Classroom
strategies and tools for Differentiating Instruction in the ESL Classroom
Anne Dahlman
Patricia
Hoffman
Susan Brauhn
ABSTRACT
Differentiated
Instruction is a relatively widely used instructional approach across
instructional contexts. It has proven to
be successful in the general education context where studies have found that
students exposed to Differentiated Instruction strategies consistently
outperform other students (Tomlinson, 2001).
Yet, there is a huge gap in professional literature that addresses the
use of Differentiated Instruction in the ESL context. It is the aim of this paper to provide the
reader with practical Differentiated Instruction strategies and tools for the
use in the ESL classroom as well as the mainstream classroom with ELLs. We suggest
three steps in implementing Differentiated Instruction, a) beginning with
ensuring high quality curriculum that clearly articulates meaningful learning
outcomes, both language and content, without which differentiation is not
possible, b) moving onto carefully understanding student needs, their
readiness, interests and learning profiles, based on systematic pre- and
formative assessment, and finally c) implementing effective Differentiated
Instruction strategies in the classroom to maximize the learning of all
students. We provide multiple examples
and useful tools to clarify each of the three steps.
Introduction
Differentiated
Instruction has captured the attention of many educators across the country as
they work to ensure that all children will progress toward the requirements of
No Child Left Behind legislation. Differentiated Instruction allows classroom
teachers to become more adept at planning instruction that is meaningful to
every child in their classroom regardless of readiness level. Yet, content
classes are not the only place where differentiation of instruction can be a
valuable tool. ESL classrooms are often just as diverse as their classroom
counterparts. Additionally, ESL teachers may not be fully aware of the mainstream
curricular needs of their students. Whether working in collaborative
consultation with mainstream teachers or in pull-out ESL programs, the benefits
of Differentiated Instruction for ESL teachers and ELLs
is worth considering.
The
primary audience for this paper is ESL teachers who are dealing with mixed
ability classes and who may not realize that Differentiated Instruction is as
important in their classroom as in the mainstream classroom. However, much of
what we are proposing is also for mainstream classroom teachers who may not
understand the unique needs of their English language learners (ELLs).
Unlike the individualized instruction of the 1970’s,
Differentiated Instruction is not an attempt at having individualized lesson
plans for every student. However, it is a systematic way of maximizing learning
that is both rigorous in addressing high standards for all students yet
personalized to reflect individual learner characteristics and needs. Snow
(2000) states that ESL teachers have the unique responsibility of not only
addressing core knowledge and skills but also to develop the language and
literacy skills of a culturally and linguistically diverse group of students
who also have wide differences in their experiential and educational backgrounds.
We strongly advocate the responsibility of the ESL teachers to serve as the
language professionals who, based on carefully consideration of the language
and content curricula and student needs, are able to guide ELLs
in their dual process of acquiring English as fast and effectively as possible
and gaining in content knowledge and skills to reach the highest learning
outcomes possible.
At first
glance referring to standards and differentiation in the same sentence might
appear to be an oxymoron. But standards provide the framework on
which to
create differentiated instruction (Boyd-Batstone,
2006, p.2). Standards guide us in making decisions about “what” to teach, while
Differentiated Instruction gives us the mindset and tools for “how” to teach
successfully. Differentiated Instruction begins with the philosophy that all
children can learn but will do so at different rates and along different paths
of interest. What works well for one child, may cause another to struggle or
lose interest.
At its
most basic level, Differentiated Instruction means “shaking up” (Tomlinson,
2001, p. 1) what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple
options for taking in information (differing learning styles and interests),
making sense of ideas (varying cognitive processing needs, ranging from pacing
to levels of abstraction), and expressing what they learn (multiple choices for
assessment tasks). When thinking about differentiating content to be learned,
Tomlinson (1999) explains that first a teacher will need to make decisions
about the essential content, principles and skills that all students will master, but at the same time understands student
differences and provides opportunities for advanced learners to also work on
more complex ideas or problems.
The key
is to focus on the big ideas and concepts of the curriculum for all students
and differentiate how each child will gain access to them and be evaluated. By
providing only one type of activity, for example, to practice a certain skill
or body of knowledge will leave behind all of those students whose preferred
learning style or interests are not being tapped by the chosen activity.
Schools
need to reexamine this whole issue of coverage; so many of the students who are
struggling in school have good ideas and are good at critical thinking, but
they may not be quite as good with taking in and retaining information. Because
of the differences between students’ optimal conditions (physical or mental)
for learning new information, such as pacing, degree of structure of task,
tolerance for ambiguity or physical conditions such as noise level or body
movement, students are often not allowed to process new information in an
effective manner. Assignments and tests
ought to be more flexible so that different kinds of minds can be effective. We
allow this all the time in the adult world (Scherer, 2006); this is exhibited
in the fact that individuals typically gravitate toward careers that suit their
aptitudes, learning and personality preferences; some get into occupations
requiring more practical and hands-on skills, while others choose a career
where they can use their creativity and problem-solving. In schools, students
who are analytic learners often get adequately served, while students with
practical and/or creative mindsets and tendencies are commonly ignored.
