Effective Differentiation Techniques and Student Achievement

Stacey Godbout Colegrove University of New England EDU-600 2011 Fall B Cannan Professor David Cannan December 11, 2011

Effective Differentiation Techniques and Student Achievement

All students can achieve academic success, when teachers effectively differentiate curriculum and the way in which they deliver the content. In inclusive classrooms, there are multitudes of needs and various levels of learning abilities. Students face the challenges of learning impairments, socio-economic struggles, English as a second language, crisis and trauma, as well as diverse learning strengths and intelligences. It has become increasingly difficult for teachers to meet the needs of all learners, by simply delivering whole group lessons on the required content. In this paper you will read about the way in which differentiation is defined, strategies for applying techniques to content and grouping, challenges associated with differentiation, as well as the importance of looking at student achievement. Ideally, the best practice would be to provide individual instruction as the means to meet the various needs of all learners; however, the reality is, in large inclusive and diverse classrooms, this is not possible. According to Reed (2004) the option then becomes whether to teach to the low, middle, or high end students on the learning spectrum; she suggested teaching to the lower level perpetuates the problem of low achievement, teaching to the middle causes less-prepared students to struggle and fall farther behind while the other students lose motivation and go unchallenged, and high end teaching seems untenable, given the probable struggle and likely disengagement by less-prepared students. Reed (2004) goes on to say that gifted children who are grouped heterogeneously receive less than 20% of the teachers attention and no curricular

differentiation in 84% of their learning. How then do we teach effectively to meet the needs of all learners? According to Stepanek (1999) differentiation is a process of learning about students needs and interests on a continual basis, in order to best direct meaningful instruction. This does not mean gifted and talented students receive extra or harder work, nor does it mean struggling learners receive watered down assignments; rather, it is a method for choosing appropriate teaching materials and strategies, which are flexible and organized in a way of not only teaching lessons but of also readjusting teaching and learning (Adams & Pierce, 2006) in order to meet students at their learning levels, and to help them move forward. Differentiation refers to both the way in which students are grouped and the way in which curriculum is delivered and/or modified. Tieso (2002) highlights the most common grouping practices as being: whole class instruction, between-class instruction, and within-class instruction. She explains how curriculum differentiation is based on the assessment of students prior knowledge, followed by the adaptation of grouping based on the results of the assessment (Tieso, 2002). Data should be collected, before and after lessons are delivered, in order to compact curriculum and allow for flexible pacing (Stepanek, 1999). A variety of instructional methods can be used to differentiate instruction, including compacting, learning contracts, cubing, and tiered lessons (Adams & Pierce, 2006). Adams and Pierce (2006) break down differentiation techniques into three areas: content, process, and product for all students. Content is explained as the material being presented. Process, or sense making, is expressed as the activities students use and

practice to make sense of the material. Finally, product is defined as the final outcome of the unit such as a test, paper, or project (Adams & Pierce, 2006). The techniques for differentiating content, process, and product, as proposed by Adams and Pierce (2006), are best experienced through the strategy of tiered lessons. Using these three elements, with a focus on students learning styles, interests, and/or their readiness, the tiered lesson can be used by forming fluid groups, which are meant to change frequently as the students learn also prompting the teacher to readjust her teaching. The strength in this article lies with its clear examples and detailed descriptions of how to set up this type of differentiated lesson plan. Adams and Pierce (2006) focused on readiness and learning styles, but it would have been helpful to also see an example using student interest. There was a lack of data, in terms of student achievement to prove the successfulness of using tiered lessons as a means of differentiating instruction. It would be beneficial for this strategy to be connected with formative assessments and data collection, in order to validate its effectiveness. Flexible groupings and flexible time blocks are popular strategies for differentiating the way in which material is presented to different learners. These techniques allow for opportunities to meet individual students or small groups of students based on their needs; they can be formed using pairs, small groups, and whole-group arrangements (Adams & Pierce, 2006). By allowing supple time, students are allowed to reach their own conclusions about content. The use of flexible time can be equally advantageous to gifted students, as it is for struggling learners; Stepanek (1999) explains how gifted students may decline to show or explain their thinking, due to the pace at

