Differentiation and Diversity in the Primary School

Eve Bearne

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134788309
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Differentiation is a key part of effective teaching; structuring learning experiences to suit the needs of the individual child plays a major part in the quality of the education that child receives. However, even experienced teachers can often struggle to achieve this ideal when considering the needs of a class, which is likely to include pupils across the whole ability range, from students with learning difficulties through to gifted children.
Written by practising teachers this collection:
* examines the definitions and scope of differentiation
* looks at the structuring and management of learning activities within the curriculum areas of key stages 1 and 2
* shows how teachers can provide equal access to the curriculum for all children, whilst also meeting government requirements
* discusses issues of assessment
* describes how schools can construct a whole school policy and approach for differentiation.
Using case studies and examples, this book will lead teachers to reflect on their current practice, whilst also containing practical advice which will enable them to improve.

Part I
Definitions and scope of
differentiation

Introduction to Part I

Some of the most egregious sins against equity of access are committed in the name of providing for individual differences.

(Coombs 1994: 3)

The jargon smooths over the messiness of real classroom life.

(Thomas 1993: 14)

These two comments suggest the complexity of attempting to get to grips with the implications of differentiation - let alone trying to define the term. In taking a critical view, the oppositions and tensions surrounding differentiation become even more tricky. While for some the emphasis is on the difficulties of supporting individual learning needs, for others the constraints are most obvious when trying to make ideals into everyday classroom reality. There seem to be tensions between attempts to provide both for individual and communal educational entitlements. There are also obvious dangers in trying to pin down a necessarily complex and unstable concept with a few slick words. Trying to find a definition for differentiation runs the risk of either being so general as to be meaningless, or sacrificing detail and richness for the sake of a smart answer

This section will try to avoid both of these pitfalls by first of all suggesting in this introduction a range of characteristics which might be included in a description of what differentiation involves and implies. The first chapter examines how teachers describe what they would include as elements of differentiation. Finally, these observations are related to the values and principles which might underpin views of differentiation. In this way the contributors hope to offer detail, precision and clarity without sacrificing complexity.

Opinions and definitions of differentiation vary considerably in emphasis, but one recurrent feature identified by commentators is a contrast in viewpoint between those who highlight differentiation between groups and those who focus on differentiation between individuals (Stradling and Saunders 1991). Crudely put, this might be seen as a distinction between a sorting exercise where all the 'high fliers' or 'low attainers' are put into (apparently) homogeneous groups, or a view which attempts to diagnose individual strengths - or more likely weaknesses - in order to provide for progression. Each of these perspectives tends towards seeing the learner as pivotal, rather than looking at the curriculum. This emphasis on the pupil as a central focus for differentiation has led on the one hand towards ways of encouraging greater pupil participation in learning (group work and collaboration between pupils of like abilities) and the evaluation of learning (setting targets for learning), and on the other hand towards a formulation which all too easily topples into a deficit view of the pupil. Either of these views of differentiation can lead to labelling the individual as 'failing' rather than identifying gaps in curriculum planning or the organisation of work as contributory factors to low attainment. A related feature of both views is that they almost inevitably veer towards looking at failure and low attainment rather than opportunities for satisfaction and success in learning.

There are grounds for criticism of too inflexible an approach to 'ability' grouping. While acknowledging, of course, that grouping pupils is a perfectly acceptable classroom practice to promote learning, it is important to recognise that even if learners can be grouped according to common qualities, they are nevertheless not likely to form genuinely homogeneous groups. As outlined in the Introduction, it is by no means a simple matter to group according to 'ability'. Such groupings beg the question: 'ability in what?' Every teacher is aware that pupils who show a high level of confidence and competence in one area of the curriculum may well experience difficulties in another area. Also, while some pupils do indeed fail in their schooling, a view of differentiation which focuses mainly on individual performance can lead to an exclusive approach to teaching and learning. Rather than open up opportunities, it can close them down. It is all too easy to blame the learner than to look critically at the arrangements for learning.

In order to redress the balance there needs to be some coherent view of the curriculum and the learning environment in relation to the diversity of what each individual brings to the classroom. If education is to be inclusive rather than exclusive, 'pupils and teachers will need a wide range of strategies and flexibility of timing and approach if they are to achieve the common goals set out in the National Curriculum targets' (Weston 1992). Recognition of diversity will also allow both teachers and pupils to go beyond those common targets!

Differentiation which genuinely allows for diversity of learning style or approach may need to take the following factors into account:

• variations in fluency of English, which may not be the first language;
• those who read visual, iconic or numerical material more readily than verbal texts;
• gender differences;
• physical differences;
• those who learn better by ear than by eye;
• those who learn through practical experience;
• the range of previous experiences brought to the classroom;

as well as the fact that any learner might use a range of approaches to learning according to the task, the context, the time of day, the learner's perceived needs, etc. This implies the need to plan for a variety of ways in to learning, flexibility in grouping arrangements as well as a clear idea of how, when, why and by whom learning is going to be evaluated and assessed. In other words, differentiation needs to be perceived in terms of entitlement to as full and flexible a curriculum as possible and to be thought of in terms of how the curriculum might cater for and build on diversity.

Teachers themselves can provide a fruitful resource for examining just how this might be achieved. Chapter 1 Thinking and talking about differentiation', begins by identifying the ways in which teachers perceive and reflect on what they do about differentiation - and what they see as workable classroom approaches. As their comments reveal, the external demands made by the National Curriculum and OFSTED are not necessarily in conflict with most teachers' everyday practice. In the same way that pupils do not represent homogenous groups of thinkers, neither do teachers, and it is as well to take this into account when examining their views of the scope and implications of differentiation. Added to the personal and diverse experiences which teachers represent, is the fact that sometimes professional ways of speaking can obscure rather than clarify ideas. Ruth Kershner and Sheila Miles used an inventive method for probing just what might lie behind and beneath teachers' descriptions of what differentiation meant to them and so were able to examine the 'competing imperatives' which teachers feel themselves subject to.

