 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
Two, Four, Six, Eight, Let's All Differentiate
Differential Education: Yesterday, Today, and TomorrowDifferentiation is hot! Teachers, supervisors, and administrators are riding the wave of this trend for one of three reasons – because it's being splashed through the educational literature, because it's the latest "in" thing, or, perhaps, because it makes great good sense. While I would prefer that it be for the latter reason, the whole thing reminds me of the song Everything Old Is New Again.
Back when I was completing my graduate work, sometime between the invention of moveable type and the advent of desktop computers, I was captivated by the work of Dr. Virgil Ward, who coined the phrase "differential education" to describe his ideas about providing appropriate education for gifted and talented students. He suggested, essentially, that we could best maximize student growth by beginning our work with children based on where they were (what they knew and how they best learned), and helping them to progress from there. He presented his ideas axiomatically and his intent, he said, was twofold:
The first purpose is to afford insight for classroom teachers, supervisory personnel, and administrators into essential qualities which enriched curricula must possess. . . The second intention is that the principles serve as an extensive check-list for instructional provisions already in effect, again to determine whether the modifications of the regular school program do, indeed, possess potential for a higher quality of educational experience [for the gifted youngster.]
When the theory of differential education was first proposed, the fields of curriculum and instruction were much more closely aligned than they are today, intersecting in circles of practice that comprised the activity of teaching. Instructional design was part of curriculum and curriculum was part of instruction; assessment, moreover, was an integral part of both. By positing a "differential education system" that would meet the needs of students who were gifted, Ward anticipated modifying curriculum and individualizing instruction in systematic and creative ways
This notion was both profound and deceptively simple – profound because it highlighted what teachers who focus on the needs of children rather than on those of subject matter actually do, and deceptively simple because it demanded that we concentrate on teaching children based on who they were and what they knew, rather than from who we wished they were. It required that teachers understand both their students and their subject matter intimately.
Although Ward's concept was premised on the needs of gifted learners, it was (and is), applicable to all students. In the almost half-century since he first developed his ideas, numerous researchers have explored and attempted to operationalize the tenets of differentiation for classroom use; many teachers have used differential education with all of their students in mixed-ability classes, whether through direct knowledge of Ward's work or simply because they assumed that was "how you teach." The last half-a-dozen years, in particular, have yielded work that extends the principles and practices of differentiation into the general classroom, primarily through the efforts of Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson (herself a specialist in educating the gifted).
And now everybody's doing it, or thinks that s/he is. With popularization, however, has come confusion. Some write and speak about "differentiated curriculum" and others about "differentiated instruction." Few focus unambiguously on the necessary combination of the two in order to create differential education. Barbara Clark, in 1983, made the need for this conjunction explicit in a statement which, in my opinion, has yet to be matched in its clarity:
Differentiation is the preparation that is made for the curriculum to respond to the characteristic needs of [gifted] children, such as allowing a faster pace of learning and choosing themes and content that allow for more complex investigation. Individualization is the process of adapting that curriculum to the needs and interests of a particular [gifted] student. A program requires both to be really successful.
Because the notions of differentiation were originally applied to gifted students, they have been fraught with many of the same misconceptions that proliferate about working with these special needs students themselves. It would be instructive, therefore, to focus for a moment on what differentiation does not do. It does not imply giving the same assignment to all students and simply making the questions harder (or less difficult), for some of them; neither does it entail grading that is curved, adapted, or otherwise dependent upon student ability. Differentiation does not provide enrichment activities for those students who finish their work before their peers; on the other hand, it does not mean that those who don't accomplish to the level of some pre-set standard are excluded from the more enriching aspects of the curriculum. It never makes use of what I call the MOTS Curriculum – having students who understand something easily do "more of the same." Finally, differentiation does not mean providing a restaurant menu of activities from which students may select at will in order to complete requirements.
