Differentiated Instruction Teaching Learners with Varying Abilities - Research Paper Example

Differentiated Instruction Teaching Learners with Varying Abilities Topic Issue The topic under discussion is “Differentiated Instruction: teaching learners with varying abilities." Four key principles make differentiated instruction recognizable. The model operates under the assumption that teachers and children of all categories and types can learn. The second principle revolves around providing children quality children. Furthermore, it centers on expecting, recognizing and rewarding progress. Finally, the model acknowledges that learners will have individual and common needs in every classroom. Teachers who adopt differentiated instruction often give children choices. They are flexible in the way they deliver content and exhibit creativity within the classroom. Availability of choice is only possible through an understanding of the knowledge that is needed to complete tasks. The educator must combine this knowledge with the children’s ability to develop and process skills and concepts. Catering to the needs of students with divergent abilities is at the heart of this teaching strategy. Historical summary of literature Differentiated instruction is nothing new in teaching circles. It has been in practice from as far back as the 1970s. However, at the time, educators that implemented the model had not identified a universal name for it. They were simply catering to the needs of their students. Therefore, literature on the subject during this decade mostly focuses on the learning theories that support different instruction. Some educational theorists wrote a lot about the need for differentiated instruction. One such individual was Lev Vygotsky, who established the zone of proximal development theory (Logan, 2012). It was his work that formed some of the theoretical foundations of this teaching practice today. Vygotsky, in 1978, states that every learner has a zone of proximal development. At this level, the child will experience learning in a manner that is challenging but not too difficult for the child. An educator who meets the child at their zone of proximal development will promote teaching in the most effective way. They will provide instruction in a context that matches the readiness level of the child. Writers in the subsequent decade also examined the plausibility of differentiated instruction. Some looked at its effects while others counterbalanced this with a number of arguments. In 1987, Slavin highlighted the dangers of grouping students according to their ability. He studied analyses done in various schools and found that regrouping of math students led to poorer achievement in schools that maintained the practice. The debate over differentiated teaching was just picking up momentum in the 1980s. During the 1990s, most literature on the subject revolved around proving that differentiated instruction can work. Sternberg and Grigorenko carried out a study to assess the impact of differentiated instruction in 1999. The investigators used students’ grade performance to determine whether this teaching model was effective. In order to sufficiently assess whether differentiated instruction had taken place, they looked at whether teachers attempted to match thinking styles with content. The two authors explained that a student could belong to one of three thinking styles. They could be practical thinkers who thrive in active-forms of delivery. Alternatively, creative thinkers require a different approach because they tend to look for hidden meanings. Thirdly, a student could be an analytical thinker who can find solutions in a seemingly complex set of variables. Matching instruction to these individuals’ thinking styles is what made the difference in their learning outcomes (Watts-Taffe et. a.l., 2012). One of the most influential theorists in this field is Carol Tomlinson. Differentiated instructions were spreading throughout various schools in the 90s. It was necessary to look at the obstacles to implementation, which this writer studied intensely. Tomlinson analyzed a case study to find out why adoption of the teaching strategy was not as effective as it had initially been planned out to be in 1995. She also investigated the qualities that made differentiated instruction work in some schools (Pham, 2012). Attitudinal issues were some of the key contributors to unsatisfactory outcomes. Educators opposed this strategy because they lacked ownership of the process. Most of them had to implement it as a directive from administrators. They became apprehensive about their changing roles. A number of these teachers even assumed that differentiated instruction was yet another experiment that would soon be forgotten. Many became insecure about their role as teachers as they felt that they lacked the skills to carry forward this strategy. Uneasiness about the lack of time for preparing differentiated lessons was rife. Instructors also showed concerns about the need for constant assessment. Generally, resistance to change brought on by attitudinal issues was the major problem in this area. In 1995, Carol Tomlinson thus suggested a number of strategies to overcome such opposition. Administrators need to equip teachers with sufficient skills to implement this practice. Therefore, offering them training is paramount to success. Additionally, leaders need to foster cooperation with educators in order to dissipate resistance. It was also necessary to address some concerns about differentiated instruction. One can end fears of losing control in the classroom by simply discussing how the model works. Current research This may perceived as research that occurred in the decade 2008 and beyond. Following the implementation of the No Child Left Behind program in 2001, a myriad of teachers adopted the practice. They realized that the same teaching approach was not effective for all students in the learning fraternity. Therefore, researches needed to come up with delivery models that teachers could use for differentiated instruction. This formed an important part of literature in the field today. Renzulli and Reis (2010) established the school wide enrichment model (SEM). In principle, this format dwells on acceleration and enrichment as a means of integrating high ability students. Teachers escalate student experiences if they have high abilities. Educators subscribing to this model will group students in accordance with their learning styles, interests and abilities. They may also enrich content and individualize curriculum so as to meet students’ needs. Students may skip grades or enroll in college; they may supplement regular studies by joining the Invention Convention or the National Spelling Bee. Assessment is also a critical part of the SEM models. Here, schools may change assessment in order to correspond to a student’s ability. This would allow the institution to determine whether their interventions are yielding results. Alternatives for acceleration also include placement options for high potential students. The models are useful in providing educators with practical ways of differentiating instructions. They highlight different options and thus empower teachers to use the approach usefully in class. Field (2009) also gives suggestions on how differentiated instruction can be implemented. He discusses acceleration, but adds a series of alternatives that may enrich this strategy. For instance, instead of just skipping grades, practical