Once the
principles of differentiated instruction are understood, they can be adjusted
for the interests and readiness of English language learners in both mainstream
and ESL classrooms. The first principle is that assessment and instruction are
intimately linked in a continuous feedback loop. Areas of assessment should
focus on concepts or content, critical thinking, and skills or processes to
help the teacher(s) judge the learner’s mastery. An ESL teacher can be
particularly helpful to classroom teachers in understanding particular ELLs strengths and weaknesses which may go undetected in a
larger classroom setting. Ultimately, if the achievement gap is to be closed it
will be necessary to diagnose (assess) discrete skills and knowledge individual
learners have not mastered and plan how to effectively teach or reteach through relevant and appropriate curriculum and
instructional strategies.
Both ESL
and classroom teachers can differentiate the content (what they teach), process (how
they teach) or product (what they use as evidence of learning). They can do so taking into account various
students’ readiness (what the student already knows), interests, or learning
profile (the student’s preferred mode of learning). It is important to note at
this point that applying Differentiated Instruction strategies is a matter of
degree and we highly recommend that the readers begin small. The principles of Differentiated Instruction
reflect the very best practice of teaching; what makes this approach unique is
the fact that its effectiveness lies in the fact that the principles are
carried out proactively and systematically, with great thought. This means that beginning with applying even
just small steps into one’s practice with this systematic and meaningful
approach will yield great gains in instruction. In the following, we will focus
on three steps of differentiating instruction in the ESL classroom, accompanied
by multiple examples and practical tools for carrying out those steps in any
classroom. The three steps are: 1.
Identifying meaningful goals, 2. Monitoring student learning, and 3. Creating
meaningful activities for the Differentiated Instruction classroom.
This
article is designed to be a “how-to” guide for beginning to implement these
three principles of Differentiated Instruction. We recommend that this paper be
read with a pen and paper at hand and they be used for taking notes about the
feasibility in and relevance of the principles presented to one’s own teaching
context. Also, we encourage that the
readers draft an action plan for implementing Differentiated Instruction in
their context while studying these principles by jotting down the first
concrete steps of differentiating instruction that one plans to take in the
near future. Again, begin small!
1. Knowing exactly what to teach:
Identifying meaningful goals and objectives (KUDs)
The main
premise of Differentiated Instruction is that it begins with a clearly
articulated, quality curriculum. We
cannot differentiate content that is vague, ill-defined or not directly related
to students’ academic and social learning needs outside the ESL classroom
(Tomlinson, 2001; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). ESL programs that are successful allot effort
and resources to carefully evaluate their curriculum across both mainstream
content courses as well as in ESL coursework to identify overlap, gaps, and to
ensure that the curriculum directly addresses the needs of the learners. This
articulation must go beyond basic proficiency levels, listening, speaking,
reading and writing to include distinct knowledge, skills and dispositions that
will be addressed at each level of proficiency and align with a district’s
general education standards and curriculum.
Decisions
related to ESL curriculum are challenging given the varied needs of learners,
the limits to the availability of resources, minimal time in the school day to
work with colleagues on curriculum mapping, and the lack of information about
options available and the high cost associated with purchasing a commercial
curriculum (Hoffman & Dahlman, 2007). Here we
focus mainly on decisions made after a program has adopted a curriculum, on the
unit- and lesson-level decisions an ESL teacher makes about what to focus on in
a given instructional unit or lesson. It
is clear from research and our work from the field alike that what
distinguishes successful ESL teachers from others are the following features
related to this decision-making about what to teach (e.g., Echevarria, J., Voft, M. E., & Short, 2007; Met, 1994):
1.
The teacher is superbly clear on both short term and long
term learning goals and objectives and everything that is done in a lesson is
directly linked to support these learning goals and objectives.
2.
The teacher shares these learning goals and
objectives with students so that the students are also clear on the learning
goals and objectives and can self-monitor their progress.
3.
These goals are created based on:
a)
ESL language and content-area standards (e.g., Language
Arts, Science, Math, etc.),
b)
a pre-assessment of learner skills and prior knowledge
(which might vary from learner to learner)
c)
an exploration of learning needs (language and content)
beyond the ESL classroom (e.g., by looking at district curriculum, content
standards, and materials in content-area classrooms, consulting with other teachers, etc.)
4.
The teacher prioritizes among various learning
goals and objectives to identify those that serve as foundational knowledge and
skills, yield wide-ranging results and address the biggest obstacles of
learning for students.
