What is Differentiation?
May, 11, 2011
Carol Ann Tomlinson maintains that differentiation, “…is a way of thinking about teaching and learning.” She then sets out six core beliefs behind why this is the case. Essentially, every child is different in: readiness to learn, what they need to learn, how much scaffolding they need, prior knowledge and their brain’s ability to make connections, how “natural” new material is, how much “community” a child needs at school, and how they maximize their “capacity” at school. (Tomlinson, 2000)
At its core differentiation, bristles at the suggestion of standardizing anything about teaching and learning. However, she says, differentiation must be a refinement and not a substitution for high-quality curriculum and instruction. She says that curriculum and instruction must be tailored to the individual and that the students must take part in their choices about what to learn and how they learn it in addition to setting their learning goals.
However, with the onset of more rigorous legislation around standards she sees teachers becoming even more conflicted as they try to race through what they see as a prescribed set of “must-dos” before test day. On one hand teachers are expected to realize the potential of every child, and every child is different, while at the same time getting each one of those children to the same finish line at the same time.
Tomlinson (2000) wants to bring these opposing forces together by asking how standards influence the quality of teaching and learning. She asks, “…what is the impact of standards-based teaching on the quality of education in general?
Tomlinson (2000) again starts her argument with a list of questions. Specifically, what knowledge, understanding or skills do the standards reflect? Are the standards a curriculum or are they reflected within the curriculum? Are the standards being covered at a quickening pace or are they set-up within the curriculum so that students have time to reflect on the material presented? Do the standards make the material better or are they eliminating joy and creativity? Do the standards make the learning more or less relevant? Are we forgetting the human aspect in teaching?
Essentially standards require more creativity not less. For whatever reason, most teachers believe that if they mention some specific piece of content on Tuesday then it is “covered” before the test. I’ve never understood that type of thinking and Tomlinson suggests that teachers must struggle to maintain their “artistry” without confusing their technical expedience. Exactly, the job of teaching well is to teach the individual with quality and thoughtful engagement.
REFLECTION
I am an anomaly. I am the only teacher I know that has no problem with standards, nor do I cringe at Standards of Learning tests or teaching this way in general. Why? Teaching well within parameters is a challenge. Why would anybody want it any other way? Why wouldn’t every teacher want a high standard attached to their profession?
In the United States we have a proud history and a dynamic, heterogeneous society. We are a country based on the promise of individual rights. However, it’s not working for our educational system. A teacher cannot worry about her hegemony in the classroom when there is so much at stake. Her right to teach the way she sees fit does not trump a child’s right to leave school educated. We are faced with a future where there are no high-paying jobs for the uneducated. Things must change. American students must perform better to earn more.
Finland’s Education Minister, Tuula Haatainen says it better than I, “…How can a small, affluent country such as Finland maintain a high-wage, high-skill economy? It can't compete with the low-cost economies of Asia, so it must, as a matter of economic survival, invest heavily in education and training.” (What Makes Finland’s Education System So Good? 2010, February 11. International Confederation of Principals Report—2011 Council Meeting—Netherlands. Retrieved February12, 2010, from http://www.icponline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=51 )
Most other Western societies have standards. It seems silly to debate whether we should expect children to know certain things when they leave school. Most countries have a Ministry of Education responsible for standards with varying inputs from businesses and parent groups. What differs is the almost complete absence of technical training, mentoring, and apprentice opportunities in the United States. We assume that everyone should and wants to go to college. When a child doesn’t we leave it to them to figure out what to do. Our economy suffers from a lack of skilled workers and a lack of opportunity. This is evident every time you need a painter, a mechanic, or an electrician.
Standards-based instruction tied closely with differentiation can address this. Not every subject needs to be covered separately and shouldn’t be. Commonalities within the curriculum should be the bedrock of a unit-based curriculum that can address more than one standard at a time.
Why not: teach cursive while at the same time learning about nocturnal animals, as a child researches Washington, D.C., where there is a large population of bats living in the national monuments, where you can measure the height in meters of the Washington monument, make a model of a monument, while you are studying the life of George Washington, who lived at Mount Vernon, where Washington grew many types of plants, which is how many meters from the Washington Monument, which is in what State, which is in what country? Children need to learn these connections to understand a world where nothing occurs singularly in a vacuum. Grading can be difficult but that requires that teachers and districts collaborate on a micro and macro level to determine what constitutes passing which standard proficiently. The grading is a non-issue.