which they work. When the fear of timeliness with assignments is removed, more effort is possible from all learners. Through the use of Americas Choice design, Harris (2011) shares the organizational structure used to best apply certain differentiation techniques. This design encourages the use of block scheduling, where groups are organized into teams. First, a short mini-lesson is provided to the whole class. Next, work time is made available for individual students and/or cooperative groups. This is also a time for teachers to meet one-on-one with students for individual instruction or modifications. Finally, a lesson ends with a closing period, when teachers wrap up the lesson and where students are able to share their work (Harris, 2011). There are many ways to incorporate differentiation modification techniques. Reed (2004) provided several examples, such as: extension, application, investigating open-ended questions, and using self-selected problems. Her examples of these techniques were not limited to a particular group of students; rather they were open to all eligible students who had met the basic skills needed (Reed, 2004). This is an interesting tactic, to provide differentiation techniques solely based on choice for extensions, rather than on learning needs. It was, however, unclear how her examples met the needs of the single learner she discussed. The use of more data and of more subjects would have been helpful. It is important to consider how the classroom is organized, in order to provide for flexibility and a variety of activities. Stepanek (1999) explains how the role of the teacher shifts from that of the curriculum presenter, to one who provides and guides students through multiple learning opportunities, allowing students to assess their own

progress. Students should be allowed to move about freely, to choose their activities, and work on different projects. It is important to plan the use of anchoring activities, which students can complete with minor supervision from the teacher. These include journal writing, the use of familiar technology tools, working on portfolio tasks, and doing independent skill work (Adams & Pierce, 2006; Stepanek, 1999). Reed (2004) recognized how pre-assessments are vital so the teacher can purposefully modify activities to eliminate repetition and drill for those who already demonstrate mastery. Since assessment and data collection are key elements, formative assessments should be given frequently. The idea of using natural ability as a means for determining student achievement is no longer viable; instead, student effort and the realization that all students have the capacity to learn when their energies are focused, is the foundation for successful differentiation methods (Harris, 2011). Many experts value the difficulties and challenges of learning how to differentiate instruction. Teachers struggle with logistics and with finding appropriate ways to manage their classrooms, and a great deal of time is needed in order to examine curriculum closely (Tieso, 2002). There is a general lack of professional development being done, in order to teach teachers how to move away from simply using ability grouping as a the sole means of differentiating (Harris, 2011). Students classroom environments change drastically as they travel throughout the school years, in both their peer groupings and in the expectations placed upon their achievement. Ability grouping and tracking have been greatly challenged in recent years. Ability grouping is a method of homogeneously placing elementary or middle school students into grades and classrooms, based on assessments of their readiness or ability

(Tieso, 2002); the subjects most often grouped this way are reading and mathematics, according to Harris (2011). Tracking refers to the way in which secondary students are placed into courses based on their test scores, grades, and teacher/guidance recommendations (Harris, 2011). The problem most often associated with tracking is, while some students are exposed to rigorous content, many students are limited by their placement. These students are rarely exposed to high-quality content and curriculum, therefore, they become limited by what they can access, and they continue to stay placed in their track because their test scores, grades, and recommendations do not improve. The articles reflected here bridge the span of learners, and illustrate the various challenges placed upon educators throughout the schooling years. Reed (2004) clearly outlines the typical challenges found in a heterogeneously grouped high school classroom: difficulty in identifying ability, challenges associated with tracking, choosing to teach to the middle, and identifying qualifiers for gifted students. The purpose of Harris study (2011), conducted using data from middle schools under a Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) model, was to look at the challenges of differentiation using standards-based curriculum and to look at the ill effects from tracking. Harris (2011) illustrated how the political components public labels, status differences, expectations, and consequences, affect learners and teachers alike; therefore differentiation experiences are justified for individual students. Several articles blended their findings throughout both elementary and middle schools. Tieso (2002) used the achievement scores of elementary and middle school math students to understand and evaluate the effects of grouping and various curriculum