One of
the main challenges that ESL teachers face when identifying meaningful goals
and objectives is going beyond identifying language skills, such as speaking,
listening, reading and writing. Too often, ESL lessons merely focus on surface level language skills and allot too little
attention to promoting students’ critical thinking and deeper understandings of
language and language learning. We
cannot emphasize enough how important these deeper level understandings are in
reaching all students; they serve as a bridge between what we want student to
learn, namely knowledge (e.g., rules, definitions, vocabulary) and skills (e.g.
speaking, listening, reading and writing, thinking and learning strategies,
usage of appropriate vocabulary), and students’ motivation, feelings and
personal ideas about language learning. If this link between knowledge/skills
and motivation/feelings does not exist, little meaningful and sustained
language learning will occur.
Thus,
meaningful language goals and objectives, those that will be relevant and
useful to students consist of the following three types (Tomlinson, 2001):
KUD-Objectives:
Table 1
illustrates generic sample components under each of the KUD categories from the
ESL context.
Table 1. Sample KUDs
from the ESL context
“I want students
to…”
|
Know |
Understand that … |
Do |
|
|
|
The
“Know”-category contains learning goals and objectives that target facts and
pieces of knowledge. This category can be understood as declarative knowledge,
which refers to knowledge that we can name and describe. For example, we ask
students to tell us what they know about the past tense or about a certain
content topic (e.g., rain forests), have students give us language rules
related to when usage of a certain type of word is appropriate in a specific context
or test them on vocabulary items.
The
“Do”-category includes items that target procedural knowledge, i.e., when
students actually use their knowledge
of language in an authentic context. The
challenge with creating meaningful “Do”-objectives stem from a number of
factors:
1.
Ensuring consistent opportunities for authentic contexts
for practice and assessment.
2.
Identifying key
skills that are assessable and that yield the most significant improvement.
3.
Consistently assessing and having students self-assess
their own skill development.
4.
Providing meaningful feedback to learners about skills
(see section on Assessment for discussion on feedback).
The
category that is rarely incorporated in ESL lessons and that is at the heart of
Differentiated Instruction is “Understand”. This category refers to what
Wiggins and McTighe (2005) call enduring
understandings or essential questions. These are ideas that connect the
material to be taught with students’ prior knowledge, and perspectives; their
realities and backgrounds. This helps us
deal with the “So what”-response students often have about learning certain
topics and skills. The following
questions aim to capture the essence of what is meant by understanding:
The
sample understandings in Table 1 have been designed to address critical understandings about successful
language learning and to provide meaningful explanations for how language is
used. “Understand”-items can also be
thought of as the ideas that we as the teacher want our students to have in
their minds when they are learning about and using language. These ideas are
meaningful, and they aim to help students understand and motivate them. For differentiating instruction, it is
crucial that we incorporate all three kinds of goals and objectives. We cannot differentiate just knowledge
(“Know) or knowledge and skills (“Do”); we need all three types of goals and
objectives so that we can successfully differentiate instruction.
To help
our understanding of the KUD-objectives in the ESL context, let us look at an
example set of KUD objectives in Table 2. These are unit goals that an ESL
teacher created for a 4th grade Sheltered Science unit on magnets.
Table 2. Sample KUDs:
4th Grade Sheltered Science
“I want students to…”
|
Know |
Understand that … |
Do |
|
|
|
We would
like to make a couple of points here about the items under the categories in
the teacher’s table. First, goals and
objectives that begin with “how to…” (e.g., how to conduct a science
experiment) are always “Know”-objectives because “how to…” implies that
students are expected to know (and possibly describe and/or explain) how to
conduct a science experiment but not actually conduct the experiment. Only when students are asked to actually
carry out the skill, e.g., conduct a science experiment, is this objective or
goal a “Do”-objective.
Second,
as we can see in the table, the “Understand”-objectives are always articulated
as a full sentence beginning with “I want students to understand that….” This is important because only by
writing out a full “that”-clause we can tap into a deep understanding we would
like our students to acquire. If we list separate ideas that are not expressed
in full clauses, these goals or objectives turn into “Know”-objectives.
Third, as
this teacher demonstrates in an effective way, the objectives listed in the
table contain both significant
language AND content objectives. The
only way for ESL teachers to assist their students in successful second
language acquisition and academic learning in school is to carefully plan and
implement lessons, whatever the ESL teaching context, that are focused on
teaching and learning substantive language components that are directly
embedded in rich academic content that requires the effective use of higher
level thinking and learning strategies.
The last
and possibly the most important point about quality curriculum and learning
goals and objectives that we would like to make is that when differentiating
instruction, we do NOT differentiate learning goals. The notion that we shoot
for the middle and then differentiate up and down is misinformed. What the philosophy behind Differentiated
Instruction advocates is setting high goals and standards for ALL learners. The
differentiation comes into play when we provide varying levels of scaffolding
to students with varying needs so that they all can work toward the same high
goals. This scaffolding might include
varied use of materials (differentiating content), classroom activities
(differentiating process) or assessment tasks (differentiating product), but
all students are working toward the same essential learner outcomes (key
components) expressed in the goals.
2.