Depending on the "expert" to which one subscribes, teachers can accomplish differentiation by attending to three, or four, elements of their classroom work: content, process, product, and, if one chooses to include it, environment. These elements represent multiple ways for students to access specific content (concepts, facts, and/or skills), an array of carefully designed opportunities for students to make sense of the content, a variety of means students can use to demonstrate what they have learned, and learning environments that provide for divergent student needs and approaches.
Differentiation itself is based on three beliefs:
· Everyone learns differently;
· Quality is more important than quantity (e.g. significance trumps coverage);
· "One-size-fits-all" curriculum and instruction presumes that content is more important than studentsThese beliefs, in turn, require that every teacher answer three specific questions:
· In the content you must teach, what is it that you want all of your students to know?
· How can each student best learn this in ways that are appropriate to his/her specific needs?
· How can each student most effectively demonstrate what s/he has learned?In order to achieve truly differential education for students, teachers must modify standard classroom offerings in several areas. These areas include – but are not limited to – pacing and sophistication, depth, complexity, and personalization. The speed with which students progress through the curriculum must be accelerated or decelerated according to student need. Students must be encouraged to delve as deeply into content as is challenging for them and then to try and delve even more deeply. Learning activities must allow for student choice at levels of complexity that are most appropriate; in other words, assignments must be tiered to take into account different ways to meet the same goal. Finally, students must be provided with reality-based opportunities to interpret and express what they are learning in ways that are personally relevant and meaningful.
It is essential that we be able to distinguish between the notions of "different" and "differentiated." Creating modifications such as those noted above (or a myriad of others), without directing them to specific students provides things that may be different but it does not constitute differentiation. Using the principles of differentiation, teachers design work that is based on students' needs – assembling choices, without attention to their suitability for particular learners, offers options that may be interesting but are grounded neither in the principles of differential education nor representative of purposeful approaches to learning.
Especially pertinent in today's atmosphere of accountability, standardization, and testing is the fact that differentiation is rooted solidly in two of the major components of assessment, those that come at the beginning of learning and continue throughout the process rather than the one that comes at the end and is incarnated in "the test." A thorough knowledge of where to begin teaching students can be gained from placement assessment, a strategy which should occur before the onset of instruction. Assessment for placement is a tool that increases the probability that instruction can be made suitable for every student; it sets the stage for implementing Ward's contention that understanding where the student is starting from is central to our work.
Ongoing, formative assessment gives teachers information that they need to create appropriately differentiated work for students. Such assessment appraises student progress by providing continuous feedback to teachers and to students; it is a guide to teaching and learning, a way to track student development and to determine what changes, if any, need to be made to increase their growth. It gives teachers the data they need to monitor and, if necessary, modify both curricular and instructional design. Formative assessment allows everyone to know where they stand – teachers and students – and "where they need to go from here."
The current state of American education emphasizes just how critical it is to have a clear understanding of the premises of differentiation. Federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind has put increasing stress on school systems, teachers, and, especially, on students. Its focus on "all children" instead of on "each child" is particularly problematic, as it invites educators to concentrate their efforts on the group – and thus the content taught – rather than on the needs of individual learners. And yet the principles of equity require that each student be central to the learning process and educated in ways that address his/her needs and abilities appropriately.
Differential education is a philosophy that is focused on the confluence of student and content. It is not a strategy that teachers can learn "to do" in classes and workshops and then immediately implement in their schools. Differentiation entails common goals and multiple ways to attain them, each based on the unique needs of individuals learners. By enabling educators to participate in powerful, intentional teaching and students to partake of learning that is personally challenging and meaningful, it offers a genuine opportunity to make schooling a deeply rewarding activity.
Stephanie Bravmann has worked in education in Washington for many years. She has been a teacher (pre-K through doctoral students) in this country and in West Africa, a school administrator, the director of a state education cooperative, and the executive director of an education non-profit. Recently retired as a professor in the School of Education at Seattle University, she currently works as a Senior Researcher with the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington and as a consultant. Email: bravmann@u.washington.edu or sglb@comcast.net
©December 2004 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
info@newhorizons.orgFor permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information