1. School Principal I, Department of Education, Philippines.

*     Correspondence: harmiejay.jopia@deped.gov.ph

Keywords: students, teacher, learning, education, differentiated instruction, content, instruction

1. INTRODUCTION

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an instructional approach that tailors learning activities to students’ individual abilities, interests, and learning profiles. It is crucial for developing competency, performance skills, and addressing diverse learning modalities [1]. Key indicators of effective DI include aligning activities with student preferences (e.g., through surveys) to increase engagement and motivation; employing varied, intellectually stimulating assessments, including pre-assessments to gauge readiness and inform instruction; meticulously organizing lessons to ensure alignment with student abilities and competencies, and to prepare necessary materials; deeply understanding content standards to design effective instruction, convey concepts dynamically, and utilize diverse resources beyond standard texts; mastering instructional delivery, pacing lessons to individual needs, and grouping students based on readiness, interest, or preference; and clearly defining expectations for student output, providing choice in presentation (individual, pair, group), and utilizing well-explained rubrics. When effectively implemented, DI enhances student engagement and significantly improves learning outcomes by making lessons relevant and accessible to all types of learners, regardless of cognitive ability [2]. The study investigated the relationship between differentiated instruction (DI) and students’ sense of coherence (SOC), focusing on how DI can help students manage academic stress and foster problem-solving, thereby addressing the growing concern of student disengagement in educational settings. A student’s ability to thrive amidst academic pressures and numerous requirements is often linked to their SOC, a social construct with behavioral and perceptual components. A strong SOC enables students to understand their environment and predict events, fostering a sense of control (comprehensibility); cope with difficult situations by effectively utilizing personal and external resources (manageability); and find purpose and value in their life experiences and actions, viewing challenges as opportunities (meaningfulness). Conversely, a low SOC can lead to negative psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, burnout, and disengagement. Students with a high SOC demonstrate resilience, confidently facing stressors, and leveraging their strengths [3]. Recognizing the alarming number of disengaged students, this study hypothesized that there is no significant relationship between DI and students’ SOC, nor that any specific domain of DI uniquely influences SOC. It utilized Tomlinson’s indicators for DI (student interest, assessment, lesson planning, content, process, and product) and Antonovsky’s indicators for SOC (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness) as its frameworks. The research underscores that DI is pivotal in fostering SOC by aligning learning tasks with student interests and abilities, thereby enhancing their understanding, coping mechanisms, and perception of learning’s relevance. Teachers who consistently apply DI empower students to take ownership of their learning, effectively manage stress, and develop essential life skills.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study detailed the research design, research locale, population, sample, data collection procedure, statistical tools, and ethical considerations used in the study. The non-experimental quantitative research design, using correlational technique, was used to measure differentiated instruction and sense of coherence of students in the municipality of Jose Abad Santos, a first-class municipality in Davao Occidental province.

Figure 01: Geographic Location of the Study

This study was conducted during the second semester of school year in Jose Abad Santos, a municipality in southern Mindanao home to the B’laan and Manobo tribes. It involved N=139 officially enrolled Grade 10 students from a local Junior High School, selected using a universal sampling method based on their perceived ability to provide honest evaluations. The research utilized two adapted questionnaires—one for differentiated instruction and another for student sense of coherence (SOC), based on Antonovsky’s indicators of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. These instruments underwent pilot testing and expert validation, demonstrating high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.79 for differentiated instruction and 0.81 for SOC. Data collection involved obtaining permissions from education authorities and school heads before distributing questionnaires, allowing respondents sufficient time for completion. Responses were meticulously encoded in Microsoft Excel, ensuring accuracy and confidentiality, before being submitted for statistical analysis. The study employed Mean to determine levels of DI and SOC, Pearson-r to assess the significance of their relationship, and Regression to identify DI’s influence on SOC. Ethical considerations were paramount throughout the study, overseen by an Ethics Research Committee. Researchers upheld protocols, including obtaining informed assent and consent from participants, ensuring their voluntary and non-pecuniary participation, and affirming their right to withdraw without penalty. Respondents, chosen for their Grade 10 status, comprehension, and willingness, were oriented on the study’s purpose, timeframe, and their roles. Confidentiality was strictly maintained by prohibiting names, picture-taking, and sharing of information, with all data securely stored and access restricted. Measures were taken to prevent fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, ensuring the integrity and accuracy of findings. The study avoided conflicts of interest, potential harms, and deceit, ensuring participants were fully informed and not coerced, thus fostering an honest and respectful research environment.

