidance
Construct 10 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in non-linear
texts
Construct 11 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in linear texts
Construct 12 : Able to construct sentences with guidance
(Ministry of Education, 2015)

FIGURE 1: The difference between LINUS and LINUS2.0 Programme

62
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

It is thus vital for teachers to understand the issues faced by pupils with reading difficulties.
As each pupil is unique and has his/her own strength in reading, teachers need to have
the capability to recognise each pupil’s needs and to tailor instruction to meet his/her
needs. As learning to read is built on a strong foundation of oral language, children have
to be immersed in conversation, talking, singing, being read to and playing from birth
(Services, 2011). The differences in the reading proficiency of individual pupils require
teachers to design forms of remedial teaching. However, not all English teachers have
the knowledge of English Language literacy and remedial teaching to be able to identify
the elements for lesson design.

Developing Phonemic Awareness

Phonemic awareness development is a crucial skill that needs to be taught to young
learners. Adams et. al (1998) stated that doing it is difficult, but it has the strongest
correlation to learn how to read. The purpose of exposing phonemic awareness is to give
the pupils the basic knowledge of the language. Hence, they will be able to differentiate
different letters with different sounds. Phonics in this study is to raise accuracy of decoding
and fluency in word recognition via the use of online materials.

Phonics is correlated to the bottom-up theory of reading that views learning to read
progressing from children learning the parts of language (letters) to understanding whole
text (meaning). (Barachers 1998:14). The bottom-up approach treats developing reading
skills as a sequential process. Students must first learn the basics of phonics and how
to decode words before more complex skills such as reading comprehension can be
mastered. It focuses on the belief that children who have strong understanding of the
relationship between letters and sounds will be successful when they encounter unfamiliar
words. Therefore, automatic word recognition and rapid reading rate are the goals of
the bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach plays an important role in reading
because this method is a suitable method to teach the beginning of reading (Barachers,
1998). Taken from this perspective, the implications for reading instructions are that
children need to begin reading by learning the letter names, associating the letter names
with their sounds, and then be shown how to blend these sounds together into words.
To reach this aim, explicit instruction in phonics and spellings is crucial. (Grabe, 1991).

63
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Comprehension of Text

Reading Full Text

Reading Paragraphs

Reading Sentences

Reading Words

Reading Letters

FIGURE 2: Bottom-Up Theory of Reading

This echoes to the Ehri’s Stage Model (Ehri and McCormick, 1998) in observing the
progress of reading in beginner readers, the process of reading comes in four stages
namely the pre-alphabetic stage whereby beginner readers look at words as logos and
there is no direct association of letters to sound connection and the readers will use
salient letters they recognise to read the word. Next is the partial-alphabetic stage, where
the readers know the letter-sound correlation and begin to join the sounds. In addition,
according to Beech (2005), in this very stage, the initial and final sounds of the letters are
the most important for the readers to join the letters into words, hence it is advantageous
for pupils who already starting to develop their phonemic awareness. Thirdly, the full-
alphabetical stage is where the readers fully understand the relation between graphemes
to phonemes in words that they encounter several times. They can achieve more reading
accuracy as they recognise each letter and because of that too, they can read new words
by blending the generated pronunciation when they recognise the grapheme-phoneme
connection as it is essential for them. In the consolidated-alphabetical stage, the recurring
letters that are unitized help readers reduce their memory load while continuing practicing
reading the words. Lastly, in the automaticity stage the reader is able to recognize the
words automatically and is able to read the words proficiently and accurately.

Based on the above model proposed by Ehri (1998), she highlighted the importance of
recognizing the letters, the sounds and the relation between letters and sounds that later
develop the readers’ ability to read words practiced and new words they will encounter.
Besides that, Saine et. al (2011) also stated that in order to develop the reader’s literacy
skill, word recognition is vital as it is the main component of beginning reading. Thus,
64
based on the above stages, readers need to master each as it provides the knowledge
before they continue to the next stage. As each stage complements the other, the pupils
with reading difficulties will be able to later develop to become skillful readers.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Prealphabetic phase

