6: Grouping, Differentiation, Technology (Slavin, Ch. 9)

Description:

As teachers begin to move beyond the traditional lecture style instruction, a variety of methods and formats become available. Several important considerations arose from the work of John Carroll in “A Model of School Learning” (1963, 1989), and Slavin eventually identified the following four elements of instruction: “Quality of instruction, Appropriate levels of instruction, Incentive, and Time” (1995). Using these four elements as a guide, teachers may find that they can better serve their students by grouping students, differentiating the content, or adapting instruction through technology. Research has found that the benefits of these structures varies greatly depending on the manner and context in which they are used.  Programs, such as Title 1,  that are intended to support struggling students have demonstrated limited positive impact (Slavin, 2018), and in some cases, such as when students are “retained” or held back, can even have a negative impact on achievement (Slavin, 2018).  Teachers should consider research, their particular school setting, and the individual needs of their students when determining the most effective ways to address learning gaps.

Analysis:

As teachers we know that our students come to us with different and unique needs; therefore, a one-size fits all approach to instruction is not going to lead to success for all students. The challenge we face is how to adapt our instruction in order to meet those needs. Grouping students, either within or between classrooms is a common approach. Students are most often grouped together based on ability in a given subject. “Tracking” students often places them in a course sequence from which it is difficult to advance, meaning if they start 9th grade in “basic English”, it is unlikely they will eventually move into “Honors English”, and this pattern can stifle their academic growth and motivation. Related to tracking is the practice of “retention” or not allowing students to advance in school until they have met certain benchmarks. Research has confirmed that while this practice may improve test scores in the short term, it is ultimately damaging to students, including increasing the rate of dropouts (Slavin, 2018). John Hattie actually gives the practice of retention a negative impact score of -0.32, meaning that the practice is harmful to students (2018).  Teachers often use a form of ability grouping within the classroom by putting students in groups with students of roughly the same ability level. This allows the teacher to design specific supports for the kids who need it. Students with more serious learning problems can be placed in special education programs, and sometimes even in specific special education classes. Unfortunately, research has shown that most forms of ability grouping do not benefit the students in the lower groups (Slavin, 2018). While this practice is still quite common, students benefit more from “mixed ability” groups where the teacher is equipped to accommodate student differences through tutoring or cooperative learning (Slavin, 2018). 

In a classroom that includes a wide range of abilities, teachers should be trained in the ways they can vary aspects of their instruction, such as “content, level, pace, and products” to meet the needs of all students (Slavin, 2018). This can also include individual tutoring by the teacher or by a peer. It may take the form of one of the many programs that exist in schools today that are designed to help “at risk” students, a term that has become problematic in recent years because of the negative impact labeling students can have on the students themselves as well as the expectations of their teachers (Toldson, 2019). These programs seek to identify students who will face challenges, whether intellectual, academic, or socio-economic, in school, and then to attempt to provide services to address the needs. Unfortunately, in many cases, minimal positive impacts have resulted from these broad programs (Slavin, 2018). Often these programs, such as Title 1 or Early Intervention are managed through larger organizations such as district or state school boards, and in the case of Special Education, Federal education oversight.  Perhaps schools should be given more authority to determine how to use the funds and resources available, so they can tailor their programs to what works for their students. 

Incorporating technology into their instruction is another way teachers can try to meet the unique needs of their students, but the pace at which technology is evolving and its rapid introduction into the school setting has left many teachers feeling unsure about the right way to use it. While it provides a wealth of new opportunities for creativity and collaboration, it is not a replacement for content knowledge and effective instruction. One aspect of instruction from Slavin’s QAIT model (1995) that is heavily impacted by technology is TIME, since technology has drastically reduced the amount of time it takes for students to complete calculations or conduct research. This creates new opportunities for remediation and enrichment for teachers. Some organizations, such the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) have developed technology standards for students and teachers in order to guide their implementation (2016). Some teachers who do not feel as comfortable with bringing technology into the classroom may be tempted to avoid it all together, and that would be a mistake. Students need to be learning how to use technology appropriately and all the ways it can enhance their education and their lives. Ultimately, however, teachers need to know the needs of their students and make sure that the quality of the instruction is exceptional, regardless of the “bells and whistles” that get added. 