3. RESULT & DISCUSSION

The study presents the data of the findings. Discussions of the topics are arranged as follows:  differentiated instruction of teachers and students’ sense of coherence. The standard deviation in the two descriptive tables, Table1 and Table 2, ranged from 0.343 to 0.397 which are less than 1.0 as the typical standard deviation for a 5-point Likert Scale, this means that the ratings in the accomplished questionnaires were closed to the mean, indicating consistency of responses among the respondents. Presented in Table 1 is the level of differentiated instruction of teachers with the overall mean of 3.59 and standard deviation of 0.34 with a descriptive level of high. Among the enumerated indicators, lesson planning obtained the highest mean of 3.72 and a standard deviation of 0.57 with a descriptive level of high. Also, content obtained a mean of 3.60 and a standard deviation of 0.50 with a descriptive level of high. Next, product obtained a mean score of 3.59 and a standard deviation of 0.39 with a descriptive level of high. Then, process had a mean score of 3.58 and a standard deviation of 0.46 with a descriptive level of high. And, student interest had a mean score of 3.58 and a standard deviation of 0.47 with a descriptive level of high. Lastly, assessment had a mean score of

Table 1: Level of Differentiated Instruction of Teachers

Indicator	SD	Range of Mean	Descriptive Level
Lesson Planning Content Product Process Student Interest	0.57 0.50 0.39 0.46 0.47	3.72 3.60 3.59 3.58 3.58	High High High High High
Assessment	0.53	3.46	High
Overall	0.34	3.59	High

3.46 and a standard deviation of 0.53 and a descriptive level of high. All enumerated indicators obtained a descriptive level of high showing that all indicators were oftentimes observed. The second study objective was to ascertain the level of sense of coherence of students in terms of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. Shown in Table 2 is the level of students’ sense of coherence with an overall mean of 3.63 with a descriptive equivalent of high. The overall mean was the result obtained from the mean of the indicators for the specific items from the questionnaire intended for this particular indicator which was appended in this study [4]. Among the enumerated indicators, meaningfulness ranked the highest, with a mean score of 3.69 and a standard deviation of 0.59 with a descriptive level of high. Next, manageability had a mean score of 3.68 and a standard deviation of 0.36 with a descriptive level of high. Lastly, comprehensibility had a mean score of 3.53 and standard deviation of 0.69 with a descriptive level of high. All enumerated indicators obtained a descriptive level of high showing that all indicators were oftentimes observed [5].

Table 2: Level of Students’ Sense of Coherence

Indicator	SD	Range of Mean	Descriptive Level
Meaningfulness Manageability Comprehensibility	0.59 0.36 0.69	3.69 3.68 3.53	High High High
Overall	0.40	3.63	High

 

Significance on the Relationship between Differentiated Instruction of Teachers and Sense of Coherence of Students. The third objective of the study was to determine whether or not differentiated instruction and sense of coherence are significantly linked. Table 3 presented the results of the computation of the overall- r value on the correlation between differentiated instruction and sense of coherence [6]. The same table reflected the overall correlation had a computed r- value of 0.526 with a probability value of less than 0.05 which is significant thus rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between differentiated instruction of teachers and students’ sense of coherence. The significant relationship between the two variables is an indication that the increase in the level of differentiated instruction of teachers led to the increase in students’ sense of coherence.

Table 3: Significance on the Relationship between Differentiated Instruction of Teachers and Sense of Coherence of Students

Differentiated Instruction	Sense of Coherence
	Comprehensibility	Manageability	Meaningfulness	Overall Sense of Coherence
Student Interest	-0.021 (0.803)	0.283* (0.001)	0.447* (0.000)	0.297* (0.000)
Assessment	0.251* (0.003)	0.401* (0.000)	0.539* (0.000)	0.535* (0.000)
Lesson Planning	0.134 (0.115)	0.431* (0.000)	0.464* (0.000)	0.440* (0.000)
Content	0.136 (0.111)	0.452* (0.000)	0.081 (0.344)	0.257* (0.002)
Process	0.044 (0.608)	0.176* (0.038)	0.479* (0.000)	0.317* (0.000)
Product	0.197* (0.020)	0.242* (0.004)	0.313* (0.000)	0.343* (0.000)
Overall Differentiated Instruction	0.178* (0.036)	0.482* (0.000)	0.555* (0.000)	0.526* (0.000)

*Significant at 0.05 significance level.