Knowing
exactly what our students need: Assessing student readiness, interest and
learning profile
In addition to ensuring
the richness and meaningfulness of the curriculum, another key principle of
Differentiated Instruction is its focus on effective assessment. The same way that we cannot differentiate
curriculum that is not well-defined, we cannot differentiate instruction that
is not directly based on the careful identification of learner outcomes that
correlate with the needs of the learners. Experienced teachers develop good
instincts about what is best for their students and make decisions based on
these instincts, adjusting these decisions through observation and
reflection. Differentiated Instruction
offers tools for teachers to “refine” these good instincts (Tomlinson, 2001, p.
45) and maximizes teachers’ confidence in making thoughtful decisions about
student learning experiences.
Formative assessment
A key
Differentiated Instruction tool used for better understanding student needs is
the use of formative assessment. It
emphasizes the importance of focusing on understanding and improving student
learning instead of merely measuring student learning (Wiggins, 2004). Thus, we
should concentrate on designing tasks that provide us with meaningful data
about all aspects of their learning (readiness, interest, and learning
profile), and not limit ourselves by solely thinking about effective assessment
as the degree of mastery in a final, formal evaluation. It is this notion of
meaningful assessment, i.e., collecting meaningful data consistently throughout
the learning process that reveals a holistic picture of the learner (including
affective variables) that is at the heart of Differentiated Instruction.
Formative assessment does not focus on ranking students or comparing them but
rather on developing an understanding of students within the context of the
students’ own backgrounds.
This diagnostic prescriptive mode of teaching identifies
the gaps between what students currently know and what they will need to know
for a final assessment. This is especially important for ELLs
who may not have been exposed to large amounts of a district’s curriculum. It includes any or all of the following:
pre-assessment activities, ongoing informal assessments, observation,
checklists, student reflection and self-assessments, exit slips and
collaborative analysis of student work. All of these provide information to the
teacher to fine-tune instructional opportunities prior to the final formal
summative assessments. The importance of formative assessment lies in the fact
that “diagnostic thinking gives teachers information that will help them think
about timing, materials, depth of thinking, and methods on the upcoming unit”
(Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004, p. 10).
Formative assessment
begins with pre-assessment, and occurs on an ongoing basis throughout the unit
and ends with a culminating authentic task (summative evaluation) that is used
to measure student learning in relation to the carefully drafted learning goals
and objectives.
Feedback and guidance
Feedback plays a
key role in formative assessment. The
feedback received from formative assessment is shared with all stakeholders and
used (optimally by all stakeholders) to inform future teaching practice. In essence, assessment becomes
a roadmap that
drives instruction. Assessment information helps the teacher map next steps for
varied learners and the class as a whole. For the student, this feedback is
crucial in understanding the desired outcomes (behaviors and knowledge) that
are the components of successful learning.
In addition, formative assessment and the feedback stemming from it
offer opportunities for the learner to self-assess and self-regulate
effectively (Wiggins, 2004).
The notion of
feedback is part of the act of communication between the instructor and the
learner, which plays a crucial role in learning. Communicating feedback
effectively to the learner is a special pedagogic skill that needs to be
practiced in order to be mastered. This skill is called guidance. Wiggins (2004) emphasizes that the learner
needs both feedback and guidance to be able to learn effectively. He describes this important distinction
between feedback, guidance and evaluation in the following:
“Feedback is
information about what happened, the result or effect of our actions. The
environment or other people "feed back" to us the impact of our
behavior, be that upshot intended or unintended. Guidance, on the other hand,
gives future direction: what should I do, in light of what just happened? And
evaluation, finally, judges my overall
performance against a standard. Feedback tells me whether I am on course.
Guidance tells me the most likely ways to achieve my goal. Evaluation tells me
whether I am or
have been
sufficiently on course to be deemed competent or successful.”
Pre-assessment
Pre-assessment
takes place in the beginning of the school year, a semester or an instructional
unit. It serves as the first step in the
formative assessment process. Pre-assessment
plays an integral role in successfully differentiating our classroom. First, pre-assessment allows the teacher
opportunities to truly understand his or her students, their strengths and
weaknesses, interests and backgrounds and the differences between students in
these areas. Second, the data gathered
from pre-assessments, together with formative and summative assessments, will
directly inform the teacher in making meaningful decisions about classroom
materials (content), activities (process) and end-of-the unit assessments
(product). The key benefit of conducting
systematic and meaningful pre-assessments is that they enable the teacher to
become more purposeful about grouping
students during class, in assigning materials and designing classroom
activities by using data s/he has gathered about students’ strengths and
weaknesses in regard to the content to be studied. In the following, we will
describe ways that pre-assessment can be carried out to find out students’
readiness, interests and learning profiles in the ESL classroom.
Assessing
readiness, interest and learning profile
Tomlinson (2001) has identified
three characteristics of students that are the basis for our differentiation in
the classroom. These three categories
represent the factors that make our students different from one another and
that should be carefully considered when planning and implementing instruction.
In the following, we
will take a look at these components, readiness, interest and learning profile,
as they relate specifically to the ESL context.
