Construction of Lessons and Tasks
In the last section, we talked about how data gathering and assessment can be a powerful tool for differentiation. In this section, we will discuss how, armed with thorough portraits of all students in the classroom as individual learners, lessons can be constructed to promote differentiation in order to actively promote the growth of all students.
Figure 2: Using Construction of Lessons and Tasks for Differentiation
One of the concepts frequently discussed in the context of differentiated instruction is multi-modality – that is, allowing students to engage with material and perform tasks in a variety of ways (e.g., not just written but also verbal; not just through formal discourse but also through creative expression; etc.). This clearly connects well with Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, which shows the wide variety of modalities that students could be proficient in engaging through.[i] In a well-differentiated classroom, for example, a student’s struggles with linguistic skills shouldn’t serve as a barrier to their acquiring scientific concepts; likewise, a student’s interpersonal skills could be drawn on as a means to help engage a student with particular literacy concepts.
I have seen multi-modality incorporated into a wide variety of lessons, across subjects – particularly in kindergarten, where activities like art projects and games are frequent accompaniments to creative writing or science lessons. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases where I have seen multi-modality drawn upon is in the use of poetry in our kindergarten classroom. The teacher introduces a new poem to students every couple weeks, which the students will ultimately learn and add to their book boxes as an option for reading during reader’s workshop. However, the “introduction” of these poems is actually an impressively elaborate process, as described in these notes posted in the Appendix. In this example (typical for poetry introductions in this class), before the students received their copies of the poem, the class read the poem in multiple ways (silent/independent, listening to and following along with the teacher, and reading in chorus with and without the teacher); discussed the meaning of particular lines; talked with partners about the poem’s meaning, and shared out with the class; and individually pointed out and discussed specific words in the poem. The next day, with their own copies, students circled words practiced previously in the classroom; read the poem (again in multiple ways); learned hand gestures to accompany the poem; and finally, were asked to visualize and illustrate the poem. This whole process drew upon a wide variety of intelligences, not to mention connecting to a wide variety of literacy content which might be targeted to specific students and groups of students in the classroom while still being valuable to the whole class.
Another strategy for differentiation that I have observed and incorporated is the use of flexible groupings. In this, I am particularly influenced by the writings of Gillies (2007), who discusses the ways in which students can benefit from cooperative groupings, in both interpersonal and academic ways; and how different students can benefit differently from mixed- and same-ability groupings.[ii] In my student teaching, I have seen groupings used in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes. In the 3rd grade classroom where I worked in the fall, students had leveled groups for reading, but mixed-ability groups for writing and general class activities. In my current (kindergarten) classroom, students have a variety of preexisting groupings, including ones that are designed to be mixed-ability (such as the groups they use when going to centers), same-ability (such as small reading groups), or that are designed primarily to match students who collaborate well, with varying attention to ability (such as reading partners, where some partnerships are designed to be mixed-ability, some are designed to be same-ability, and some are designed more with interpersonal dynamics in mind).
I have also tried to make use of this in my student teaching. In my Term III assignment, I used three primary considerations for determining the small groups I would use in my lessons: 1) student interests (expressed in a survey I administered), 2) student abilities (I tried to construct mixed-ability groups using data from math assignments I had graded, reading assessments, and informal observations), and 3) interpersonal considerations (who would work well together, who would be distracting to one another, etc.). As I wrote at the time, it became evident to me during this process that in creating these sorts of groupings, teachers can benefit strongly from having extensive data to draw upon:
I have seen multi-modality incorporated into a wide variety of lessons, across subjects – particularly in kindergarten, where activities like art projects and games are frequent accompaniments to creative writing or science lessons. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases where I have seen multi-modality drawn upon is in the use of poetry in our kindergarten classroom. The teacher introduces a new poem to students every couple weeks, which the students will ultimately learn and add to their book boxes as an option for reading during reader’s workshop. However, the “introduction” of these poems is actually an impressively elaborate process, as described in these notes posted in the Appendix. In this example (typical for poetry introductions in this class), before the students received their copies of the poem, the class read the poem in multiple ways (silent/independent, listening to and following along with the teacher, and reading in chorus with and without the teacher); discussed the meaning of particular lines; talked with partners about the poem’s meaning, and shared out with the class; and individually pointed out and discussed specific words in the poem. The next day, with their own copies, students circled words practiced previously in the classroom; read the poem (again in multiple ways); learned hand gestures to accompany the poem; and finally, were asked to visualize and illustrate the poem. This whole process drew upon a wide variety of intelligences, not to mention connecting to a wide variety of literacy content which might be targeted to specific students and groups of students in the classroom while still being valuable to the whole class.
