Differentiation – what’s assessment got to do with it?
by Tay Hui Yong
The theme for this issue is Differentiated Instruction (DI), or more accurately, Differentiated Learning. Though these terms are often used inter-changeably (e.g., Heuber, 2010), I prefer the latter term because the “instruction” in the former may limit our thinking that it is all about what the teacher does as part of teaching. As a consequence, we may end up with reducing differentiation to a buffet of lesson plans (e.g., tiered tasks or RAFT [Role, Audience, Format, Topic] assignments). Or worse, DI is seen as a way to manage, not leverage, the diversity in class. To be fair, there are many instances of good practices as seen in the sharing by Rongchan (in 'News' below) and Ms Shynn Lim and Michelle Foo (See 'Focus' below).
So what is DI? (For those who prefer to begin by watching a video for an overview of the following discussion click the video below:
MOE glossary defines it as “A teacher’s planned and adaptive response to meet the diverse learning needs of all students in order to maximise their progress in learning.” Viewed from the learner’s perspective, DI is an acknowledgement of their diverse learning needs and that the planned learning experience will help them progress (note: not get top marks). This is where one common retort is raised, “Yes- yes- but the students all need to sit for the same exams.” The cynicism grows out of the frustration that for all the diversity implied in differentiation, it must all converge to deliver on one type of success: good exam performance. Let’s reflect on this perceived tension between DI and assessment on two levels: the practical and the philosophical.
Practical issues
Some difficulties teachers face regarding DI practice are more easily resolved than others. For example, how does one teacher cater to a whole class? By leveraging small group work to better meet diverse (not individual) needs within the class. However that is premised on investing time to diagnose where the students are and deciding on the way forward, instead of assuming one-size-fits-all. It is clear then that DI is not possible without formative assessment.
But a harder nut to crack is the expectation that DI will somehow magically get every child to arrive at the same level of performance. And so, DI is often practised as more (and yet more) support for the weaker learners. While that may not be entirely wrong, sometimes, as Ausubel urges (see below), it is more important to assess current understanding to address possible learning gaps (eg misunderstanding). Again, DI is not possible without formative feedback.
Practical issues
Some difficulties teachers face regarding DI practice are more easily resolved than others. For example, how does one teacher cater to a whole class? By leveraging small group work to better meet diverse (not individual) needs within the class. However that is premised on investing time to diagnose where the students are and deciding on the way forward, instead of assuming one-size-fits-all. It is clear then that DI is not possible without formative assessment.
But a harder nut to crack is the expectation that DI will somehow magically get every child to arrive at the same level of performance. And so, DI is often practised as more (and yet more) support for the weaker learners. While that may not be entirely wrong, sometimes, as Ausubel urges (see below), it is more important to assess current understanding to address possible learning gaps (eg misunderstanding). Again, DI is not possible without formative feedback.
The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly (Ausubel, 1968, p. vi).
Even more importantly, DI may be hampered if we accept only one level of success despite the diverse starting points. In other words, for the same learning outcome, there must be different levels of success that all students can aspire to and achieve. If interested, please sign on ILA003 to see one possible approach and examples by school teachers: https://place.nie.edu.sg/CourseSearch/CourseDetails/2838
Philosophical
Beyond the “How to”, there are issues that are more intractable. A recent local study found that the
“An equity-based philosophy like DI (where students are given what they need to succeed) was seen to be at odds with the equality-based philosophy (where students are given same opportunities) that teachers in Singapore are used to” (Heng & Song, 2019).
We often hear the comment that to be “fair”, practices need to be uniform across classes, when that ironically, in the students’ perspective, such standardization is not fair in meeting their learning needs. Conflating the issue is a belief that evidence of student learning can only be seen through “measured, hard objective data” through standardized tests. Also, the effects of DI must be supported by improved summative scores. This view is at odds with DI’s humanistic orientation which privileges learner growth, rather than examination performance. There are other social and political dimensions that we need to come to grips with (Heng & Song, 2020; Wan, 2019, p. 2). We need to begin dialogue on these, beyond the practical concerns. And I hope this issue on DI will serve as a start. Would love to hear your thoughts.
References:
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hueber, T. A. (2020). What research says about… differentiated learning. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 79-81.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx
Heng, T.T. & Song, L. (2020). A proposed framework for understanding educational change and transfer: Insights from Singapore teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction. Journal of Educational Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09377-0
MOE. (n.d.). What is Differentiated Instruction? https://subjects.opal.moe.edu.sg/sfed/differentiated-instruction
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145.
Wan S. WY. (2019). Differentiated Instruction (DI) in the Chinese societies. In: M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational innovation. Springer.