Partial alphabetic phase

Full alphabetic phase

Consolidated alphabetic
phase
FIGURE 3: The Ehri’s Reading Model

Differentiated Instructions in Reading

Dealing with mixed ability pupils requires teachers to be able to differentiate their
instruction to cater for pupils’ ability. It is crucial because different pupils have different
needs and intelligences (Morgan, 2014). There are four classroom elements that can
be used by the teachers to differentiate their instructions and these four elements are
linked closely to student readiness, interest, or learning profile. The first element, the
content, is what the student needs to learn or how the student will get access to the
information. Secondly, the process of the activities have to be carried out in which the
student engages in order to make sense of or master the content. Thirdly, the product
that allows the students to rehearse, apply, and extend what he or she has learned in a
unit and lastly the learning environment where students feel comfortable and conducive
through the lesson. (Carol, 2014)

This is because pupils tend to lose focus if the teacher fails to use instructional strategies
that match pupils’ learning styles. Unfortunately, the increasing diversity of children in
the primary classroom and the large class size is sometimes unable to address the needs
of some children, thus teachers should be able to employ systematic differentiated
instructions as the fundamental for effective remedial teaching and learning.

According to Tomlinson (2010), differentiated instruction is very impactful if teachers

implement three strategies: emphasizing pupils’ interest, using the right starting point
and allowing pupils to work at their own pace. This is supported by Valiandes (2015) in
her study which indicates that differentiated instructions raise effectiveness through the
provision of quality and equity education. 65

In addition, Joseph et.al (2013) argue that one of the key elements of differentiated
instruction is content differentiation. Teachers are required to modify or to adapt the
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

materials used in their lessons by giving pupils access to the materials. Teachers may
choose to differentiate the content by grouping the pupils into small groups and use the
internet as the main source developing the pupils understanding and knowledge of the
topic (Valiandes,2015).

Online Materials
The LINUS 2.0 pupils receive different quality of instructions due to the complexity of the
curriculum to match their ability. Although the pupils are considered as ‘digital natives’
because they are born with various technologies in front of their eyes (Hicks, 2011) it does
not ensure the pupils to be literate (Warschauer, 2001). The use of technology is able
to help pupils with difficulties in reading as it teaches the pupils in a new and exciting
environment (Muniandy et. al, 2009). The computer technology has the capability to
provide highly personal and specialized instruction and assist pupils who are at risk of
reading failure as it supports and helps them at word level reading instructions (Torgesen
et. al, 2010).

Additionally, teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classrooms as we move from
an era where printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials
inseparable from literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires
corresponding paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ roles. Their teaching is facilitated
in a way that their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to
Lubis et al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education.
Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires
a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should
be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun,
2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and their pupils’ learning
needs and to develop specific remedial materials in order to make the teaching and
learning process effective.

However, the reason for not using the computers also comes back to the teachers’ lack
of knowledge in modifying the lesson plan and only focusing on the traditional classroom
activities. The lack of knowledge and skills can be facilitated by modelling and application
of the remedial online materials developed in educational websites and as according
to Blackwell et. al (2014) the internet acts as a rich source of information in teaching
the language. The remedial materials available online are able to help teachers without
remedial teaching skills because some of the materials come with instructions on how to
teach and information of the suitability of the materials. Thus, when teachers teach using
technology, teachers’ role to facilitate and guide these pupils is executed well as each
pupil learns to do the activity through computer with the teacher’s guidance.
66
However, we also need to understand that there is no ideal teaching method or materials
that are fit for all. According to Chun (2011) although there has been research proving that
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

computer-based materials have direct positive effects on second language acquisition,

there is no proof saying that a certain medium or tool that fits for all types of learners
exists. In this light, it should be understood by every teacher that every child is unique,
with different learning styles and preferences and due to this understanding, teachers
need to integrate differentiated instructions in their teaching and learning process
(Morgan, 2014).

METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 4: The process of the intervention and collecting the data

Two teachers from two different schools and their 10 pupils had participated in the study.
The two female English teachers underwent training in TELL 2 programme (native speaker
mentoring program under the Brighton and MOE collaboration) and were selected as
they had undergone a mentoring period of two years, and were trained in the teaching
of phonics to the pupils. The pupils selected for the study were those who were not able
to acquire the LINUS2.0 second screening in September 2016.

Each teacher was given access to a Padlet that contained five separate pages. The Padlet
page contained lesson objective(s). The teachers were responsible to select and choose
online materials available in each Padlet page in order to achieve the objective of each
lesson. The online materials used were carefully selected based on these criteria: 1) free
access 2) could be accessed using the internet connection provided by MOE 3) allowed 67
by government facilities 4) suitable online materials based on pupils’ proficiency level and
the objective(s) of each lesson. Three types of online materials were gathered namely:
Videos, Interactive Activities and Assessment-Based Activities.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Briefing sessions were given to the teachers for at least a day, prior to the lesson they
planned to conduct. Teachers also received lesson guidance that contained lesson steps
and URL links of the suitable online materials for each step that had explanations of the
purpose of the online materials selection.

