Planning for Differentiation
Dr Tracy Riley
Massey University
2000
Differentiation for gifted and talented students requires systematic planning of their learning experiences. It also mandates forward thinking – or advanced planning. Clark and Callow (1998) remind us that "systematic planning, organisation and management of learning ... is considered to be an essential aspect of effective and efficient teaching" (p. 90). They also state "it is easier said than done" – particularly if the goal is to differentiate for a range of individual needs and abilities. Planning of this nature "raises questions like why teachers are teaching what they are teaching in the way they are teaching it" (Clark & Callow, 1998, p. 91).
Planning which meets individual needs is placed within a broad framework – it goes well beyond day-to-day or even week-to-week. Clark and Callow (1998) refer to this as a "nested model of teacher planning" (p. 93) as illustrated below:
For every unit of study – long or short term – the following steps in planning should be undertaken:
- Identify theme, topic, or area of study.
- Identify the core content, processes, and products of the study. These are the goals or objectives for every student. Simply ask yourself three questions:
- What should every student understand at the end of this unit?
- How will they get there?
- How will they demonstrate their understandings?
- Design a pre-assessment tool. This is a measure that can be utilised prior to the study being undertaken, to determine what content, processes, and products students have already mastered.
- Identify complex content, processes, and products. These should involve acceleration (introducing new core material earlier or at a faster pace) and enrichment (adding depth and breadth to core content, processes, and products). These are the goals or objectives for your gifted and talented students. Clark and Callow (1998) refer to these as "optimum levels" (p. 97).
- Plan the learning experiences: core and complex.
Planning differentiated learning experiences necessitates constant recognition of a combination of elements. These are illustrated by Roberts and Roberts (2001, p. 225) in the following diagram:
Further to this they have designed a planning form that has been adapted for New Zealand teachers. Note that the form integrates content, processes, and products. Within each process planning block (based upon Bloom's Taxonomy), the content and product is included. Roberts and Roberts further state that the process skills are not hierarchical, "knowledge and comprehension form the foundation for all other process skills. A student cannot apply, analyse, synthesise or evaluate ... without knowledge of the topic" (2001, p. 233). Clark and Callow (1998) encourage us as teachers to "check out" whether or not opportunities for analysing, synthesising, evaluating and so on are being provided on a constant and regular basis. For, as they state, "one difficulty can be that as teachers we think we do these things all the time. It is always a good idea to check that this is in fact the case" (1998, p. 97). For a more in-depth look at Bloom's Taxonomy in relation to educating gifted students, as well as some practical planning tools, check out Diana Whitton's paper "Beyond Bloom" at http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/whitton.htm
Careful planning ensures that all elements of differentiation are evidenced in all learning experiences. Using the planner allows for a variety of learning experiences using different processes and products for each content goal or objective. This layering of experiences provides for greater student choice, more depth and breadth, a better fitting curriculum. It demonstrates how learning experiences can be suited to individuals' strengths, skills, abilities, qualities, and needs. In using this type of planning, it is crucial teachers recognise that not all students partake in all learning experiences. Activities are designed to match student readiness, interests, and skills. Tomlinson (1999a) calls for this sort of planning to address a variety of types of differentiation:
- readiness differentiation,
- interest differentiation,
- degree of difficulty or skill differentiation,
- instructional differentiation, and
- learning profile differentiation.
Consider all these elements and their relevance to planning by having a peek at the planning form below. Try using it – modify it to suit you. And if it works well, please let us know by emailing gifted@tki.org.nz! We'd like to be able to share your experiences with others.
A less detailed plan for differentiation is "The Compactor", developed by Joe Renzulli and Linda Smith. Essentially, it calls for the same ingredients:
- identification of individual strengths,
- documentation of mastery, and
- alternative activities.
The Compactor and a related article can be found at http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/sem/semart08.html
Whitton (1996) has designed a form for planning units based upon Bloom's Taxonomy. The planning matrix forces teachers to consider goals and objectives at each of the six levels of the taxonomy and can be found at http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/whitton.htm
Within New Zealand, Rosemary Cathcart has developed a planning framework for the REACH Model (1994). This framework incorporates content, process, and products within a holistic approach to education, one which addresses both cognitive and affective strengths and needs. It requires only four questions:
- How am I generating a high level of interest in learning?
- How am I developing the "tools of thought"?
- How am I developing intellectual and creative potential?
- How am I fostering emotional, social, and ethical growth (p182)?
Cultural appropriateness should also be addressed and planned for, allowing opportunities which are culturally relevant and "safe".
Planning incorporates both reflection and evaluation. It requires a solid understanding of the curriculum and its delivery for all students, as well as alternative routes – taking students beyond the core to the complex. It requires a solid understanding of what students will be learning, how they will acquire that learning, and the ways in which they may express their knowledge and understandings. In other words, planning for differentiation means teachers must have a clear vision and instructional clarity (Tomlinson, 1999b).
As teachers, we must seriously consider each of these elements in our planning. We should draw content from the curriculum; our understandings of the subject; and the guiding principles, concepts, and key questions. The processes should reflect all levels of Bloom's Taxonomy – taking students from simple recall of facts, details, and rules to complex evaluation of issues, problems, and understandings. Finally, we must give students opportunities to "communicate their ideas and information through a variety of means" (Whitton, 1996, no page given) by allowing for products that are kinesthetic, oral, visual, and written. Tomlinson (1999b) sums up the purpose in this synthesis of elements in stating "differentiated instruction must dignify each learner with learning that is 'whole', important, and meaning making" (no page given). Planning for this type of individualisation means we must keep the following principles (Tomlinson, 1995) at the forefront of our teaching:
- Differentiation is proactive. In other words, teachers assume that learners are different.
- Differentiation is more qualitative than quantitative. Teachers adjust the nature of tasks, not the quantity.
- Differentiation relies upon multiple approaches to content, process, and products.
- Differentiation focuses upon students. Learning is "engaging, relevant and interesting" (no page given).
- Differentiation blends whole-class, group, and individual instruction. There is a flow to instruction that creates a rhythmic pattern between whole-class and group and individual learning experiences.
- Differentiation is organic, simply meaning students and teachers are learning simultaneously.
Clark and Callow (1998, p. 100) provide a checklist for planning and evaluating learning as illustrated below:
and
or on the other hand
|
Eddie Braggett (1995) cautions teachers that making simple changes of this nature may lead to a number of consequences, or challenges, for teachers. These are:
- an alteration in classroom management style;
- modified recording practices;
- a wider range of resources;
- a reorganisation of the classroom;
- the introduction of alternative teaching practices, like varied, flexible grouping, independent study, and pre-assessment; and
- dissatisfaction with the timetable.
I'd add to this that to plan effectively for gifted and talented students, teachers are challenged to engage in reflective practice – to question the status quo and create new and different paths of learning.
References, recommended readings, and websites
Braggett, E. (1994). Developing programs for gifted students – A total school approach. Victoria: Hawker Brownlow.
Cathcart, R. (1994). They're not bringing my brain out. Auckland: REACH Pub.
Clark, C., & Callow, R. (1998). Educating able children: Resource issues and processes for teachers. London: David Fulton.
Roberts, J. L., & Roberts, R. A. (2001). Writing units that remove the learning ceiling. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 213–252). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999a). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), no page given. Available from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Developing learner outcomes for gifted students. ERIC Digest #E514.
Whitton, D. (1996). Beyond Bloom. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/whitton.htm