Another strategy for differentiation that I have observed and incorporated is the use of flexible groupings. In this, I am particularly influenced by the writings of Gillies (2007), who discusses the ways in which students can benefit from cooperative groupings, in both interpersonal and academic ways; and how different students can benefit differently from mixed- and same-ability groupings.[ii] In my student teaching, I have seen groupings used in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes. In the 3rd grade classroom where I worked in the fall, students had leveled groups for reading, but mixed-ability groups for writing and general class activities. In my current (kindergarten) classroom, students have a variety of preexisting groupings, including ones that are designed to be mixed-ability (such as the groups they use when going to centers), same-ability (such as small reading groups), or that are designed primarily to match students who collaborate well, with varying attention to ability (such as reading partners, where some partnerships are designed to be mixed-ability, some are designed to be same-ability, and some are designed more with interpersonal dynamics in mind).
I have also tried to make use of this in my student teaching. In my Term III assignment, I used three primary considerations for determining the small groups I would use in my lessons: 1) student interests (expressed in a survey I administered), 2) student abilities (I tried to construct mixed-ability groups using data from math assignments I had graded, reading assessments, and informal observations), and 3) interpersonal considerations (who would work well together, who would be distracting to one another, etc.). As I wrote at the time, it became evident to me during this process that in creating these sorts of groupings, teachers can benefit strongly from having extensive data to draw upon:
Nevertheless, while I devoted a lot of work to student groupings… I believe that the task of determining how students should be grouped is one which should draw on a much more thorough, ongoing process of assessment.
In saying this, I am drawing largely on the writings of Fountas and Pinnell (1996), who argue for flexible grouping of students based primarily on assessed need with relation to the particular skills being taught in lessons.[iii] Their writing both forms an underpinning to my perspective on collaboration for differentiation – arguing that dynamic groupings that are heterogeneous and responsive to specific needs and contexts (rather than static groupings based on an impression of overall proficiency) are much more supportive for all students than the alternative – and also provides guidance for how this can be achieved.[iv]
As can be seen in the pages where I arranged these groups (below, and in the appendix, balancing these three factors was a challenge, particularly when I had students from my preferred groups who were absent on days when I was planning to teach, which often led to ripple effects forcing me to change all of my remaining groups. Nevertheless, the results seemed worthwhile, in ways that seemed particularly visible in the literacy lesson (where students of lower reading levels were able to collaborate with partners to access more challenging material) and the science lesson (where my Penn Mentor observed that my pairings seemed to encourage a student who began the activity reticently to become more actively engaged thanks to his partner’s encouragement).
I used a similar, but simpler, process in the spring with a math lesson I was teaching. After an independent activity and an activity in traditional math partners revealed that many students did not seem to be grasping the relevant concepts, I decided to try to put the students in mixed-ability partnerships, determined by my assessment of the worksheets from their previous tasks. As seen below (and in the Appendix), I used these data to determine appropriate mixed-ability groupings for the next activity; I believe that this is partly responsible for the increased success that the previously struggling students now had with the relevant tasks (which I assessed not only through the worksheets, where students could be influenced by their partners’ answers without absorbing the content, but also through circulating and observing, and asking students to explain their thinking to me).
A third major strategy for lesson construction in a differentiated classroom is allowing opportunities for students to have options and to personalize their work. Providing options is certainly something I’ve seen in the context of literacy, where students have a lot of choice over the books they read – but where this choice is scaffolded by clear guidance from the teacher (e.g., the student knows, via the teacher, what books are of an appropriate reading level for them, but the student gets to choose the specific books). This is the structure of our Reader’s Workshops, to be sure, but I have also seen it in reading activities for science, where students are given a range of books to choose among in order to do research, with the goal being that they can find something that is both appropriate to their reading level and also personally interesting. I drew upon this strategy in my Term III Literacy lesson, where I deliberately provided a variety of reading materials representing a range of reading levels for students to choose among.