Readiness
Readiness has to do with a student’s current
level of knowledge, understandings and skills related to a specific unit of
study. The defined learning goals and objectives (see Tables 1 and 2) determine
what components of readiness have been identified as the areas of focus for a
given instructional unit. During the
pre-assessment of readiness, the teacher will gain important information about
students’ varying levels of mastery in the knowledge, understandings and skills
related to the content to be studied (i.e., the set learning goals). This
information will enable the teacher to design focused learning experiences for
students as well as appropriate methods of scaffolding.
What
exactly are we assessing when we assess readiness in the ESL classroom during
pre-assessment? Table 3 describes some sample categories that the notion of
readiness refers to in the ESL classroom. The main principle is that readiness
refers to language and content as well as cognitive processes and learning
strategies. Also, in the ESL context,
cultural competence is also one of the key readiness categories. Note that each of the items can denote either
knowledge-, understanding-, or skill/do-level objectives based on how they are
articulated.
Table 3. Sample Components of Readiness in
the ESL Classroom
|
Language |
|
|
Academic Content |
|
|
Learning Strategies [1] |
|
|
Cognitive Processes |
|
|
Social/Cultural competencies |
|
Certainly,
none of the factors listed in Table 3 are new to ESL teachers. The contribution that Differentiated
Instruction makes is that it encourages us to be systematic about identifying,
assessing and teaching the factors involved in readiness as well as make
informed decisions about prioritizing instructional content to carefully align
students’ readiness in the above categories with the learning experiences that
are of most benefit to students as
they work toward the learning goals and objectives.
Examples
of quick ways to conduct pre-assessments of readiness include:
Interest
In
addition to assessing readiness, as part of Differentiated Instruction, we
assess student interests. Again, we do
this to better match instruction with students, in this case with their
interests. Assessing student interests
is carried out in a more systematic way, and, importantly, the information
received from the assessments is used to designing learning experiences that
are relevant to students and perhaps to engage them more fully in learning and
thus to increase the chance of reaching their potential.
Table 4
describes sample components related to interest that have an effect on
students’ engagement in the learning content and tasks in the ESL
classroom.
Table 4. Sample Features of Student
Interest in the ESL Classroom
|
In
general |
|
|
In
regard to school |
|
|
Content
area/Topic |
|
|
ESL |
|
A great, often
unintentional, benefit of assessing student interest is that it sends the
learner a message that the teacher is genuinely interested in the learner and
his/her interests. Naturally, we cannot incorporate each and every interest of
our students into our classroom activities, but strategically including some of
them can make a significant difference in learning outcomes. Some of these strategic decisions might involve
the following:
Some
quick ways to find out about student interests are the following:
Learning Profile
In addition to readiness and interests, a third
characteristic that makes our students unique is learning profile. Learning profile refers to how students learn
the best. Students’ learning is affected by a) their preferred learning style
and b) their backgrounds. Learning style includes such factors as:
·
Visual/auditory, tactile, or kinesthetic
·
Analytic/practical/creative
·
Multiple intelligences
·
Grouping preferences (i.e., individual, small
group, or large group)
·
Learning environment preferences (i.e., lots
of space or a quiet area to work)
In an ESL
context, we often focus so hard on students’ language learning needs, in other
words what they need to learn, that
we don’t pay sufficient attention to their learning styles, the factors related
to how they learn best.
Student
background is an especially important factor in the ESL context. Some of the
student issues related to student background that have a significant effect on
student learning in the ESL context are the following:
·
Cultural
Background (“who they are as people beyond ethnic and racial categories”)
·
Amount and
quality of exposure to the English language and mainstream culture outside of
schools
·
Amount
of/Feelings toward home culture vs. school culture
·
Affect toward
school, language and culture
·
Stage of acculturation
·
Questions re:
identity
·
Status of first
language
·
Experiences with
school culture/language
·
Features of
interaction with peers
·
Family factors
Again, it
is important that a teacher prioritize when collecting information about
student backgrounds. What is it that is
most critical for the teacher to know and take into consideration in regard to
student background when designing instruction?
Some sample background factors that ESL teachers often present thinking
about unique student needs:
·
A student’s lack of exposure to academic English outside
of school
·
A student’s background as limited formal schooling
·
A student who assumes the responsibility of tending to
younger siblings at home
·
An undocumented student
·
A student who does not share a language of his/her parents
What can
a teacher do upon discovering these, often complex and yet so significant,
background factors of his/her students? Our advice in our work with many
schools and school districts is to build connections and channels for communication
between individuals within a school or district, or with other districts
dealing with similar student characteristics or profiles. The connections can be created through
Professional Learning Communities within schools/districts, site visits to other
schools or districts, contacts with the ELL division of the Department of
Education or professional gatherings, such as workshops and conferences.
3. Designing Differentiated
Strategies: What do we do with pre-assessment data?