Additionally, the teachers were given authority to design and conduct their lessons based
on the objective(s), online materials and lesson guidance provided. Hence, they could
either project their lesson on the screen or the pupils could access the lesson through
individual computers. There were online activities and online exercises conducted in the
class and the teachers could gauge if the lesson objective(s) were achieved based on the
online assessments at the end of each lesson.

The first data collection method was a structured observation through video recordings
with an adapted checklist (Robb et. al, 2013). This included researcher notes as the
observation the schedule was predetermined and the objectives of each lesson were
developed based on the theory (Mulhall, 2003). Besides classroom observation, the
teachers were involved in standardised, open-ended interviews. The interview questions
were aligned with the classroom observation checklist whereby the questions dealt with
these domains: Teachers’ Practice, Online Materials Use, and Technology Skills and
Proficiency.

The data obtained from the observations through video recording and the transcriptions
of the interviews were analysed using Thematic Analysis through Atlas TI 8.0. A Priori
Codes and new codes emerged from the analysis. The A Priori Codes that emerged were
technology skills and online materials use.

The objective(s) of the lessons were as follows:

Day Lesson Objective(s)

1 • Recognizing the alphabets

2 • Recognizing the graphemes-phonemes relations

3 • Blending two initial phonemes (body)

• Recognizing the final phoneme (coda)
• Blending using body-coda

4 • Recognizing the initial phoneme (onset)

• Blending two final phonemes (rime)
• Blending using onset-rime

68 5 • Blending phonemes
• Read the word using phonemes blending
TABLE 1: Lesson Objective (s)
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

No. Emergent Codes

1. Materials Differentiation
2. Materials Familiarisation
3. Proficiency Driven Materials
4. Objective Driven Materials
5. Time Allocation
6. Teaching Aids
7. Online Materials Preparation
8. Teachers Facilitate
9. Time Allocation
10. Materials Searching
TABLE 2: The emergent codes

FINDINGS

The qualitative data was analysed thematically and included analysis of observation
videos, interviews. The findings are divided into two parts namely: Teachers’ Preparation
and Lesson Planning.

The Emergent Codes put under each theme were as follows:

Theme Emergent Codes Frequency
Teachers’ Preparation Online Materials Preparation 14
Materials Searching 1
Materials Familiarisation 10
Materials Differentiation 3
Teaching Aids 2
Time Allocation 11
Lesson Planning Materials Searching 4
Teachers Facilitate 1
Pupils’ Authority 5
TABLE 3: Theme and the emergent codes 69
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Teacher’s Preparation
Based on the themes that emerged from the analysis, for the teachers to employ
differentiated instructions, they needed to be able to understand the process of preparing
the lesson that could cater for needs of the LINUS2.0 pupils. In this light, the analysis
showed that teachers needed to find materials that could draw pupils’ attention and
interest in learning the basic language which supported their reading skills. Besides that,
teachers needed to understand the needs of these pupils in reading and their difficulties
as each pupil is unique and has his or her own strength in reading. Teachers also needed
to have the capability to teach the pupils based on the pupils’ ability levels. This included
preparing the online materials that they wanted to use, suitable for the pupils’ proficiency
level and the objectives of each lesson. The lesson designing is a process whereby the
teachers need to really understand both conditions and to make sure that they understand
the concept of content differentiation used in teaching LINUS2.0 pupils. The process is
shown below.
Teachers’ Preparation

Online Materials
Time Allocation PreparatioOnline n Materials Searching

Materials Differentiation
Materials familiarisation Teaching Aids

FIGURE 5: Teachers’ Preparation Theme

In preparing the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to first understand the
pupils’ proficiency level. This was to ensure that, the materials selection was focused
on developing pupils’ phonemic awareness. The teachers also needed to experience
the materials themselves as it helped them during the teaching and learning process.
Besides, the teachers needed to realise that the pupils needed more attention and more
focused activities, and hence choose materials that really helped the pupils in developing
phonemic awareness.