I think Tomlinson would agree with many of my points. She says, “Differentiation suggests that you can challenge all learners by providing materials and tasks on the standard at varied levels of difficulty, with varying degrees of scaffolding, through multiple instructional groups, and with time variations. Further, differentiation suggests that teachers can craft lessons in ways that tap into multiple student interests to promote higher learner interest in the standard. Teachers can encourage student success by varying ways in which students work…” (Tomlinson, 2000)
Carol Ann Tomlinson maintains that differentiation, “…is a way of thinking about teaching and learning.” She then sets out six core beliefs behind why this is the case. Essentially, every child is different in: readiness to learn, what they need to learn, how much scaffolding they need, prior knowledge and their brain’s ability to make connections, how “natural” new material is, how much “community” a child needs at school, and how they maximize their “capacity” at school. (Tomlinson, 2000)
At its core differentiation, bristles at the suggestion of standardizing anything about teaching and learning. However, she says, differentiation must be a refinement and not a substitution for high-quality curriculum and instruction. She says that curriculum and instruction must be tailored to the individual and that the students must take part in their choices about what to learn and how they learn it in addition to setting their learning goals.
However, with the onset of more rigorous legislation around standards she sees teachers becoming even more conflicted as they try to race through what they see as a prescribed set of “must-dos” before test day. On one hand teachers are expected to realize the potential of every child, and every child is different, while at the same time getting each one of those children to the same finish line at the same time.
Tomlinson (2000) wants to bring these opposing forces together by asking how standards influence the quality of teaching and learning. She asks, “…what is the impact of standards-based teaching on the quality of education in general?
Tomlinson (2000) again starts her argument with a list of questions. Specifically, what knowledge, understanding or skills do the standards reflect? Are the standards a curriculum or are they reflected within the curriculum? Are the standards being covered at a quickening pace or are they set-up within the curriculum so that students have time to reflect on the material presented? Do the standards make the material better or are they eliminating joy and creativity? Do the standards make the learning more or less relevant? Are we forgetting the human aspect in teaching?
Essentially standards require more creativity not less. For whatever reason, most teachers believe that if they mention some specific piece of content on Tuesday then it is “covered” before the test. I’ve never understood that type of thinking and Tomlinson suggests that teachers must struggle to maintain their “artistry” without confusing their technical expedience. Exactly, the job of teaching well is to teach the individual with quality and thoughtful engagement.
REFLECTION
I am an anomaly. I am the only teacher I know that has no problem with standards, nor do I cringe at Standards of Learning tests or teaching this way in general. Why? Teaching well within parameters is a challenge. Why would anybody want it any other way? Why wouldn’t every teacher want a high standard attached to their profession?
In the United States we have a proud history and a dynamic, heterogeneous society. We are a country based on the promise of individual rights. However, it’s not working for our educational system. A teacher cannot worry about her hegemony in the classroom when there is so much at stake. Her right to teach the way she sees fit does not trump a child’s right to leave school educated. We are faced with a future where there are no high-paying jobs for the uneducated. Things must change. American students must perform better to earn more.
Finland’s Education Minister, Tuula Haatainen says it better than I, “…How can a small, affluent country such as Finland maintain a high-wage, high-skill economy? It can't compete with the low-cost economies of Asia, so it must, as a matter of economic survival, invest heavily in education and training.” (What Makes Finland’s Education System So Good? 2010, February 11. International Confederation of Principals Report—2011 Council Meeting—Netherlands. Retrieved February12, 2010, from http://www.icponline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=51 )
Most other Western societies have standards. It seems silly to debate whether we should expect children to know certain things when they leave school. Most countries have a Ministry of Education responsible for standards with varying inputs from businesses and parent groups. What differs is the almost complete absence of technical training, mentoring, and apprentice opportunities in the United States. We assume that everyone should and wants to go to college. When a child doesn’t we leave it to them to figure out what to do. Our economy suffers from a lack of skilled workers and a lack of opportunity. This is evident every time you need a painter, a mechanic, or an electrician.
Standards-based instruction tied closely with differentiation can address this. Not every subject needs to be covered separately and shouldn’t be. Commonalities within the curriculum should be the bedrock of a unit-based curriculum that can address more than one standard at a time.
