Differentiating Instruction
Griffin talked about how it's "challenging for classroom teachers to "accommodate the developmental needs of individual child (or groups of children) in their classroom." (Griffin, 175) Students come to our classroom with different levels of knowledge. As a classroom teacher, I find it difficult to create multi-leveled lessons that will benefit all the students in my class. I tried to create lessons that are appropriate to most of my students. However, I sometimes feel frustrated because the work might be too easy for few students, and I feel it's pointless for them to work on things that they already knew.
How do we build upon children's current knowledge through differentiating Instruction? What're some activities you've experienced or taught in a classroom that you would recommend?
How do we build upon children's current knowledge through differentiating Instruction? What're some activities you've experienced or taught in a classroom that you would recommend?
posted by Joanne at 9:59 PM
10 Comments:
I teach Spanish as a second language to English speakers, and I face this challenge all the time. Within the same classroom, I have students who need to me to explain things only once to understand the material and apply it, while others need several different explanations and ways to apply the material before they really understand it. I try to create activities where there's not an exact set or amount of requirements for students. In that way, each kid is able to perform according to his/her own best. For example, my fifth graders just finished writing about a storybook character, (each kid had a different book), to practice using adjectives. Some kids wrote extensive descriptions, while others were shorter. Yet all of them were able to express themselves about their own characters using appropriate grammar structures, and share it with their peers. They have also designed their own magazine ads using different amount of text and images. These activities require a lot of encouragement from my part to make sure that each child reaches their best and outperforms him/herself. I also differentiate instruction is by creating activities around different texts, where I assign a text to each student according to their own level. I've done everything from mad libs to plot analysis by choosing different storybooks (or parts of it) and giving it to my different learners. I've also found that when given the option to use media, technology, artistic skills (illustrations, music), each kid feels more motivated and they find their own strengths to achieve a task successfully.
Though you may not find every member from the same center at the same academic level,which is almost always the case,center time is still the most recommendable approach to solve the problem. Teachers should pay more attention to those students who are at a lower level. Sometimes it may require teachers to conduct a one-on-one instruction. However,that depends on the your class-size to a large extent.
Students themselves are another great source in pushing the whole class to move forward. For example, when I was in China, teachers often resort to "studying team" which was composed of 3-4 students who were at different levels. In this team, students did not only study together but helped each other with their study. Of course, the teacher should be extremely careful in choosing students into a team. They were supposed to be at different levels. However, the gap could not be too large or they could not acquire the expected result.
Thus, we may try this way when we conduct our center time if possible.The students who are better in study assume the responsiblity of helping those who are struggling from the same center. In this process, those helpers may repeat the knowledge they have already known to those being helped,which could be taken as a consolidation of prior knowledge.Thus, it is beneficial to both sides. Anyway, it is not realistic for teachers to cater to every student's needs even in the center time.
Students have different strengths; it would be ideal to create lessons catering to the individual needs of all children. We as teachers, like Joanne, often become frustrated at times when we feel like we are not meeting the needs of all our students and some students are not “learning” anything.
First of all, I think it is important for us to have realistic expectations. We need to acknowledge that it is impossible to create an ideal learning situation for all children all the time. Having said that, I think we should certainly strive to create a stimulating learning environment for as many students as possible. One of the things teachers can do is to vary the difficulty of the individual work students do (e.g. worksheet, project, paper, etc.) within the framework/theme the class is focusing on at that time. This would allow the students to develop their knowledge without feeling left out of the group and this is also more realistic as the teacher does not have to do too much extra work in terms of preparation.
Along with the students’ varying level of knowledge, we need to acknowledge the fact that students bring with them specific and unique strengths, and do our best to take the multiple intelligences into account in classroom situations. For instance, some students are better visual learners than aural learners. They learn better when they are able to read new material rather than simply listen to it. Of course, many learners can learn equally well either way; however, it has been estimated that for up to 25 percent of the population, the mode of instruction does make a difference in their success as learners.
Gardner has theorized that individuals have at least seven distinct intelligences that can be developed over a lifetime: logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, body/kinesthetic, musical/rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, verbal/linguistic. While everyone might possess these seven intelligences, they are not equally developed in any one individual. I think it would be great to create activities that draw on all seven of these intelligences at one time or another, not only to facilitate learning among diverse students but also to help them realize their full potential with all seven.