Reflection:

The school where I have been teaching for the last 16 years is considered “needs improvement” or “underperforming” depending on which era of the education system you are in. We are in a Title 1 district in one of the poorest counties (per capita) in Georgia, and we have been using every possible approach to address the “achievement gaps” that we see between our white students and our students of color, so the methods and instructional variations listed in this chapter are very familiar to me. I have had extensive professional development on the topics of flexible grouping and differentiation, and I have also served on the technology team at my school, which has implemented 1:1 personal learning devices over the last several years. I think all of these approaches can have a positive impact in the right circumstances; however, there is nothing that can replace a master teacher delivering quality instruction. A master teacher is one who is a content expert, a caring relationship-builder, and a solutions-oriented thinker who believes that all students can learn. A teacher like that will be able to incorporate grouping, differentiation, and technology into the classroom in a way that will benefit students. As an instructional coach, I strive to identify, support, and develop master teachers.

Because we are a high school, it is almost impossible to avoid all tracking. We have three levels in most subjects: on-level, advanced, and AP (advanced placement). Although teachers recommend students for a particular level, ultimately students (and parents) can choose to take any level. However, we do find that it is unusual for students to “change tracks” once they have begun the sequence. One of our goals is to identify students who are capable of moving to the next level and encourage them to do so. My experience has been consistent with this statement: “low-track classes are often composed predominantly of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and from minority groups, whereas upper-track classes are more often composed of children from higher socioeconomic levels” (Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013, cited in Slavin, 2018). School leaders are having the conversation about whether it is time to eliminate the leveled classes, but we are a long way from making that transition, and it is sure to be met with considerable pushback from many stakeholders. 

I think a more appropriate place to focus is on how we differentiate our instruction to meet the needs of students. One concept that I found very helpful was to consider three  ways that I could differentiate my instruction: The content could be adapted somewhat for different groups of students, making sure the essential standards were addressed; The process by which the information was delivered and how students engaged with it could be done in a variety of ways;  and the product, or the method by which students demonstrated their learning could be differentiated (McCarthy, 2015). 

(McCarthy, 2015)

It seems that these classroom level changes have a greater impact than the large scale programs like Title 1 or Early Intervention. It was interesting to read the research presented by Slavin about the effectiveness of these programs (2018). As an Instructional Coach, I will work even harder to make sure that these interventions are really addressing the needs of our students, and money, time, and resources are not being wasted. 

 Our school district has spent millions of dollars providing individual Chromebooks to every student in grades 3 - 12. When this process first started, I was determined to be an “early adapter” even though I was older than most other teachers, so I fully integrated technology into my classroom. I studied the SAMR model (Terada, 2020) and tried to make sure I was really using technology to enhance my instruction, rather than just as a substitute for paper worksheets. I found that while it did provide opportunities for more interesting, engaging, and creative lessons, it was certainly not an answer to all the problems, and it brought some new challenges with it as well. It is crucial that teachers establish clear guidelines for students about how and when technology will be used in the classroom. As Slavin points out, “intentional teachers use technology to accomplish well-defined goals that they cannot accomplish as well without technology. They recognize that there is no magic in the machine,  but that technology can enhance their teaching, assessment, planning, and record keeping and can help link students to information , resources, and other students” (Slavin, 2018 p. 243).  I love all the opportunities that technology provides, but I think a more balanced and thoughtful approach is appropriate and will have a greater positive impact on students.

I’m thinking about all the things teachers must consider when determining how to support students. As an instructional coach, my goal will be to encourage teachers as they explore, choose, and implement  these different programs and strategies. If they become overwhelmed, their effectiveness will be diminished. That’s where my support comes in. Ultimately, knowing and caring for their students is the priority.

References

Hattie Ranking: 252 Influences and Effect Sizes Related to Student Achievement. 

(2018) Visible-Learning.org. https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/

ISTE standards. (2016)  https://www.iste.org/standards

McCarthy, J. (2015, August 28). 3 Ways to Plan for Diverse Learners: What Teachers Do. 

Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/differentiated-instruction-ways-to-plan-john-mccarthy

Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12th ed.). Pearson 

Education.

Terada, Y. (2020, May 4). A Powerful Model for Understanding Good Tech Integration. 

Edutopia. 

https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-model-understanding-good-tech-integration

Toldson, I. (2019, January 23). Why It’s Wrong to Label Students “at-risk”. The Conversation. 

https://theconversation.com/why-its-wrong-to-label-students-at-risk-109621