“…and then I’m going to like you have to google, you have to surf to find the suitable
materials that you can use and you have to try it first before you ask the pupils to try to do it…”
Teacher F

The Teachers’ Preparation requires the teacher to allocate suitable time to teach the
70 pupils using online materials based on the pupils’ proficiency level, as each stage of the
lesson requires teachers to ensure that it could be done by LINUS2.0 pupils.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

“…when you are using certain times to mark your erm your progress in your lesson it is
actually make it easier and you can attract the pupils’ attention so that they stay focus with
whatever you are doing.”
Teacher F

Apart from using online materials, the teacher used non-digital materials like flashcards
and worksheet to strengthen the pupils learning as the pupils need to use their kinesthetic
intelligence beside their visual and auditory intelligences. The teacher believed that the
pupils need to use both types of materials which the online and non-digital materials are,

“…like flashcard, printable worksheet, singing, interesting pictures and also audio and
videos.”
Teacher A

“…you can maybe 20 to 30 percent of teaching time is online and after that you can use
worksheet to make sure that they are learning on that day.”
Teacher F

Lesson Planning
In planning the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to consider two conditions
namely: the proficiency of the pupils and the objective of the lesson. These two conditions
were also needed in selecting the online materials to develop pupils’ phonemic
awareness. The materials used in this study were based on the pupils’ proficiency levels
whereby teachers searched the materials and after thorough professional judgement of
the materials, it was then used in their lesson.

Lesson Planning

Materials selection Teacher facilitation Pupil’s Authority

FIGURE 6: Lesson Planning Theme

“…I should say a bit of better and a bit of both better and learning at their own pace because
at first we can choose the materials according to their own ability. Meaning you can use easier
online games and then when they show improvement then you can choose online materials
that can make them better in the language that they are learning.” 71
Teacher F
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

The teacher used the materials and manipulated them as the online materials in their
lesson were not only used individually but also as a whole class approach.

The pupils in both classes needed teachers’ assistance in doing the online activities.
Although the materials were carefully selected based on the pupils’ proficiency level,
some of them do still need assistance in answering the questions as they were given first
the authority to do the online activities on their own, teachers still need to facilitate them
in fulfilling the task.

“…with digital materials, pupils have more freedom and you as a teacher is like erm just erm
watching them and be there when they need you to assist them. Okay it’s like I mentioned
earlier 99 percent is the pupils are doing their self-discovery with whatever skills or whatever
we want them to learn on that certain lesson.”
Teacher F

The role of the teacher as a facilitator is crucial for the teachers. In this study, the
pupils were mainly doing the activities with the assistance of the teachers as facilitator.
Nevertheless, the pupils would benefit from the remedial online materials if the teachers
as facilitators showed positive attitude towards the usage of technology in the classroom.

In Malaysia, the Ministry of Education is concentrated on developing ICT tools in support

of a richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, stronger links between school and society,
and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Chan 2002). The Ministry believes that
properly designed and implemented computing and communications have the potential
to revolutionise education and improve learning. At the same time, the Malaysia National
Philosophy of Education calls for developing the potential of individuals in a holistic
and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually,
emotionally, and physically balanced and harmonious (Curriculum Standard Document,
2011:4). In order to support the country’s ICT master plan and in line with the country’s
drive to fulfil Vision 2020, the education system need to be transformed. Hence, by
incorporating technology into teaching, we are adding another means of teaching and
learning but not changing the prior process of literacy. This would be an advantage as
studies have shown that the use of technological innovation by teachers has resulted in a
significant increase in pupils’ achievement (Earle 2002).

72
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

DISCUSSION

Teacher’s Preparation

i) Materials Familiarisation
The incorporation of online materials into the teaching and learning required teachers
to familiarize themselves with the materials. Material familiarization includes materials
searching and materials evaluation. Teachers searched materials available online and
later decided the materials’ suitability based on the pupils’ proficiency. Teachers decided
whether or not to use any part of the Padlet platform and incorporate them in their
lesson. They decided the technologies that were beneficial and the strategies they could
use when teaching (Noble, 1996). They experienced the materials first thus enabling
them to handle and explain the remedial online materials provided for the pupils to learn
that day.

