Posts Tagged ‘Differentiated Learning’


September 21st, 2009

The Unique Individual In Each Child

Recently, I came across an interesting article by a parent and an educator about raising an introverted child who found her child’s temperament very different from her own and those of her “star children”. Instead of moulding her daughter to become something or someone she was not; the mother decided to understand, embrace and appreciate her “different” daughter.

Sailing in a similar boat, my three-year old has a temperament of his own that is very different from both his parents. He is an extrovert who has had this uncanny ability to strike an interaction with people of all ages, gender and race even before he could walk or talk. Our families like to explain this difference between him and us in terms of genetics or environmental influence. I believe that it is primarily a temperamental thing. Genetics and environment contribute to it but are not the main determinants. We are who we are because that’s what energizes us along our path to self-actualization. Introversion and extroversion are continuums and not isolated traits of which we display deferent degrees based on circumstances, interest, mood, etc.

As adults, parents and teachers, we want to see ourselves in others, hear what we believe in from others before we can acknowledge and interact with others. We find it bothersome interacting with someone who is different, in abilities, views, interests etc. As a society that is basically intolerant of differences, we decide that an individual’s natural temperament needs to be moulded in a certain pre-determined manner based on our perception of the ideal. For instance, I have often wondered why most schools have a uniform for students. The idea of homogeneity is so dear to us that we enforce uniform code of apparel but do not care whether the child dresses up smart or sloppy. Recently, I visited a prestigious boarding school in the hills where children have the liberty of wearing what they want, within prescribed parameters. All children that I met, fifty odd, were dressed smartly, decently and appropriately. It is about accepting and treating them as individuals not as collectives.

A child who speaks softly, reacts quietly to new situations and likes to learn by observing and not by overtly participating is frowned upon and pronounced slow or disinterested. Whereas a child who participates actively, talks loudly and responds quickly is branded bright. We as parents and teachers are prone to believing that the former needs to be educated and trained to become the latter; the more valued of the two individuals. Look at the teaching learning and assessment practices in our schools – how many schools differentiate the content or process or product to individualize education for students? Within the given school realities, good schools do it all the time, while others are busy making excuses to justify their actions.

Both at the micro level of an individual and macro level of a society, we need to let individuals be and empower them to be more of who they are within the realm of safety and security, rather than create pseudo-nothings or as my partner calls them “sab-janta-phools”. This is difficult work, time-consuming and iterative. But it is the only way to foster self-concept and mutual respect.

June 3rd, 2009

Differentiated learning is about differentiated teaching

Most of our classrooms adopt one-size-fits-all delivery system which breeds disengagement and detachment from learning and is detrimental to learning.

Nowadays, the students profile in the schools is more diverse in terms of background and needs than ever before. Most come to school both impoverished and enriched by their environment. They span a wide spectrum in readiness, interests and experiences. Ensuring optimization of learning of each one is a challenge for any teacher. But the challenge is not a new one – teachers grappled with it one hundred years ago and they continue to grapple with it today. What is new is the preparedness of the teachers to respond to different learning needs armed with the developments made in the field of education and resources available for differentiating teaching and learning. Not taking into account these developments while designing our classroom practices would be unfair to the children whose learning we are entrusted with.

In this writing I would like to dwell a little longer on how a differentiated classroom works vis-à-vis a traditional classroom.

1. In the traditional classroom, student differences are acknowledged when problematic; whereas a differentiated classroom has individual students’ learning profile drawn upfront which drives classroom instruction and assessment plan. 

2. A traditional classroom is curriculum driven. In a differentiated classroom, modifications and accommodations are made for student individualism keeping in mind the learning needs of the students. 

3. In a tradinional classroom, all students are assessed on a common task which is very rigid in terms of time and “right responses”; whereas variety of tasks and flexibility of time is the norm in a differentiated classroom.

4. Finally, a traditional classroom prepares children more for tests than for life and teachers are more loyal to the curriculum than to students’ learning. The differentiated classroom prepares children for lifelong learning and the teacher understands the needs of the curriculum as well as the needs of her learners. A differentiated classroom is based on respect for all students and equity of learning.

As Howard Gardner (1997) suggests, it is no point trying to make everyone into a brilliant violinist, an orchestra needs top-quality musicians who play woodwinds, brass, percussion and strings. The aim of education is achieving excellence in diversity that we are presented with in the classroom and not homogenization of that diversity.

June 1st, 2009

Differentiated instruction – Redefining teaching and learning

As a parent of a 3-year old son who is an articulate communicator and natural inquirer, I am currently facing a dilemma. If I put on my educationist lenses to view the issue, the dilemma assumes very serious proportions.

My son, who will turn three in a fortnight, goes to a preschool where kids are organised by age grouping with March 31 (DoB) as the date cut-off for determining the age grouping – a logic that pervades enrolment procedure for subsequent grades as well. Since he was under the age of 3 on the cut-off date, technically he will continue to be in the 2-3 years grouping even after June (when he becomes over 3 years of age). There is a huge developmental gap between a 2 year old and a 3 year old. 

It is not that this problem has just dawned on me; it was a concern I had expressed at the time of enrolment, but my mind was put at ease by assurances of differentiated learning within the same class. From training and experience, I understand the implications and benefits of differentiated learning so I decided to be patient and see how differently he and similar children in the grade would be taught. But now patience is running out as I haven’t seen much of the differentiated instruction in action during the past 2 months that he has been going to school. 

My dilemma stems from the fact that I do understand the working of schools and the issue of teacher training in differentiated instruction and assessment in schools, but how do I reconcile that as a parent of an ever-eager-to-learn soon-to-be-three-year-old.   

As I search for sorting the dilemma, I ask myself, using the powerful words of Karen Morrow Durica

Is it truly easier for all to sit and learn?

Should 8-years old all share the same ability and concern?

Does everyone learn better when there is silence in the room?

Do 50-min periods give all the time to bloom?

Is the only way to learn about geometry from a book?

Are having 5 neat paragraphs how each essay should look?

Does every brain work at its best at 7:45 am?

Do practice tests for seven weeks make everyone thrive?

Does every learner need a break at exactly the same time?

Are projects better if each one must have the same design?

Does only certain literature make someone a better reader?

Do only sports, or math, or speech make someone a leader?

Can everyone show what is known by way of written tests?

Does giving “points” inspire everyone to do their best?

Does compliance to school rules define a better student?

Is it possible the misfits are as able, bright and prudent?

Appears if we look closely at the structures we embrace-

Creating hardship for some students, making school a hampered place:

We’d understand that many problems seem to be our fault-

How we do school is often for the convenience of the adults.

If teaching were as simple as using the one best way to teach everyone, “one size fits all” kind of approach,  it would be considered more of a science. However, there isn’t just one best way to teach everyone and that’s why teaching is an art.