There are
several reasons teachers must gather pre-assessment data prior to
differentiating instruction. The teacher must be aware of the students’
readiness, interests and learning profiles, all of which may either enhance or
hinder student learning. Armed with this information the teacher will plan
meaningful activities and group students in a variety of ways to capitalize on
all students’ knowledge, abilities and interests. The key here is for the teacher to be very
selective when analyzing pre-assessment data; the
teacher’s task is to identify students’ strengths and their most significant
learning blocks and differentiate instruction by supporting students’ in their
greatest weaknesses and drawing from their biggest areas of strength. Upon
identifying the most critical characteristics of students, the teacher will
design a learning environment that will maximize student learning by increasing
time for meaningful and relevant time on task.
What are
the best instructional strategies to use in the Differentiated Instruction classroom?
There’s nothing inherently good or bad about instructional strategies. They are
in essence the “buckets” teachers can use to deliver content (materials),
process (activities) or products (assessments). Yet some “buckets” are better
suited to achieving one type of goal more than another. The “buckets” can be
used artfully or clumsily as part of well-conceived or poorly conceived lesson
plans and delivery. In addition, virtually all “buckets” can be used in ways
that ignore student learning differences, or they can become part of a larger
system that appropriately responds to these differences (Tomlinson, 1999, p.
61). In the following, we
will describe strategies that one often sees utilized in a classroom where the
teacher is successfully differentiating instruction for his/her students.
Again, we want to emphasize that one should begin implementing Differentiated
Instruction with small, manageable and consistently applied steps.
Classroom Routines
Classroom
routines are essential in a differentiated classroom because multiple
transitions can be confusing or distracting particularly for ELLs. Routines help both the teacher and student focus as
well as understand mutual expectations and responsibilities. Classroom
instruction will often begin with large group instruction that focuses on the
day’s goals as well as the essential learner outcomes for the unit of
instruction. There will usually be time for small group as well as paired or
individual practice. Learners who satisfactorily complete tasks may be able to
spend time on anchor activities that might include ongoing assignments or long
range projects of interest to the student that can be worked on independently
throughout a unit, grading period or longer and that assist students in moving
independently from one assignment to another without needing teacher direction.
Important routines will include:
Establishing
classroom routines allows the teacher time to gather formative assessment data,
for example during an opening activity (questions about studied material) or at
end of the lesson, through an exit activity (students need to answer a question
or do task as their ticket out the door). In addition, classroom routines build
in predictability and structure, which are essential in creating a constructive
Differentiated Instruction environment. Even though Differentiated Instruction
involves varied tasks and multiple group formats, it is NEVER a chaotic or
unorganized setting. It is exactly due
to the multiple flexible variables of the Differentiated Instruction context
that the classroom routines become so crucial.
Furthermore,
Differentiated Instruction is all about independent learners. By setting clear classroom routines, we can
facilitate students’ independent working habits and assist them in assuming an
increasing share of responsibility for their own learning.
Flexible Grouping
A
classroom where differentiated instruction is being implemented may, at first
glance, appear to be noisy and very active. However, closer observation will
reveal a well-planned orchestration of instruction that flows meaningfully from
one activity to the next. There will be cycles of large group, small group,
paired and individual tasks and learning opportunities. This will fit within
the framework of routines and expectations that guide the entire classroom.
A differentiated classroom is marked by a repeated rhythm
of whole-class preparation, review, and sharing, followed by opportunity for
individual or small-group exploration, sense-making, extension, and production
(Tomlinson, 2001, p. 6).
As we pointed out earlier,
Differentiated Instruction does not attempt to address each student’s every
need during every single class period.
Instead, it is the aim that through flexible grouping we can meet the
needs of many learners and over time will teach to students’ strengths as well
as assist students in performing better in their areas of weakness. The basis for grouping varies between
responding to student readiness, interest, or learning style. Sometimes the groups are teacher-selected and
heterogeneous or homogeneous, based on readiness level or interest. Sometimes students select their own work
groups; sometimes they are randomly assigned.
A useful tool for making purposeful
decisions about how to group students is TAPS, an acronym used to refer to four
different options for groupings: Total group (T), alone (A), in partners (P),
and in small groups (S). Table 5 illustrates the features of each of these
groupings as well as provides suggestions for situations that lend themselves
especially appropriately for utilizing each.