practices; she found great discord between the reality of high-stakes state achievement testing and the need for teachers to critically analyze their curriculum. While Adams and Pierce (2006) used an inclusive school with grades K-12 as a foundation for their applications, the lessons they delivered were those of elementary classrooms. Finally, Stepanek (1999) offered a variety of strategies for differentiation (of both content and grouping) throughout elementary and secondary classrooms. In her conclusion, she emphasized the point that most differentiation strategies can and should be utilized by teachersfor all learners. Evidence of student achievement needs to be the foundation of all instructional planning and redirecting. The importance of identifying students abilities, prior knowledge, and interests cannot be stressed enough, when attempting to develop valid and meaningful differentiation tactics. Data collection is the central gateway to knowing how to intentionally modify lessons, and recognizing when to cut out repetitious activities (Reed, 2004). Tieso (2002) found it is crucial for teachers to examine their curriculum to find authentic learning opportunities, which should be applied to real-life experiences for students; this highlighted an important link between motivation and the opportunity to learn more (Tieso, 2002). Her study was solidly backed by a multitude of references and a large number of subjects used to collect data. Tieso (2002) found classes with enhanced or modified units demonstrated greater achievement than those who followed whole group textbook lessons. When students were intentionally grouped and curriculum was modified to meet the needs of learners, students made gains from all social-economic

backgrounds. Tiesos findings (2002) show motivation increased greatly for students who were provided with authentic learning goals. By looking at schools who follow the format of Americas Choice design, Harris (2011) was able to collect a great deal of data from six different low-achieving schools (five were urban and one was rural) over a course of three years; this included 329 interviews and classroom observations. In terms of student achievement, Harris (2011) found student placement into academic groups did not allow for student mobility between learning groups, and placing a student in a group, which was above his ability level, was far from ideal for either the student or the teacher. Moreover, Harris (2011) discovered students who are pulled out of regular classes for interventions, based on state tests alone, were not provided with appropriate resources to meet the goals of those assessments and they experienced, what she called, the worst form of curriculum differentiation. Reed (2004) struggled in demonstrating student achievement, in the single heterogeneously grouped classroom she cited (a of the weaknesses of this piece.) However, she recognized a great challenge, which many educators face as students reach the secondary portion of their educationwhen students have become disengaged and have gone unchallenged, it can be difficult to reel them back in. In conclusion, the typical inclusive classroom is fraught with a multitude of challenges and needs; as Harris (2011) tells us, educators have the daunting responsibility to prepare students for different opportunities outside of K-12 schools. In order to accomplish this feat, we must carefully evaluate our strategies for delivering content, in order to best foster student growth and engagement. We must also vigilantly

consider how we use data and achievement results to group students, so as to not place a student in a track of education. Differentiation techniques are not new to education. However, teachers and administrators need to be intentional, in order to best meet the needs of a growing and diverse culture of learners. It must be through the use of relevant and intentional assessments that we structure our teaching, as a means of differentiating the content, process, and products of all learning.

References: Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. (2006). Math education for gifted students: Tiered lessons: one way to differentiate mathematics instruction. Prufrock Pr. Retrieved from http://www.prufrock.com/client/client_pages/GCT_Readers/Math/Ch._4/Tiered_ Lessons_for_Gifted_Children.cfm

Harris, D. (2011). Curriculum Differentiation and Comprehensive School Reform: Challenges in Providing Educational Opportunity. Educational Policy, 25(5), 844-884. Reed, C. (2004). Mathematically Gifted in the Heterogeneously Grouped Mathematics Classroom: What Is a Teacher to Do?. Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(3), 89-95. Stepanek, J., & Northwest Regional Educational Lab, P. r. (1999). The Inclusive Classroom. Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students: Differentiating Mathematics and Science Instruction. It's Just Good Teaching Series. Tieso, C. L., & National Research Center on the Gifted and, T. (2002). The Effects of Grouping and Curricular Practices on Intermediate Students' Math Achievement. National Research Center On The Gifted And Talented,