acceleration may be granted for particular subjects. Teachers also have the option of placing children in classes with older students. Educators can compact curriculum in order to meet gifted students’ needs. They may achieve this by skipping introductory material or reducing the amount of time that children spend on practicing components. They may also consider the option of telescoping, where teachers increase delivery rates of the curriculum. Students can determine the rate at which they receive instruction through demonstration of continuous progress. Alternatively, differentiated instruction can take place by giving credit for subjects that others do at a higher level. Examination is imperative in this approach and could contribute to effective outcomes (Field, 2009). It is thus clear that gifted students warrant a lot of attention in the area of differentiated instruction from the above literature. The school system, as it is, may hold them back if they go through the same processes as their peers. Talented and gifted learners need to be challenged in order to realize effective learning. This explains why educators must pay special attention to them. Vellutino et. al. (2008) suggested the Response to Intervention strategy. In this model, a teacher looks at the student’s response to instruction in order to determine teaching strategies. Three levels of intervention may be implemented by educators. They have the option of modifying classroom teaching. Alternatively, they may provide interventions in small groups. The third tier entails tutoring the student, and is the most intensive. Placement in any of these groups will depend on the knowledge that these students possess as well as the way they think or learn. Educators must establish these qualities by looking at their response to instruction. Literature shows that educators are yet to tap into the potential of differentiated instruction. Hertberg-Davis (2009) state that differentiated instruction is infrequently and poorly done in institutions. Some educators confuse enrichment and acceleration by believing that the two approaches are incompatible. Acceleration refers to frequent supply of content while enrichment refers to increasing the quality of experiences. Some educators still believe that acceleration applies to certain categories of students while enrichment is for others. However, different methods are available for merging these two forms of practice. Therefore, educators are yet to gain adequate practice in the field. Renzulli and Reis (2010) also found that the percentage of schools implementing differentiated instruction in the country is still wanting. Almost three-quarter of talented readers in the US have no access to the practice. They did not do challenging tasks and their curriculum was not as rigorous as it ought to be. These trends were especially prevalent in middle and elementary school. Munro (2012) highlights some possible strategies that educators can use to improve teaching. He explains that teachers lack professional skills and knowledge for implementing this practice. This also manifests in the form of a lack of leadership knowledge in the provision of education. Educators need to gain exposure in curriculum pathways for divergent student bodies they need to familiarize themselves with cognitively complex material that will allow them to cater to different student abilities. Leadership is necessary in the field because it enables teachers to be at the forefront of observing and challenging their students. The onus is on them to see different ways of thinking and thus stimulate students by adopting these practices. Knowledge of a teacher’s practices is also relevant in the provision of these outcomes. Current research has also focused on the detriments of differentiated instruction. Riener and Willingham (2010) opposed common assumptions in differentiated teaching. They used scientific backing for their assertions. In their writing, these individuals claimed that the brain worked in a different way from a person’s learning ability. They explained that learning styles were related to a person’s auditory preference, yet meaning, as understood by the brain, was not dependent on auditory strengths. They also added that some of the approaches used in differentiated instruction, like kinesthetics, were not helpful. These authors believed that in theory kinesthetics were very relevant, but other variables in the classroom compounded them as soon as they tried to apply them in real-life settings. In current analysis, it is clear that authors are now relying on unconventional evidence like neurology to question differentiated learning. Preckel and Brull (2008) also fall in this school of thought. Their analysis was not abstract in nature as it relied on empirical evidence. The authors compared self esteem in gifted females in differentiated classes to self esteem in gifted females in conventional classrooms. They found that differentiated grouping has a negative effective on their esteem. However, the same was not true for males who recorded even greater self confidence when accorded these opportunities. Therefore, these authors provide an important twist in differentiated instruction discourse. They have shown that the approach may not be universal for all students. Conclusion Current research indicates that a lot of progress has been made in the field of differentiated instruction. Early focus was on the plausibility of the practice. However, investigators realized its potential and established different models of implementation. It is now accepted that different ways of delivering content are necessary in the classroom. However, certain obstacles are still preventing educators from embracing the strategy. One primary issue is the lack of professional knowledge on their part. Application of instruction is still infrequent in the country, so stakeholders must seek strategies for increasing adoption rates. References Field, G. B. (2009). The effects of using differentiated learning on student achievement: An investigation of internet technology on reading fluency, comprehension, and social studies. International Journal of Emerging Technology, 4, 29–39. Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the Regular Classroom Is Equivalent to Gifted Programs and Is Sufficient: Classroom Teachers Have the Time, the S kill, and the Will to Differentiate Adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253. Logan, B. (2012). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher Education Journal, 3, 1-14 Pham, H. (2012). Differentiated Instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 3-15. Munro, J. (2012). The expert knower model as a conceptual tool for understanding gifted and talented knowledge. East Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. Preckel, F., & Brull, M. (2008). Grouping the gifted and talented: Are gifted girls most likely to suffer the consequences? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 54-85 Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change, 42(5), 32-35. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first-grade intervention to identify children at risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437-480. Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B., Marinak, B., Connor, C., & Walker-Dolhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated Instruction: making informed teacher decisions. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303-314. Read More