Shown in Table 4 are the regression coefficients that test the significant influence of overall differentiated instruction of teachers on sense of coherence of students in one of the Junior High Schools of Jose Abad Santos I District. Regression analysis shows the predictive ability of differentiated instruction of teachers on the students’ sense of coherence [7]. The analysis shows that when students’ sense of coherence was regressed on differentiated instruction of teachers, it generated an F-value of 10.29 and p is less than 0.05. This further revealed that differentiated instruction significantly influenced students’ sense of coherence as manifested by the probability value of p is less

Table 4: Significance on the Influence of Differentiated Instruction of Teachers on Students’ Sense of Coherence

Sense of Coherence
Differentiated Instruction		Β (Standardized Coefficients)	B (Unstandardized Coefficients)	T	Sig.
Constant		1.701	0.360	4.72	0.000
Student Interest		-0.025	0.096	-0.26	0.794
Assessment		0.315	0.093	3.37	0.001
Lesson Planning		0.031	0.078	0.40	0.693
Content		0.074	0.064	1.14	0.254
Process		0.156	0.089	1.74	0.084
Product		-0.000	0.098	-0.04	0.966
R		0.319
R2		0.565
F		10.29
P		0.000

than 0.05 or significant. Consequently, the R² value of 0.565 indicates that 56.5% of the variance of sense of coherence of students are also attributed to the variance of differentiated instruction. Meaning, 43.5% are also attributed to others factors not found in the study. Among the indicators of differentiated instruction of teachers, only one gave significant influence on students’ sense of coherence. This is assessment with t=3.37 with p value less than 0.05. Presented in this chapter are the discussions on differentiated instruction of teachers and students’ sense of coherence. The high level of differentiated instruction of teachers in one of the Junior High Schools in the respondent district of Jose Abad Santos I is due to the high rating given by the respondents on lesson planning, content, product, process, student interest and assessment [8]. The teachers of this school intensify the use of materials that are varied to adjust to students’ abilities that will eventually relate to individual student life situations and to impact their learning. In the same way, they also provide tasks that require students to apply and extend understanding of the competency. These practices therefore are expected to increase the differentiated instruction level  since it is congruent to the views of the views of various authors [9] who pronounced that differentiated instruction may mean teaching the same material to all students and at the same time using a variety of instructional strategies to help them develop the solid foundation of understanding the competency by relating real-life situations and finding solutions to problems, among others. The high level of sense of coherence of the students of Jose Abad Santos National High School is the result of the high rating that these respondents gave to comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness [10]. In their singular capacities, the respondents care about what goes on around them and are aware of the difficulties they are likely to face and that they will succeed in overcoming these difficulties. They also anticipate that their personal life in the future will be full of meaning and purpose. Hence, the practice of these social contracts is significant in becoming successful in life and how one will fare in his life as a student. This is congruent to the notion of various authors [11] who highlighted the importance sense of coherence to become productive, to possess virtues worthy of emulation, and to give inspiration to others, among others. There is a significant relationship between differentiated instruction of teachers and students’ sense of coherence. The importance of differentiated instruction to the development of students’ sense of coherence cannot be ignored. Hence, this calls for teachers to continuously employ differentiation in the instruction in order to help students develop their sense of coherence. This suggests that teachers are encouraged to develop varied activities related to the lesson so that everyone in the class will learn together and develop comprehension of the lesson thereby increasing their sense of coherence. In relation, the outcome of this study is linked to the statement of [12] that differentiated instruction permits students to perform the class activities according to their own skills and abilities giving them comfort and ease, which eventually help them develop a sense of coherence. The use of differentiated instruction makes students build their sense of coherence. The utilization of differentiated instruction among teachers allows them to design activities that help students progress in their own pace [13]. The strategy helps students acquire mastery of the competency which are embedded in the lessons and this develops them to become independent learners. Similarly, the results of this study adhered to the affirmation of [14] that students who are exposed to performing class activities that use differentiated instruction easily develop their sense of coherence. This is because the students perform tasks according to their level of interest which they can confidently manage.  By doing familiar activities, students eventually gradually develop their sense of coherence. Moreover, the finding of this study revealed that lesson planning is the only domain of differentiated instruction that significantly influenced sense of coherence of students. This finding is in congruence with the statement of [15] and [16] that every meaningful classroom learning experience is a product of careful planning of lesson. Teachers design learning activities based on many considerations that reflect the classroom culture through effective lesson planning. With lesson guides, students are assured that the teaching process is a worthwhile activity that will make students acquire mastery of the competency. In the same manner, the result of this study is also in consonance with the statement of [17] and [18] that the proper lesson planning not just only guides teachers but also it keeps them on the track and allows them to effectively help students achieve the mastery of the competency taught. Generally, the better teachers are prepared in teaching using their lesson plan, the more they are ready to make adjustments with their teaching process. The result of this study revealed that there is one indicator of differentiated instruction which gave significant influence on students’ sense of coherence. This was assessment. The result of this study is in consonance with the statement of [19] that assessment process is an evaluation of the students’ mastery of the competency. While there are many available forms of assessment in the different competencies, teachers are encouraged to go beyond the pencil and paper type of assessment. This conventional way of determining the students’ mastery has become boring at times and less interesting. The result of this study is in congruence with the statement of [20] that in guiding teachers to make assessment that integrate differentiation, they must understand first their students’ learning style. The learning preference of the students is the actual personal profile of how they can maximize best their potentials. Teachers can generate the finest output from their students when their assessments are grounded on their learning modalities. This is because students can trust that their ingenuity will lead them in producing an output that the competency demands. The result of this study is also aligned with the statement of [21] that assessments that are varied in form and out of convention must be given at the end of the instruction. This is to ensure that the students have undergone series of activities and learning experiences to help them develop the solid foundation of understanding the competency. Assessments are best evidence of student learning and teacher efficiency in the instruction. The remark a student get from the assessment is the evaluation of teacher’s instructional practices.