Table
5. TAPS Grouping
Options and their Uses (Modified from Gregory & Kuzmich
2004, p. 125)
|
GROUPING
STRATEGY |
Works
well for these strategies |
|
TOTAL Whole class instruction |
Presenting new information Pre-assessment Modeling new skills Videos, guest speakers,
presentations, demonstrations |
|
ALONE Students work on a variety of
tasks based on readiness or interest |
Pre-assessment Self assessment Reflection Journaling Projects/independent study Individual reading Note taking; summarizing; study
skills Practice and mastery of skills |
|
PAIRED Students work with a partner based
on based on task or interest |
Brainstorming Think, pair, share Checking for understanding;
processing of information Checking homework or daily work Peer editing; peer evaluation Researching Planning Practice and mastery of skills |
|
SMALL GROUPS Homogeneous for skill
development-based on readiness |
Practice and mastery of skills Re-teaching (with teacher while
other classmates practice skills) Reading partners |
|
SMALL GROUPS Heterogeneous for cooperative
groups based on task or interest |
Brainstorming Problem solving Interest centers Cooperative learning assignments Group investigation |
In a differentiated classroom,
students belong to more than one instructional group during a unit, and these
groups will change over time based on informal assessment and learner needs. It
is this latter point that is of utmost importance in Differentiated
Instruction; namely, it is the fact that membership in a group remains
flexible. This distinguishes flexible groups based on readiness from ability
groups that are less responsive to ever-changing student needs. A true flexible group responds to a wide
range of learner characteristics, related to readiness, interest and learning
profile and allows ongoing adjustments to group assignments based on formative
assessment.
A question we often get from
teachers is whether or not we should assign students to homogeneous
groups. Frequently ESL teachers try to
group students with similar needs together. While this is important for some
instructional tasks, it is neither practical nor desirable for all instruction.
Using cooperative learning groups where tasks, such as a jigsaw activity, are
differentiated by complexity and quantity (categories of readiness), all
students will engage in meaningful learning as well as contribute to the
success of the group. When students read different materials, each of them is
able to provide information that is essential to the overall group
understanding. A cooperative learning task is the optimal tool for making use
of the unique backgrounds of students, beyond readiness:
Certainly it’s
easier to put students achieving at an advanced level in the same cooperative
group and give them more challenging material. With
homogeneity,
however, we lose the potential to harness students’ diverse
intelligences
and perspectives to create a synergistic learning experience
where
the sum is greater than any of its parts (Schneidewind
& Davidson,
2000,
p. 24).
A wonderful classroom routine
regarding grouping that saves the teacher a great deal of time is using
pre-assigned standing groups. These are
groups that have previously determined membership and that serve various
functions. The teacher simply directs
the students to form one of these types of groups based on the nature of the
task; some of the groups are mixed ability, some designed for generating ideas,
others are mini groups for meeting with the teacher. The key to the usefulness
of these groups lies in the fact that transitioning into groups will take very
little time and that the consistency of the group members has been planned
ahead of time to be optimal for the nature of the task. Table 6 describes some
of the possible pre-assigned standing group options.
Table
6. Types of Pre-assigned Standing Groups (Adapted from Tomlinson, 2003)
|
Text Teams Similar
readiness Reading
pairs |
Think tanks Mixed
Readiness Idea
Generator Groups
of 4 or 5 |
|
Teacher talkers Groups
of 5-7 with similar learning needs with whom the teacher will meet to extend
and support growth |
Dip sticks Groups
of six with varied profiles used by teacher to do “dip stick”, cross-section
checks of progress, understanding |
|
Peer Partners Student
selected Groups
of 3 or 4 |
Synthesis squads Sets of
4 with visual, performance, writing, metaphorical (etc., based on learning
profile) preferences |
Another
example of a pre-assigned group is clock groups where students switch groups at
regular intervals to serve as members of groups with varying functions and
consistencies. For example, at ten
o’clock a student might be part of a group assigned by interest or strength and
working in pairs. Then at eleven o’clock
this student might be working in a mixed ability quad and so on.
Tiered Activities
We know from brain research that learning occurs when
students receive challenging but achievable goals (Caine
& Caine, 1994).
Also in the context
of ESL, we know that students need comprehensible input, which is language
input/material that is one level higher than the learners’ current level of
proficiency (Krashen, 1981). Tiered activities enable the teacher to
create tasks that target students’ varying levels of readiness and thus allow
for the appropriate level of challenge for the learners.
The process of creating tiered activities entails creating
assignments that target various components of readiness (see sample components
in Table 3) at various levels of difficulty. For example, the ESL teacher who
created the 4th grade Sheltered Science unit, designed tiered
activities using Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills as the basis for
differentiating for readiness (Table 7).
In this case, the tasks vary in the degree of difficulty of thinking
skills as well as by the complexity of the language load. These tasks address
the variability in students’ knowledge, understandings and skills related to
the unit (see the unit goals targeting these competencies in Table 2).
Table 7.
4th Grade Sheltered Science Unit: Tiered Activities
|
Activities Based on Readiness
|
Flexibility is again the key in designing and implementing
meaningful tiered assignments. By
varying the focus of the task and the composition of groups, students will be
less likely to focus on who is in what group or working on which task at which
level of difficulty. When all students work on meaningful tasks,
students are less likely to complain about what other students are doing. Thus, it is important that the most
basic-level task is as engaging and interesting as higher-level tasks. Table 8 illustrates the use of a combination
of tasks that utilizes flexible grouping.
Table 8. 4th Grade Sheltered
Instruction Unit: Flexible Grouping and Tiered Assignment
|
Task I: Learning Centers (individual, pairs, or small
groups) Four
experiments:
|
|
Class Extension Activity (Tiered
Assignment)
|
The nature of the activities you plan for students should
reflect the amount of scaffolding they need to understand and complete a task.