ii) Time Allocation

The daily lesson plan and the classroom management need to be planned according
to the time allocated for each lesson. This practice needed teachers to be alert on each
lesson development stage so that the learning could take place effectively as the online
remedial materials for each Padlet platform were already selected to be used in every
stage to help the pupils develop their literacy skills. According to Levitch and Milheim
(2003) educators need to understand the differentiation in time management between
the traditional classroom and a classroom that uses computer as a medium. Educators
need to develop new time management skills as technology requires proper preparations.
Shi et. al (2006) also suggested few time management strategies in the classroom that
uses online materials. One of related strategies is that teachers need to be very clear on
their objectives of the lesson and understand the time each activity consumes so that the
stage of the lesson can be executed according to the objectives. The teachers need to
be clear with the timing of each activity.

iii) Materials Searching

Teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classroom as we move from an era where
printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials inseparable from
literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires a corresponding
paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ role. Their teaching is facilitated in a way that
their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to Lubis et
al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education.
Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires
a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should
be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun, 73
2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and to develop specific
remedial materials in order to make the teaching and learning process effective.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

iv) Online Materials Preparation

When it comes to teacing using online materials, teachers need to come out of their
comfort zones. ICT materials require them to familiarize themselves with the online tools
and strategies that they need to use during the lesson. Teachers need to be aware that
ICT is able to effectively capture the pupils’ attention as compared to the former textbook
based learning. This is supported by Wood (2001) who agreed that online games should
be used as learning tools and are able to gather pupils’ attention in contextual learning
while playing because young learners tend to favor ‘edutainment’ learning (Krasilovsky,
1996).

v) Teaching Aids
Apart from the use of online games, videos and assessment, other teaching aids such
as flash cards and worksheets were also being used to support and enrich teaching and
learning through technology. Lei (2009) supported the usage of other types of materials
in computer-based classrooms and suggested that non-digital teaching methods should
never be replaced with technology although technology is now being part of their lives.

vi) Materials Differentiation

The content knowledge of this study focused on basic reading skills as the pupils
selected were those who had difficulties in reading. Thus, the materials that were chosen
for them, besides being suitable for the pupils’ proficiency level, were a bit different
compared to the mainstream pupils. According to Tomlinson (2000), in classrooms
with various proficiencies, some students will struggle to learn while others will perform
beyond others. This differentiation requires teachers to be aware of the situation and
understand the students’ needs. Hence, she added that by using different materials, it
enables teachers to support the students’ learning and helps students in fulfilling the task
according to their own levels as it provides additional support for the struggling learners.

Lesson Planning

i) Materials Selection
Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013) divided materials into two areas namely: content analyses
of materials that are isolated from the process and classroom interaction and publication
of materials development, the design and evaluation. Understanding the differences
in the role played by materials, selecting materials for teaching and learning requires
teachers to understand the needs of the pupils in the classroom. This is important as
materials selection plays an imperative role in combining the participants (students),
lesson structure, and learning process whereby the students and teacher share experience
within the lesson (Guerrettaz and Johnston, 2013). This had been explained by Lee and
74 Bathmaker (2007) whereby individual teacher and student’s complex relationship and
characteristics determine their responses towards the materials selected to be used.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

ii) Teachers Facilitation

The role of teachers in the classroom changes over time when technology especially
computer becomes the medium. Teachers play the role of the facilitator in three ways as
explained by Lai (1993), teachers as the planner whereby teachers need to understand
the objective of using the computer, be knowledgeable and resourceful in managing
the classroom computing resources. Besides, teachers play the role of participants too
as teachers are no longer the main source of knowledge and need to cater for pupils’
needs based on the pupils’ responses and respond to the output hence, teachers need
to observe the learning and facilitate when needed. Lastly, teachers act as a guide. In this
situation, computer-based learning provides pupils with the acquisition of metacognitive
knowledge of the learning process and teachers need to ask appropriate questions to
help pupils throughout their learning. Teachers’ then can make a difference by facilitating
the pupils because they influence the pupils and expose meaningful experience, and this
is supported by David and Kuyini (2012) who mentioned that teachers’ assistance in the
classroom allow pupils to learn better and produce better outcome whether or not the
pupils have disabilities or not.

iii) Pupils’ Authority

The usage of computer in the classroom needs teachers to monitor the learning
process thoroughly especially when they are teaching young learners that have reading
difficulties. Close monitoring is needed as these pupils require more guidance compared
to mainstream pupils. However, computer is a personal medium and somehow, teachers
need to give authority to pupils during lesson. Hargreaves (2014) argued that when
teachers applied skillful autonomy-promoting teaching and learning, pupils were able to
give ideas independently, being proactive in learning and encourage better engagement
with the topic they were learning.