One way of doing so is to think about the activities that are frequently used in the classroom and to categorize them according to intelligence type. By being aware of which type of intelligence is being tapped by a particular activity, teachers can keep track of which type they are emphasizing or neglecting in the classroom and aim for a different representation if they so choose. These are some examples of activities that fit each type of intelligence:
Logical/mathematical: puzzles and games, logical, sequential presentations, classifications and categorizations
Visual/spatial: charts and grids, videos, drawing
Body/kinesthetic: hands-on activities, field trips, pantomime
Musical/rhythmic: singing, playing music, jazz chants
Interpersonal: pairwork, project work, group problem-solving
Intrapersonal: self-evaluation, journal keeping, options for homework
Verbal/linguistic: note-taking, story telling, debates
I agree with Katie that one of the most effective ways to differentiate instruction is through centers. The school I taught at in Ecuador used center work on a daily basis. We had a different center for reading, writing, vocabulary/listening, science, math, and art. Each student had his or her own folder at the center with what they would work on. For the most part, the idea behind the center was the same, but the work varied based on each student's particular level. For example at the writing center, a low student would be required to retell the story or write an alternate ending. A high student would be asked to write a new story using the same characters from the previous book.
Currently I am working with an afterschool program. We have 12 students in first and second grade, mostly ELLs. Our main focus is on developing literacy. We have divided the students up based on their reading level into three groups. Students work on their homework, while we call over each group for a lesson. The lessons vary depending on what the students struggle with or need to develop. This allows us to read a story, create a shared writing while targeting 1-2 strategies. This seems to be effective in allowing us to concentrate on the students' needs and provide meaningful learning experiences.
Differentiating instruction should help teachers reach the wide range of learners present in their classrooms. By creating lessons that respect the different levels of knowledge that each student brings to your classroom, the classes should stimulate and engage the minds of all there within. The curriculum that I selected to review for class attempts to address this situation by preparing three different versions of lesson plans for each topic. The different levels cover the same themes but they are presented with varying degrees of scaffolding. In theory, this will make sure that the children are given tasks that are just beyond their present capability but which they can perform with a little guidance. If the problem persists, one idea is to give the more advanced children responsibilities that would aid their classmates. That added responsibility will help to develop their leadership skills and it should cure their boredom as well.
I have problems with differentiated instruction. I've read over and over about how much more benefitial differentiated instruction is for students in the classroom (though more difficult for the teacher). Yet I am having trouble accepting that differentiated instruction is really the best system for all students involved.
I was a product of a "tracked" system. In eighth grade (seventh grade for math) we were recommended by our previous year's teachers for level 1, 2, or 3 in each subjct based on their opinion of our abilities. From there on out we pretty much stayed in each level all the way through high school. And I will agree with all the research, once tracked, it is very hard to switch tracks, especially if you don't switch after the first year. I was tracked to the advanced level in all subjects except English, and the quality of learning that went on in the level 1 versus level 2 courses was drastically different. I remember being very disappointed over my lower track English, but it wasn't just my disappointment that frustrated me. Class discussions never achieved the same depth of understanding, work was never even remotly challenging and I was every day very frustrated with how long it took some of my peers in that class to grasp concepts that seemed to me very basic. I often felt as though I was wasting my time. The thing I found most fortunate about that class was that there were two or three other students who, like me, felt academically unchallenged and found our English class equally frustrating. The only way I could stand to go to that English class was by thinking about the group discussions the three or four of us would have about a novel we were reading when we were allowed the opportunity to work with each other as opposed to the rest of the class or in a multi-level group. Those were the only times I felt like I was learning anything at all (which of course now I know to be untrue) but were among the only times I ever felt challenged by the course material.
I don't know if it was because the school in general was tracked or if it was because my teacher was not very good at differentiated instruction, but I found that year in English to be amazingly frustrating, not very challenging, and it caused me to be very closeminded about the potentials of differentiated instruction. To this day I do not really like it, even having read all the research that raves about it.
That being said, my current answer to your question is that I don't believe there is anything a teacher can do, especially at the upper levels, to make sure the work is as challenging as it could possibly be for some of the students. It seemed to me that any differentiated classroom will neccessarily leave the more advanced students not challenged to the extent that they could be if placed in a class among students of similar levels. (Not to say there aren't things a teacher can do to challenge advanced students more - the ideas in other blogs seem very good to me - it just won't be equal to the challenges that could be offered in a class of only advanced students). On the other hand, the positive thing about differentiated instruction is that I don't think there is any way a teacher could provide as good and challenging a classroom for the much less advanced students without their presence in the classroom. What they bring to their peer's learning experience is unique and helps their peers to learn more effectively to a tremendous degree. Yet it seems to me that in doing this, you sacrifice the advanced students' own opportunities to stretch their thinking to the fullest possible extent.