Philosophical
Beyond the “How to”, there are issues that are more intractable. A recent local study found that the
“An equity-based philosophy like DI (where students are given what they need to succeed) was seen to be at odds with the equality-based philosophy (where students are given same opportunities) that teachers in Singapore are used to” (Heng & Song, 2019).
We often hear the comment that to be “fair”, practices need to be uniform across classes, when that ironically, in the students’ perspective, such standardization is not fair in meeting their learning needs. Conflating the issue is a belief that evidence of student learning can only be seen through “measured, hard objective data” through standardized tests. Also, the effects of DI must be supported by improved summative scores. This view is at odds with DI’s humanistic orientation which privileges learner growth, rather than examination performance. There are other social and political dimensions that we need to come to grips with (Heng & Song, 2020; Wan, 2019, p. 2). We need to begin dialogue on these, beyond the practical concerns. And I hope this issue on DI will serve as a start. Would love to hear your thoughts.
References:
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hueber, T. A. (2020). What research says about… differentiated learning. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 79-81.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx
Heng, T.T. & Song, L. (2020). A proposed framework for understanding educational change and transfer: Insights from Singapore teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction. Journal of Educational Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09377-0
MOE. (n.d.). What is Differentiated Instruction? https://subjects.opal.moe.edu.sg/sfed/differentiated-instruction
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145.
Wan S. WY. (2019). Differentiated Instruction (DI) in the Chinese societies. In: M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational innovation. Springer.
‘SAME SAME BUT DIFFERENT’ – My Personal Reflection on FHBL
by Shynn Lim
“Where’s Student A? Can someone call her now?”
“I am sorry, mdm. Your son has not submitted 4 pieces of HBL homework due last week. Please get him to work on them. Thank you.”
“Please mute your microphone, Student B. Do not disturb the rest unnecessarily.”
“Is anyone able to get Student C? He has not been responding to my calls.”
“Student C, where are you looking at? Please do not be distracted. You should not be dropping your friend text messages during our FaceTime lesson.”
“I can’t locate the document and I do not understand the instructions.”
“My siblings and I are sharing the laptop so I am using my mobile phone now.”
“I cannot really type the answers in MS Word as I do not have this function in my gadget.”
Do you find the above dialogues familiar? These are real challenges. I found myself facing them daily during the full HBL period. However, as a reflective educator, I constantly challenge my own mental models on what can be ‘same same but different’ as well as my priorities. One thing I can thankful for is the generous sharing of fellow educators on ICT tools and lesson ideas in the fraternity. While I was busy ‘shopping’ the ICT tools, I reminded myself to get back to the fundamentals. What do my students need in the process of their learning? In order to make the HBL learning meaningful and engaging, the two guiding principles that remain the same for me are to practise mindful planning as well as continual care for the students.
Personally, mindful planning includes the following:
i. Students’ learning and real needs;
ii. Engagement of students of different levels of readiness;
iii. Quality of feedback as well as their actions to improve;
iv. Intrinsic motivation of students in self-directed learning.
To ensure continual care for the students, there are three key considerations of mine:
i. Getting them excited about learning
ii. Easing their fears and struggles
iii. Delivering care
iv. Catering to their social needs
While the guiding principles remain the same, what is different? I need to adapt to a different way to teach and reframe my definition of assessment of students’ work. Some of the things I have done differently for both EL lessons and school wide CCE lessons include choice of ICT tools, definition of lesson outcomes and including different online activities to facilitate engagement of the students in multiple aspects. While it is not so simple, it is still attainable.
Watch this video for more details as well as evidence of students’ learning and engagement:
My greatest joy this FHBL is to engage a long term absentee from school successfully. Not only did he join all my face time lessons, he submitted all HBL homework proactively! I could not help but surprise him with a tub of chocolate ice-cream to recognise his effort!
There are many opportunities we can seize during this period. Our perspectives shape the learning process and outcomes of our students. If we adopt an innovative mindset, I believe a personal breakthrough in our educator’s growth journey is taking place now. May you enjoy this process of learning and reflecting as much as I do as continue to flourish as educators.
My HBL Experiences
by Michelle Foo
This following sharing is by Michelle Foo (from Chua Chu Kang Pri). Just like in Shynn’s sharing above, readers will note that for effective differentiation to happen, the teachers need to
1) know their students’ profile well,
2) put in considerable thought on how to engage the high support and low support learners (what is commonly termed as “Low Progress and “High Progress” respectively);
3) reflect on how their actions impacted the students and adjust accordingly.
We hope her sharing will inspire you.