|
Meeting the Needs of All Students
What is differentiation? Tomlinson (1999) defines it as a different way of thinking about the classroom. It is also a different way of organizing content and managing student tasks in the classroom. Teachers may vary the content, process, or product of learning to address students' varying ability levels and learning styles by providing a selection of activities. The underlying premise is that to teach a class of students who have different ability levels, teachers should strive to engage students more deeply in the learning process by playing to students' individual abilities, interests, and strengths.
Is it reasonable to expect educators to create so many different activities? First, let's consider how teachers might look at content. Some educators view the curriculum as a set of standards. Others take a broader approach by viewing the standards as one part of the curriculum, incorporating activities that will challenge students at various ability levels into their curriculum. This approach allows students to stretch and grow, no matter what their level. So the question becomes, If teachers have a variety of ability levels in the classroom, why wouldn't every teacher offer several activities to meet the needs of their students?
When I asked teachers this question, their answers could be summed up in two words: time and resources. It is impossible to extend the number of hours in a day, and few teachers have every resource they need. However, technology provides some excellent tools that can save time and broaden the selection of materials. And the best news is that many of these tools and resources are free.
The Problem
In a geometry class, students are studying the distance formula. Some students understand quickly and make perfect scores on the test. Some students don't even understand the basic prerequisites, such as the coordinate plane. All students need to learn this concept, because it is the basis for much of what will be taught in geometry--and besides, it is one of the required math standards. The textbook covers coordinate planes with only a brief statement or two about the distance formula. Some students are bored and others are hopelessly lost. Perhaps something like this has happened to you? How can technology help in this situation?
All of the following adaptations can be implemented by rotating students to computers in a classroom or by sending an entire class to the computer lab.
Varying Content
Careful planning and finely tuned classroom management are two keys to success. Working in small groups can help. Teachers can motivate students by allowing them to select their own topics from essential concepts, which have been predefined by looking at the curriculum standards and selecting the essential points--the concepts without which students cannot proceed to the next level.
To create successful experiences, assignments should be specific and the outcomes should be measurable. For example, one group of students may take advantage of the growing number of free websites to practice required skills. They might go to www.math.com and use one of the free on-line graphers to practice creating their own points and lines. They could write down the coordinates of the figures they create and print them out. A more advanced group might be assigned to create a set of figures, maps, or buildings, using either the drawing tools of a word processor or paper, pencil, and straight-edge rulers. They could construct some basic examples of the concept in two or three dimensions. Another group could work on a handout with beginning level problem and move to the computer to check each other's work. (Gregory & Chapman, 2002).
Varying the Process
Perhaps students have reached a point at which they are ready to learn about coordinate planes, but there are some strong tactile learners in the classroom who just don't seem to learn from the textbook. You also have some students who are very verbal and seem to get bored quickly with textbook assignments, along with some creative writers and a few who know the concept so well that they could probably teach the lesson.
One group could prepare a HyperStudio stack to illustrate their understanding of the coordinate plane with animations. Another group may use a word processing program to draw points and lines that satisfy criteria defined by the teacher. They might create tables and use the ruler feature to measure their lines and illustrate their answers. Others who already understand the concept can read The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics, by Norman and Norton Juster. They create a story with all of the characters being either points, lines, or planes.
Varying the Product
After students complete any of the above processes or explore any of the various levels of content, they can demonstrate their learning by using technology to produce various products: PowerPoint presentations, HyperStudio stacks, or Word documents that they can post on the school's website or stories for a geometry journal that is published by the class using a computer desktop publishing program and shared on parent night. Others might create a web tutorial demonstrating the concepts of points and lines. The website could become a resource for the entire school.
A word of caution here: Many students have discovered how easy it is to copy information from the Internet or other electronic sources and paste it into their documents and projects. This is not learning; this is plagiarism, and it is a growing problem at all levels, especially in high schools. Take time to ensure that students actually process the information, rather than regurgitate facts.
The Constants
In a classroom where teachers use differentiated instruction successfully, instructional contexts change, but a few elements are constant:
- There are specific, measurable learning outcomes for instructional activities
- Students know the expected outcomes before they begin their tasks
- Students know how they will be evaluated before they begin their tasks
- The instruction has a rhythm: Learners first come together for whole class or large group instruction, then separate into groups to work, and then repeat the process until they achieve the learning objectives. This instructional rhythm and flow happens only with careful planning.
Engaged Learning
Technology clearly offers some appealing options for varying content, process, and product, but it can also actively engage students in learning and subsequently improve retention and student achievement. To remember abstract concepts, some students need to read the content, hear it, and move it around or change it in some way. This varied way of interacting with content activates what Levine calls the "multimedia mind" and therefore increases long-term memory (Levine, 2002).
Students perceive content in different ways, and they respond to various mediums quite differently. Some are able to look at a complex process and preview the outcomes before they occur. Mozart was able to preview an entire symphony before he wrote a single note. He could hear the music in his head and consider what the outcome would be if he added another violin or flute. Most of us do not have that capacity. However, this ability to preview and predict outcomes is a necessary factor in learning, and many students who have learning problems lack this skill (Levine, 2002). We can increase the depth of understanding for all students if we allow them to explore concepts in a variety of mediums or encourage them to play "what if" through simulations and role playing (Caulfield & Jennings, 2002).
Students with learning difficulties--those often left behind in the typical classroom--benefit when they repeat concepts several times using the particular medium--audio, video, or interactive--that appeals to their individual learning styles. Technology provides an ideal delivery mechanism for this kind of practice, but we must not stop there. If we drill students who are already having difficulty with a concept, they may be simply practicing concepts in which they lack understanding; they may not be learning at all. A study of the National Assessment of Educational Progress data of math and science classes in which technology was used for drill and practice also supports this notion. The study concluded that more effective uses of technology include simulations and complex processes that activate higher levels of thinking. In some cases, drill and practice applications can do more harm than good (Wenglinsky, 1998).
There is no easy solution for improving student performance, no silver bullet, no magic pill. If we look at the research, however, there are some strong indications about how technology can improve learning for students of different ability levels and varied learning styles. Can any of us afford not to take advantage of technology and every other available tool that could enhance our efforts to leave no child behind?
References
- Caulfield, J., & Jennings, W. (2002). Inciting learning: A guide to brain-compatible instruction. Reston, VA: NASSP.
- Gregory, G. and Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
- Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
- Wenglinsky, H. (1998, September). Does it compute? (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/technolog.pdf
Caroline McCullen (caroline.mccullen@sas.com) is an instructional technologist for SAS inSchool in Cary, NC. Many of the activities above were taken from Curriculum Pathways by SAS inSchool.
Resources
All Kinds of Minds Institute, Chapel Hill, NC; http://www.allkindsofminds.org
Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota http://www.co-operation.org/
SAS inSchool, Cary, NC http://www.sasinschool.com
Previously published in Principal Leadership, National Association of Secondary School Principals, April 2003.
Used with permission.
|