CONCLUSION

It is vital for teachers who are teaching LINUS2.0 pupils to understand the importance of
differentiated instruction in their teaching and learning session. Lesson planning requires
the teachers to consider elements that are beneficial in teaching the pupils literacy skills
that later help them in reading. The elements identified in this study could help teachers
in planning their lesson in the classroom that has mixed ability pupils and use them to
facilitate the LINUS2.0 pupils but at the same time not ignore other pupils with higher
proficiency level. The use of technology in their teaching and learning helps teachers
in differentiating their instructions in teaching and at the same time assist them in the
teaching as well.
75
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

REFERENCES

Barachers S.I. (1998). Teaching Reading: From Process to Practice. United States of
America: Wad Sworth Publishing Company.

Beech, J.R. (2005). Ehri’s Model of Phases of Learning to Read: A Brief Critique. Journal
of Research in Reading. 28:50-58

Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A. & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology
use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90.

Chun D. M. (2011). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Handbook of Reseach in

Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume II, by Hankel E., 663-680. New
York: Routledge.

David, R. & Kuyini, A.B. (2012) Social inclusion: Teachers as facilitators in peer acceptance
of students with disabilities in regular classrooms in Tamil Nadu, India. International
Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1-12.

Earle, R. S. (2002). The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education:

Promises and Challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood
Cliffs Nj-, 42(1), 5-13.

Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows (2001). Systematic Phonics Intervention Helps Students
Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of
Educational Research 71 (3):393-447

Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern
Language Journal, 97, 779–796

Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive

whiteboards, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117.

Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., and Hopkins, D.W. (2014). International
76 Handbook of Educational Change: Part Two. Springer Science and Business Media.

Hicks, S.D. (2011). Technology in Today’s Classroom: Are you A Tech Savvy Teacher?
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

The Clearing House 84:188-91

Joseph, S.,Thomas,M.,Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated

Instruction in A Teacher Education Setting: Successes & Challenges. The International
Journal of Higher Education,_,28-40.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2015). Buku Pengoperasian Program LINUS2.0.

Putrajaya. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Krasilovsky, P. (1996) A child’s garden of virtual reality, American Demographics, 20–22

Lai, K. W. (1993) Teachers as facilitators in a computer-supported learning

environment, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2, pp. 127-137.

Lee, R. & A. Bathmaker (2007). The use of English textbooks for teaching English to
‘vocational’ students in Singapore secondary schools: A survey of teachers’ beliefs. RELC
Journal 38.3, 350–374

Lei, J. (2009). Digital Natives as Preservice Teachers: What Technology Preparation Is

Needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. Vol. 25, pp 87 – 97.

Levitch, S., & Milheim, W. D. (2003). Transitioning instructor skills to the virtual
classroom. Educational Technology, 42-46.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya.

Ministry of Education.

Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing Student Success with Differentiated Learning. The

Clearing House, 87: 34–38.

Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of

advanced nursing, 41(3), 306-313.

Noble, D. D. (1996). Mad rushes into the future: The overselling of educational
77
technology. Educational Leadership, 54(3).
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Robb, M., Catalano, R., Smith, T., Polojac, S., Figlar, M., Minzenberg, B. and Schomburg,
R. (2013). Checklist for Identifying Exemplary Uses of Technology and Interactive
Media for Early Learning. Retrieved from http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/
wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Tech_Integration_Checklist_-_Final.pdf

Services & D.O.E. a. C.S. (2011). Engaging in and Exploring Reading: Reading in the Early
Years: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Literacy Secretariat.

Shi, M., Bonk, C. J., & Magjuka, R. J. (2006). Time management strategies for online
teaching. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.
Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_06/article01.htm

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., and Lindamood, P. (2010).
Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in pupils at risk
for dyslexia: Outcomes Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001).
Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 two instructional approaches. Annals of
dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56.

Warschauer, M. (2001). Online communication. The Cambridge guide to teaching

English to speakers of other languages, 207-212.

Wood, J. (2001) Can software support children’s vocabulary development?, Language

Learning & Technology, 5(1), 166–201.

----------.Pencapaian LINUS2.0 Tahun Satu Meningkat. Berita Harian. 2015

Zikri Effandy bin Zainudin

Mersing District Education Office, Ministry of Education Malaysia
zikri.affandy@moe.gov.my

Yusnamariah Md Yusop
78
English Language Teaching Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia
yusnamariah.mdyusop@eltc.edu.my

View publication stats