Students whose level of language and/or whose readiness is at a beginning level
will need more concrete activities to support their learning. A guiding
principal of Differentiated Instruction is “The Equalizer” which is described
in detail on pages 120-124 in Tomlinson’s (1999) work The Differentiated Classroom. She likens the planning process to
the buttons on a stereo which would not provide a quality sound if every button
was set to its full capacity. When several of the “buttons” are set higher,
others should be adjusted lower.
Choices
One of the most effective strategies in the differentiated
classroom is the use of choices. Giving
students choices about materials, activities and assessments gives students a
sense of empowerment and naturally increases students’ motivation and
engagement. Choices support
differentiation in that they enable students to make selections about what mode
to use for a task (e.g., visual, kinesthetic, or auditory) or what multiple
intelligence preference to utilize in a given activity (e.g., musical,
linguistic, etc.). One strategy that
allows the learner choices about tasks, assessments or materials is the
learning menu. This is a simple list of
“dishes” that students select from, including appetizers and desserts. The teacher can set certain conditions for
picking items off the menu, such as “you need to have more than one item from
the main dishes and only one of the desserts.”
Students love having choices. Table 9 illustrates the
effect of choices on learning processes, based on brain research.
Table 9.
Choices in Learning (Modified from Jensen, 1998)
|
Choices Content,
process, product Use of
groups, rich resources Attention
to affect |
Vs. |
Required No
student choice Restricted
resources Assigned
work |
|
Relevant Meaningful Connected
to learner Deep
understanding |
Vs. |
Irrelevant Impersonal Out of
context Only to
pass a test |
|
Engaging Emotional Energetic Hands
on Learner
engagement |
Vs. |
Passive Low
interaction External
Lecture
seatwork |
![]()
![]()
Increased
intrinsic Motivation Increased
apathy and resentment
Conclusion
It is important to remember that Differentiated
Instruction is foremost a philosophy and not merely a collection of
instructional tools. Without focusing on
creating a supportive learning environment and truly believing in the potential
of all of one’s students, little improvement can be made. The aim of this paper was to share the main
principles of Differentiated Instruction, as they relate to the ESL classroom
and to equip the readers with several classroom strategies that will hopefully
prove useful in implementing Differentiated Instruction in the classroom.
Implementing Differentiated Instruction can seem
overwhelming at first, which is why it is important to “think big but begin
small.” Rather than try to revamp an entire curriculum, focus on one unit that
has proven troublesome to students and that lends itself to a variety of
teaching strategies. Small successes will provide the encouragement to continue
to provide your students with a variety of learning options. Most teachers
already have the knowledge base for successful differentiation but have simply
lacked a clear focus of how and where to begin. By starting with one area of
your curriculum, your knowledge, confidence and repertoire of skills will grow
over time and will be easily transferred to other curricular areas.
When there is a clear and meaningful focus for
instruction, when the teacher is well aware of students’ strengths and
weaknesses, and subsequently when students are given the right tools for
learning, in the form of interesting materials and tasks that support their
preferred learning styles, learning turns into magic. Instead of struggling and being unmotivated,
students turn into self-efficacious learners unleashing their natural quest for
discovering and exploration.
REFERENCES
Boyd-Batstone, P. (2006). Differentiated early literacy for English
language learners:
Practical
strategies.
Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Caine,
R. and N. Caine (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Somerset, NJ:
Addison Wesley.
Echevarria,
J., Voft, M. E., & Short, D. (2007). Making Content Comprehensible for English
Learners: The SIOP® Model (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Gregory, G. & Kuzmich, L.
(2004). Data driven differentiation in
the
Standards-based classroom.
Corwin Press.
Hoffman,
P., & Dahlman, A. (2007). Making decisions about
ESL curriculum. MinneWITESOL Journal, 24.
Jensen,
E. (1998). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Krashen,
S. (1981). Second language acquisition
and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Met, M. (1994). ''Teaching Content Through a Second
Language.'' In Genesee, F. (ed.) Educating Second Language Children: The Whole
Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community. Cambridge University Press;
pp. 159-167.
Scherer, M. (2006). Celebrate strengths, nurture
affinities: A conversation with Mel
Levine. Educational
Leadership, 64(1), 8-15.
Schneidewind, N. & Davidson, E. (2000).
Differentiating cooperative learning.
Educational
Leadership, 58(1),
24-27.
Snow, M. (Ed.) (2000). Implementing
the ESL standards for pre-K-12 students
through teacher
education.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the
promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive
teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How
to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
2nd ed. Alexandria, VA. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The
differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs
of all learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding
by design, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G. (2004). Assessment as feedback. Retrieved on January 15, 2008 online at http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/assess/wiggins.htm.
[1] Full description of categories available at (http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Learning_Support/English_Language_Learners/Standards/index.html)