In addition to providing options regarding materials (as well as regarding activities and/or assessment types, which was not a form of differentiation that I observed much, but which presents another strategy frequently discussed in the context of differentiation), allowing personalization is another strategy that I think effectively serves a differentiated classroom. By personalization, I mean letting students draw upon their own experiences, interests, and cultural backgrounds in their responses to assignments and prompts. While it is outside the purview of this portfolio to provide a thorough description or defense of culturally relevant teaching, I do raise the subject because I believe that it can be an important tool for differentiation in several ways. First, it allows students to connect with material in different ways from their peers, in order to provoke more meaningful and deep engagement. Second, it can provide additional motivation to students, by allowing them to draw upon things from their own lives that might otherwise be excluded from the classroom. Finally, it can help create a classroom where differences are respected and welcomed – something that is clearly an important goal in a classroom where differentiation is an instructional priority. As Ladson-Billings (1994) puts it:
In addition to providing options regarding materials (as well as regarding activities and/or assessment types, which was not a form of differentiation that I observed much, but which presents another strategy frequently discussed in the context of differentiation), allowing personalization is another strategy that I think effectively serves a differentiated classroom. By personalization, I mean letting students draw upon their own experiences, interests, and cultural backgrounds in their responses to assignments and prompts. While it is outside the purview of this portfolio to provide a thorough description or defense of culturally relevant teaching, I do raise the subject because I believe that it can be an important tool for differentiation in several ways. First, it allows students to connect with material in different ways from their peers, in order to provoke more meaningful and deep engagement. Second, it can provide additional motivation to students, by allowing them to draw upon things from their own lives that might otherwise be excluded from the classroom. Finally, it can help create a classroom where differences are respected and welcomed – something that is clearly an important goal in a classroom where differentiation is an instructional priority. As Ladson-Billings (1994) puts it:
By building bridges or a scaffolding that meets students where they are (intellectually and functionally), culturally relevant teaching helps them to be where they need to be to participate fully and meaningfully in the construction of knowledge.[v]
These three categories are clearly not the only strategies that are useful for the purposes of differentiated instruction. Tomlinson (2001) outlines a long list of potentially valuable differentiation strategies, many of which fall under the above categories, but others of which are distinct (e.g. “Graduated rubrics,” “Literature Circles,” “Negotiated Criteria,” etc.).[vi] In addition, Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) stress the importance of recognizing which parts of lessons should and should not be differentiated; things like essential questions and understandings should be held consistent for all students, while the actual learning plans should be differentiated.[vii] Vaughn et al., meanwhile, (2011) provide a number of specific strategies for supporting diverse learners with specific needs, many of which can be adopted into whole-class instructional strategies with an eye towards differentiation, such as teaching organizational skills, providing technology and manipulatives as needed, adjusting the classroom environment to minimize distractions, etc.[viii] Plenty of other strategies exist as well, such as filling a room with anchor charts, like those present in both of my student teaching classrooms (see Appendix for examples), which can provide reminders of strategies or content to students who might otherwise struggle with recall, in order to help them remember those things while continuing to place most of their focus on the lessons at hand.
All of these techniques and strategies serve to allow a teacher to construct lessons and learning conditions in the classroom to support the learning of all students. In the final section, I will describe how, within those lessons and conditions, a teacher can use Facilitation techniques to further promote differentiation.
[i] Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22-27.
[ii] Gillies, R.M. (2007). Cooperative Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, Inc.
[iii] Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
[iv] See my Term III assignment: http://teacherjg.weebly.com/the-analysis.html
[v] Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. P. 96.
[v] Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How To Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. P. 34.
[vi] Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. P. 36.
[vii] Vaughn, S.R., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2011). Teaching Students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse, and At Risk in the General Education Classroom. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
[ii] Gillies, R.M. (2007). Cooperative Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, Inc.
[iii] Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
[iv] See my Term III assignment: http://teacherjg.weebly.com/the-analysis.html
[v] Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. P. 96.
[v] Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How To Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. P. 34.
[vi] Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. P. 36.
[vii] Vaughn, S.R., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2011). Teaching Students Who Are Exceptional, Diverse, and At Risk in the General Education Classroom. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.