4. CONCLUSION

The study revealed a high level of differentiated instruction of teachers and a high level of students’ sense of coherence. Generally, the findings of the study showed that differentiated instruction of teachers is related to students’ sense of coherence. There is one indicator of differentiated instruction of teachers which gave significant influence on students’ sense of coherence. This was assessment.  The findings of the study affirmed that there is, indeed, truth in the notion presented who pointed out that when teachers utilize differentiated instruction, students become active and responsible explorers of the lessons which leads to easily master the competencies and eventually making them develop a good sense of coherence. The activities teachers designed have impact in the development of students’ sense of coherence which is essential in the acquisition of life-long learning skills. The following recommendations are made in consideration of the results and conclusion of the study. The findings of the study show that there is a high level of differentiated instruction of teachers. The researcher recommends that the teachers may improve in the utilization of differentiated instruction in classes and utilize the strategy as often as they can. Teachers may also continue utilizing their usual practices in terms of differentiation of instruction. Similarly, the study found a high level of students’ sense of coherence. The researcher recommends that the students may continue to practice their sense of coherence and may improve on their comprehensibility in order to improve on this aspect. Teachers may continue to implement their usual practices that help students develop their sense of coherence. The researcher also recommends that teachers may provide meaningful classroom experiences that help students develop comprehensibility. The results also revealed that there is a significant relationship between differentiated instruction of teachers and students’ sense of coherence. Hence, this calls for teachers to continuously employ differentiation in the instruction in order to help students develop their sense of coherence. This suggests that teachers are encouraged to develop varied activities related to their instruction. Lastly, the study found that among the indicators of differentiated instruction that has a significant influence on students’ sense of coherence is lesson planning. The researcher recommends that teachers may continue improve the lesson planning skills of the teachers in order to create impact to the teaching and learning activities in the class. By doing so, teachers may improve their understanding on these items subsequently and may utilize these effectively in the classrooms. Based on the findings, the researcher therefore recommends that the Department of Education strengthen the utilization of differentiated instruction in the class among teachers. This can be done when the Division Offices will provide in-service trainings to teachers on differentiated instruction particularly on the differentiation of assessment. Meanwhile, teachers may utilize varied forms of assessment that address the different needs of the students.