Why not: teach cursive while at the same time learning about nocturnal animals, as a child researches Washington, D.C., where there is a large population of bats living in the national monuments, where you can measure the height in meters of the Washington monument, make a model of a monument, while you are studying the life of George Washington, who lived at Mount Vernon, where Washington grew many types of plants, which is how many meters from the Washington Monument, which is in what State, which is in what country? Children need to learn these connections to understand a world where nothing occurs singularly in a vacuum. Grading can be difficult but that requires that teachers and districts collaborate on a micro and macro level to determine what constitutes passing which standard proficiently. The grading is a non-issue.
I think Tomlinson would agree with many of my points. She says, “Differentiation suggests that you can challenge all learners by providing materials and tasks on the standard at varied levels of difficulty, with varying degrees of scaffolding, through multiple instructional groups, and with time variations. Further, differentiation suggests that teachers can craft lessons in ways that tap into multiple student interests to promote higher learner interest in the standard. Teachers can encourage student success by varying ways in which students work…” (Tomlinson, 2000)
How can learning styles and intelligence be used to differentiate?
July 24, 2012
Learning profiles can take many forms. According to Tomlinson, (2001) there are five preferences. They are: learning-style, intelligence, culture-influenced, gender-based, and combined. Tomlinson goes on to point out that a classroom looking to differentiate must: realize that not all students will have the same preferences, students need help reflecting on where their strengths are, different avenues of learning can be teacher and student recommended, start small, and pay attention to the cues of the students in the class and reflect to see if a method is working.
Specifically, Jungian-based learning style theory can be described in many different ways. Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000) define learning styles as, “four dimensions of personality.” These four styles are: sensing, thinking, feeling, and intuition. Within these styles are the perceptions and judgments that are a function of our learning styles. The different types are learners are: mastery learners, understanding learners, self-expressive learners, and interpersonal learners. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000)
Different types of learners have different sensitivities to different types of input that make them more or less able to absorb information based on its mode of delivery or the learner’s interaction with it.
Intelligence can also be used to direct classroom methods. Sternberg, “suggests that we all have varying strengths in combinations of intelligences he refers to as analytic (linear, “schoolhouse” thinking), practical (contextual intelligence), and creative (problem-solving intelligence, or innovation)”. (Tomlinson, 2001; Sternberg, and Davidson, 1986; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko 1996) This is referred to as Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Triarchic Theory maintains that there are the same information processing components within all three sides of this triangle. However, what differs “are the levels of experience and the contexts to which the components are applied.” (Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko 1996)
The work of Howard Gardner and his Multiple Intelligences Theory or MI can also be used to differentiate. Currently there are nine intelligences identified by Gardner. They are: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, existentialist, and naturalist. Everyone person is born with [these] intelligences and all are modifiable and teachable. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000) Several intelligences are used in all complex tasks. However, it can be said that individuals have a “critical-thinking disposition” (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000) this disposition influences are processing and making sense of information. This is how we use our unique intelligences, or our inclinations.
REFLECTION
This type of information can allow the classroom teacher additional information to better differentiate in her classroom. Knowledge of the personalities and sensitivities of her students can allow a teacher greater flexibility in her classroom practice. A teacher using this information is able to meet the needs of her students better and is also able to encourage her students to stretch themselves in area where they may not currently feel comfortable but may show a proclivity later on if sensitivity is nurtured.
Tomlinson (2001) cautions that differentiation should not be individualized instruction. Whew! Instead, a familiarity with learning styles can lead to a classroom that has multiple approaches to content, process, and product, and is student centered. More importantly for me, a classroom where this is happening is “organic.” Teachers, through formative assessment, are keenly aware of who is learning and who is not. This collaboration with the students leads to refinement of the learning and adjustments are made. (Tomlinson, 2001)
For example, this project was a collaborative effort of three gifted learners. There was: myself, my son, and my daughter. All of us have had learning inventories before. My learning styles and multiple intelligences inventories were redone by me prior to beginning this work. My children’s were done after their personal projects were completed. My current learning style is, according to Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000), sensing-thinking and intuitive-feeling. My MI has always been verbal-linguistic. My secondary MI fluctuates but currently is intrapersonal. My children are both existential learners according to their MI inventory. I also know them to be spatial, interpersonal, logical, and naturalist depending on the day.
The structure of our Problem Based Learning project was an authentic question where we grappled with the meaning of learning and how we would choose to display our reflections. Thankfully, existential learners like “big picture” type assignments. In addition, we were able to work together because, as Tomlinson, (2001) Harpaz and Lefstein, (2000) all point out, the teacher acts as a coach. Students are able to use their intelligence du jour or they can go off in all directions. It is up to the instructor to utilize their expertise to foster learning, yes, but also to direct the flow by asking the right questions and helping the students answer them themselves.
