Rethinking Differentiation

This week’s article summary is “Rethinking Differentiation.”

While the article focuses on the ideal of differentiation, what its detractors complain about, and the author’s compromise middle ground, more important to me is how this article parallels what Maryellen and Rhonda talked about in this week’s Wednesday’s divisional meetings: the three interdependent parts of the Instructional Core.

As we have discussed since preplanning, our principal goal as a school is student learning.

And the three interdependent parts of student learning are the thee parts of the Instructional Core—Teacher Knowledge and Skill (in both content and instructional practice), Student Engagement in Learning, and Academically Challenging Content.

Student learning is optimized only when all three are working in unison.

For me, differentiation has always had three main problems:

One, can be presented in an overly mechanical manner, i.e., the student-choice equation of content (what is learned), process (how it’s learned), and product (demonstration of understanding), when, in fact, as we all know as teachers, so much of what we do daily in the classroom requires nuance, judgment, readjustments, and art in being responsive to both whole class and individual student needs. 

Two, it makes academic content a variable. While we have easier access to content/knowledge in today's Information/Digital Age, we still need to know some common ‘stuff’ in our heads.

Three, it is often presented as a panacea for learning and an end in itself, rather than one of many instructional techniques we employ as vehicles for learning. (For many schools, technology can fall into this category as well.)

The article wants us to see that while differentiation can be intimidating and daunting to teachers, its components are really just good, age-old teaching techniques that focus on the two questions that all teachers keep in the forefront: What are my students supposed to learn? Are they mastering it?

The main point Rhonda and Maryellen made on Wednesday is those three parts of the Instructional Core: Teacher/Student/Content need our attention and focus to achieve the goal of student learning—and a technique like differentiation is one of many classroom strategies.

Joe

----------

What is the problem to which differentiation is the solution? 

Clearly it’s the fact that students walk into school with a wide range of differences in prior knowledge, vocabulary, reading proficiency, fluency in English, attitudes toward school, mindset about learning, tolerance of frustration and failure, learning-style preferences, special needs, and distracting things on their minds.

Whole-group instruction for a classroom of students with even a few of these differences is likely to leave many students bored or confused, so differentiation would seem to be a moral imperative.

Carol Ann Tomlinson, a leading expert in this area, makes the compelling case for effective attention to the learning needs of each student by orchestrating the learning environment, assessments, and instruction so all students learn what’s being taught.

Tomlinson suggests that teachers differentiate by content (what is taught), process (how it’s taught), and product (how students are asked to demonstrate their learning).

Differentiation is not without its critics, and they have raised a number of concerns:

• Can a teacher realistically tailor instruction to 20-30 different students?
• Can differentiation result in lowered expectations for students who are behind?
• Does it balkanize classrooms, sacrificing group cohesion and collective experiences?
• Is it even effective?

 Tomlinson stresses the importance of high standards, clear objectives, and frequent checks for understanding, and stoutly defends differentiation’s track record: students learn better when the work is at the right level of difficulty, personally relevant, and appropriately engaging.

Let’s step back and analyze the differentiation challenge from a broader perspective.

Consider the following classroom scenarios with two questions in mind: Which is the most and the least differentiated? And in which is the most learning taking place?

• A college professor gives a lecture to 700 students
• First graders sprawl on a rug engrossed in books they chose.
• Fifth graders use a computer program that adapts the level of difficulty to their responses.
• A Reading Recovery teacher tutors a struggling 1^st grader for 30 minutes a day.
• A middle-school physical education class does stretching and aerobic exercises in unison.

 On the first question, differentiation runs all the way from zero in the college lecture hall to 100 percent with one-on-one tutoring and a personalized computer program.

On the second question, well, it depends. Even one-on-one tutoring can be off-track on the curriculum and produce bored, confused, and alienated students.

But handled skillfully, each scenario has the potential for high levels of appropriate learning – even the college lecture (in the hands of a brilliant and charismatic professor) and the gym class (aerobic exercise has an especially beneficial impact on ADHD and overweight students).

The conclusion: trying to assess a teacher’s work asking, Is it differentiated? runs the risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Better to ask two broader questions: What are students supposed to be learning? Are all students mastering it?

Embedded in these questions are all the variables that research tells us will produce high levels of student learning: appropriate cognitive and non-cognitive goals; a positive classroom culture; instructional strategies that best convey the content; the right balance of whole-class, small-group, individual, and digital experiences; frequent checking for understanding; a clear standard of mastery (usually 80%); effective use of assessment to fine-tune teaching; and follow-up with students below mastery.

With these two questions in mind, teachers’ work falls logically into three phases – a different way of thinking about content, process, and product that is more in synch with the day-to-day work of schools:

Phase 1: Planning units and lessons: Good unit plans, ideally crafted by same-grade/ same subject teacher teams, focused on standards with clear statements of what students will know and be able to do; a pre-assessment; likely misconceptions; essential questions to guide students to the key understandings; periodic assessments; and a lesson-by-lesson game plan. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modalities.

Phase 2: Delivering instruction: Lessons are where the rubber meets the road and a major factor in student success is a set of in-the-moment moves that effective teachers have always used, among them effective classroom management; knowing students well; making the subject matter exciting; making it relevant; making it clear; taking advantage of visuals and props; involving students and getting them involved with each other; having a sense of humor; and nimbly using teachable moments.

Phase 3: Following up after instruction: No matter how well teachers plan and execute, some students won’t achieve mastery by the end of the lesson or unit. This is the moment of truth – if the class moves on, unsuccessful students will be that much more confused and discouraged and fall further and further behind, widening the achievement gap. Timely follow-up with these students is crucial – pullout, small-group after-school help, tutoring, and other strategies to help them catch up.

In all three phases, another priority is building students’ self-reliance and not doing too much for them. Among the most important life skills that students should take away from their K-12 years is the ability to self-assess, know their strengths and weaknesses, deal with difficulty and failure, and build a growth mindset. Student self-efficacy and independence should be prime considerations in planning, lesson execution, and follow-up so that students move through the grades becoming increasingly motivated, confident, and autonomous learners prepared to succeed in the wider world.