 

References

1. Sulistianingrum, E., Fauziati, E., Rohmah, W., & Muhibbin, A. (2023). Differentiated Learning: The Implementation of Student Sensory Learning Styles in Creating Differentiated Content. Jurnal Paedagogy, 10(2), 308-319.
2. Spillane, J. P., Blaushild, N. L., Neumerski, C. M., Seelig, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2022). Striving for coherence, struggling with incoherence: A comparative study of six educational systems organizing for instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(4), 567-592.
3. Strogilos, V., Lim, L., & Binte Mohamed Buhari, N. (2023). Differentiated instruction for students with SEN in mainstream classrooms: contextual features and types of curriculum modifications. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(3), 850-866.
4. Salloum, S. J. (2022). Building coherence: An investigation of collective efficacy, social context, and how leaders shape teachers’ work. American Journal of Education, 128(2), 203-243.
5. Langeland, E., Vaandrager, L., Nilsen, A. B. V., Schraner, M., & Meier Magistretti, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions to enhance the sense of coherence in the life course. The handbook of Salutogenesis, 201-219.
6. Torinomi, C., Lindenberg, K., Möltner, A., Herpertz, S. C., & Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2022). Predictors of students’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of coping strategies, sense of coherence, and social support. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(24), 16423.
7. Dadaczynski, K., Okan, O., Messer, M., & Rathmann, K. (2022). University students’ sense of coherence, future worries and mental health: findings from the German COVID-HL-survey. Health Promotion International, 37(1), daab070.
8. Marlina, M., Kusumastuti, G., & Ediyanto, E. (2023). Differentiated Learning Assessment Model to Improve Involvement of Special Needs Students in Inclusive Schools. International Journal of Instruction, 16(4).
9. Karagiannopoulou, E., Milienos, F. S., & Rentzios, C. (2022). Grouping learning approaches and emotional factors to predict students’ academic progress. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 10(2), 258-275.
10. Dariyani, N., Marlina, L., Sriyanti, I., Sudirman, S., & Meilinda, M. (2022). Learning style analysis for differentiated new paradigm learning in public senior high school 1 semendawai suku iii east oku. JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA), 6(3), 246-256.
11. Ristiyati, R., Maryani, I., & Suyatno, S. (2023). Differentiated Instruction in Indonesian Private Kindergartens: Challenges in Implementing an Independent Curriculum. International Journal of Educational Management and Innovation, 4(3), 209-223.
12. Shareefa, M. (2023). Demystifying the impact of teachers’ qualification and experience on implementation of differentiated instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 393-416.
13. Gervasoni, A., Roche, A., & Downton, A. (2021). Differentiating Instruction for Students Who Fail to Thrive in Mathematics: The Impact of a Constructivist-Based Intervention Approach. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(3), 207-233.
14. Endarwati, E., Anwar, K., & Maruf, N. (2023). Exploring the challenges faced by teachers in teaching writing skills and how anchor charts can address them. English Review: Journal of English Education, 11(3), 629-640.
15. Renzulli, J. (2023). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Routledge.
16. Gilson, C. M., Polly, D., & Strong, K. W. (2022). Talented teachers’ perceptions of an intensive summer symposium and the need for differentiated professional learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(4), 636-665.
17. Xu, L., & Mesiti, C. (2022). Teacher orchestration of student responses to rich mathematics tasks in the US and Japanese classrooms. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 54(2), 273-286.
18. König, J., Krepf, M., Bremerich-Vos, A., & Buchholtz, C. (2021). Meeting cognitive demands of lesson planning: Introducing the CODE-PLAN Model to describe and analyze teachers’ planning competence. The Teacher Educator, 56(4), 466-487.
19. Gomez-Salgado, J., Ortega-Moreno, M., Soriano, G., Fagundo-Rivera, J., Allande-Cusso, R., & Ruiz-Frutos, C. (2021). History of contact with the SARS-COV-2 virus and the sense of coherence in the development of psychological distress in the occupational health professionals in Spain. Science Progress, 104(2), 00368504211026121.
20. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2022). Why are learning and teaching mathematics so difficult? In Handbook of cognitive mathematics(pp. 1-35). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
21. Krist, C., & Shim, S. Y. (2024). Which ideas, when, and why? An experienced teacher’s in‐the‐moment pedagogical reasoning about facilitating student sense‐making discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(2), 255-288.