Within the confines of the structure we agreed to follow we all debated, worked, changed direction, worked, and came to resolution. Time and space were made for all three of us to explore different means of expression (video, essay writing, Power Point) to express our lives as learners, and then resolution was accomplished.
Learning profiles can take many forms. According to Tomlinson, (2001) there are five preferences. They are: learning-style, intelligence, culture-influenced, gender-based, and combined. Tomlinson goes on to point out that a classroom looking to differentiate must: realize that not all students will have the same preferences, students need help reflecting on where their strengths are, different avenues of learning can be teacher and student recommended, start small, and pay attention to the cues of the students in the class and reflect to see if a method is working.
Specifically, Jungian-based learning style theory can be described in many different ways. Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000) define learning styles as, “four dimensions of personality.” These four styles are: sensing, thinking, feeling, and intuition. Within these styles are the perceptions and judgments that are a function of our learning styles. The different types are learners are: mastery learners, understanding learners, self-expressive learners, and interpersonal learners. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000)
Different types of learners have different sensitivities to different types of input that make them more or less able to absorb information based on its mode of delivery or the learner’s interaction with it.
Intelligence can also be used to direct classroom methods. Sternberg, “suggests that we all have varying strengths in combinations of intelligences he refers to as analytic (linear, “schoolhouse” thinking), practical (contextual intelligence), and creative (problem-solving intelligence, or innovation)”. (Tomlinson, 2001; Sternberg, and Davidson, 1986; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko 1996) This is referred to as Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Triarchic Theory maintains that there are the same information processing components within all three sides of this triangle. However, what differs “are the levels of experience and the contexts to which the components are applied.” (Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko 1996)
The work of Howard Gardner and his Multiple Intelligences Theory or MI can also be used to differentiate. Currently there are nine intelligences identified by Gardner. They are: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, existentialist, and naturalist. Everyone person is born with [these] intelligences and all are modifiable and teachable. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000) Several intelligences are used in all complex tasks. However, it can be said that individuals have a “critical-thinking disposition” (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000) this disposition influences are processing and making sense of information. This is how we use our unique intelligences, or our inclinations.
REFLECTION
This type of information can allow the classroom teacher additional information to better differentiate in her classroom. Knowledge of the personalities and sensitivities of her students can allow a teacher greater flexibility in her classroom practice. A teacher using this information is able to meet the needs of her students better and is also able to encourage her students to stretch themselves in area where they may not currently feel comfortable but may show a proclivity later on if sensitivity is nurtured.
Tomlinson (2001) cautions that differentiation should not be individualized instruction. Whew! Instead, a familiarity with learning styles can lead to a classroom that has multiple approaches to content, process, and product, and is student centered. More importantly for me, a classroom where this is happening is “organic.” Teachers, through formative assessment, are keenly aware of who is learning and who is not. This collaboration with the students leads to refinement of the learning and adjustments are made. (Tomlinson, 2001)
For example, this project was a collaborative effort of three gifted learners. There was: myself, my son, and my daughter. All of us have had learning inventories before. My learning styles and multiple intelligences inventories were redone by me prior to beginning this work. My children’s were done after their personal projects were completed. My current learning style is, according to Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000), sensing-thinking and intuitive-feeling. My MI has always been verbal-linguistic. My secondary MI fluctuates but currently is intrapersonal. My children are both existential learners according to their MI inventory. I also know them to be spatial, interpersonal, logical, and naturalist depending on the day.
The structure of our Problem Based Learning project was an authentic question where we grappled with the meaning of learning and how we would choose to display our reflections. Thankfully, existential learners like “big picture” type assignments. In addition, we were able to work together because, as Tomlinson, (2001) Harpaz and Lefstein, (2000) all point out, the teacher acts as a coach. Students are able to use their intelligence du jour or they can go off in all directions. It is up to the instructor to utilize their expertise to foster learning, yes, but also to direct the flow by asking the right questions and helping the students answer them themselves.
Within the confines of the structure we agreed to follow we all debated, worked, changed direction, worked, and came to resolution. Time and space were made for all three of us to explore different means of expression (video, essay writing, Power Point) to express our lives as learners, and then resolution was accomplished.