I recognize that my viewpoint is a bias one, and a result of my own experiences with a tracked system and I welcome and encourage anyone to pick this blog to pieces. At the same time, this is how I currently feel: personally I value to a great extent my own tracked educational experience because I feel I learned so much more because of it.
I have a problem with my feelings in that I am sacrificing the quality of learning of one group for another. I can't help seeing differentiated instruction and tracking as a dichotomy that asks for the sacrificing of the BEST possible education of one group over another and I myself am conflicted about this. As a teacher, I want the best possible education for every single one of my students, and hate the idea of sacrificing one individual's or group's for another. Yet that is the reality as I currently see the debate between tracking and differentiated instruction and am really hoping to soon learn a different way of seeing it.
I think this is a great question, as it’s something that is expected of all teachers but never easy to accomplish. In my classroom there isn’t a lot of time for adding to the set curriculum provided by the district, so differentiating the instruction seemed very difficult in the first weeks of school. Thanks to the great programs available on the Internet, I am now able to focus in on what each student’s strengths and weaknesses are in a more formulated way and create my instruction around it. The NYC public school teachers have a program called Princeton review available where you can ask students to take online examinations, and the students will receive a profile based on the way they answered the exams each week showing what they need to work on in math and reading. To me it has been easy to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the outgoing students, as they will quickly raise their hand to answer questions (even if incorrectly) and will nag you for help until they understand everything completely. Unfortunately, there always seems to be a quieter student who you feel sure is clear with what you’re explaining until the unit is completed and they fail the test or a piece of writing is turned in that is completely off task. With the Princeton review program, students are asked a variety of questions in a more random order, but responses are then shown to the teacher in a very organized and categorized manner. Although I realize there are many factors that make this system imperfect, it is a great way for me to quickly assess which students should be grouped together for guided instruction. Since the students have struggled with the right behavior and maturity level in center time, I needed to come up with a system that had students doing different tasks throughout the room but without opportunity to fool around. Each day I am able to pull 4-6 students in each subject area based on what they were struggling in, and focus on that specific challenge with those students. Although it is not exactly what I had hoped for when I planned curriculum with differentiated instruction, the individualized education program that I have set up in the classroom seems to help the students on a more personalized level. While I am meeting with these small groups on content areas the rest of the students appear to understand, the other students are completing independent assignments that enrich what they are strong in. At the end of any of these blocks of time it is possible that over five different content areas have been covered throughout the classroom. I hope this wasn’t too confusing to apply to your own classroom, but in a class where students aren’t ready to work in independent groups it’s a great option.
I think it is important to look at Griffin’s perspective of "challenging for classroom teachers to accommodate the developmental needs of individual child (or groups of children) in their classroom" with a different attitude. It is evident that many students come into classrooms with different levels of knowledge and prior experiences. As educators, we need to find create multi-leveled lessons that will benefit ALL of our students. This can often times be difficult because it requires more input on our behalf because we actually have to take the time to find out our students. During this process we must also be aware that we are not downplaying our student’s achievement capacity. We must not act on our “assumptions,” but we must hold higher expectations when it comes to the learning in our classrooms. Otherwise, we will be implementing our self-fulfilling prophecy – and our students will then achieve at the level in which they are expected to achieve. Also when implementing the activities we need to allow, “The student’s actions determine what will be learned” as well as keep the “big idea” in mind (Sleeter, 45). I also agree what my other colleagues suggest, that in my experiences has worked to make a productive learning environment, is that students will also assist in helping one another because they learn from working together. Often times the students themselves will explain things to their classmates and somehow they are able to help them understand the material and apply it. The ones we would need to focus on as educators are the students (especially ELL’s) that require that extra individualized explanation and assistance.
Since students are constantly confronted with new information, to learn effectively students need to integrate new material into their existing knowledge base, construct new understanding, and adapt existing conceptions and beliefs as needed. Proficiency at these tasks is essential to literacy. However, students who lack sufficient background knowledge or are unable to activate this knowledge may struggle to access, participate, and progress throughout the general curriculum. Teachers can facilitate their students’ literacy success by helping them to build and activate background knowledge.
Since I am not currently teaching I cannot share an experience but I’ve helped explain and tutor my little brothers with his own difficulties in a subject; and the best advice I can give is be mentally prepared and be ready to accommodate or change/ twitch the lesson plan just a bit to help those students that are falling behind a chance to understand. Also I strongly belief that a good teacher will intuitively find a way of instruction that will best suit that child’s learning style. Sometimes, I just think that students may need more one-on-one instruction time or modeling.
Post a Comment
<< Home