In many of the discussions about differentiation, teachers appeared to be using an organising principle based on their perceptions of the differences between activities and subject areas, as well as their perceptions of the differences between children. One headteacher aptly summarised the position, identifying differentiation as a slippery concept: 'you try and grasp it and suddenly it shoots out of your hand.' In opening up the area for debate, the writers of Chapter 1 point out:

What appears to be most significant is the variation of ways in which teachers understand the meaning of differentiation, and the breadth and depth with which they employ it.

They go on to stress the importance of finding out what teachers think in order to 'engage with them and develop ideas together'. This chimes well with one of the central elements of the book as a whole: theoretical issues about the curriculum relate to methods of teaching and learning and about management and policy as they are reflected through descriptions of teachers' and pupils' personal and classroom experience.

Chapter 2 'Grounds for differentiation', picks up the theme of 'competing imperatives' by considering some of the values and principles of the primary curriculum and their relationships to the development of both personal and communal knowledge. This chapter examines, first, the notion that differentiation for development of knowledge involves at one and the same time a view of the individual as a learner and a theory of 'common structures of content' within the curriculum on offer. It is not just a matter of providing an appropriate curriculum in terms of content, however, since views of what is seen as 'publicly agreed knowledge' can be characterised in different ways and give rise to differing practices according to the values and priorities of those who define the curriculum and its content.

In arguing for a flexible view of the curriculum, Christine Doddington points out that 'the urge to reduce human understanding to the "fixed" and "agreed" is strong within educational debate.' Rather than settling for a definition of differentiation which favours either an individual formulation or a sense of the implications of commonly agreed knowledge, she relates these to classroom practice. Careful analysis of just what a curriculum for diversity implies and involves leads to precise location of these ideas in a classroom example which shows that 'thinking and genuine understanding can only occur through active engagement and processes of interpretation'. The chapter, and Part I, ends with the suggestion that 'differentiation might help set out a description of classroom activity which illustrates how a teacher values both communal and personal knowledge'. This goes some way towards meeting the competing demands implied by the need to provide an accessible curriculum for a diversity of learners. It also enlarges the scope of possible definitions of what differentiation might involve.

References

Coombs, J. R. (1994) 'Equal Access to Education', Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 3 (May/June)

Stradling, R. arid Saunders, L. with Weston, P. (1991) Differentiation in Action:

A whole school approach for raising attainment, London, HMSO

Thomas, G. (1993) 'Good Behaviour' a review in The Times Educational Supplement, 11 June

Weston, P. (1992) A Decade for Differentiation', British Journal of Special Education, 19, 1 (March)

Chapter 1
Thinking and talking about
differentiation

‘It’s like a bar of soap ... you try and grasp
it and suddenly it shoots out of your hand’

Ruth Kershner and Sheila Miles

A deputy headteacher of a primary school is discussing the staff's recently
written policy on differentiation:

... we do now have the statement [on differentiation] which will need to be reviewed. I don't believe things are finished just because it's now on a piece of paper. ... I think during the next year we will need to plan a staff meeting where we discuss how we've moved forward and how we feel about it now.

Interviewer: Can you think of any resistances in the school or difficulties
which might occur?

I don't think so ... our staff are much too caring for that ... they all see it as very important ... there really wasn't a great deal of dissent when we were discussing it. The only slight concern from a management point of view is whether some of the staff have really fully understood what we were talking about. I don't think there would be resistance, but clarity of understanding may be the problem. I think you have to differentiate with the teachers too.

This conversation illustrates some of the complex issues associated with differentiation in primary schools. The deputy headteacher suggests that a school policy on differentiation needs as much thought and discussion after the writing of it as before. She implies that teachers who care about children are likely to want to differentiate effectively. Yet problems may arise when individual teachers construe the meaning of differentiation in their own terms. As she hints above, there may not be a common understanding within a staff team; teachers, like the pupils in their classes, respond in many different ways, and good school management will have to take account of these differences in trying to establish a common set of principles and practices.

This chapter is concerned not only with what teachers think about differentiation in the current educational climate, but also with how to find out about their knowledge, beliefs and feelings. We recently explored this topic in interviews with teachers and headteachers in three primary schools. Unsurprisingly, this research confirmed that teachers have their individual views about the policy and practice of differentiation and that they express their ideas in diverse ways. Before reporting some of our findings and considering the significance of what individual teachers said to us, we will discuss in more general terms why it is important to take account of what teachers think about their roles in relation both to educational policies and to the children to whom the policies apply.

It has been a feature of recent years that teachers have been faced with numerous changes in educational policy, not least the continuing development of the National Curriculum since the late 1980s. Fullan (1982) points out that we need to understand the 'meaning of change' for all the people involved if policy developments at any level are not to fail. This understanding of the significance of teachers' thinking has informed recent debates about how to help teachers to implement the educational changes that have been imposed throughout the last two decades in Britain. For example, in their discussion of the impact on teachers' practice and thinking of recent changes in policy for children with special educational needs, Brown and Riddell (1994: 222) observe that

the preaching of well-meaning policy-makers or educational theorists is unlikely to bring about change in teachers' thinking unless it takes as its starting point the ways in which teachers already perceive and think about what they do ... and what they see as practical in their own classrooms.

Initiatives in in-service training, staff development and support systems for teachers have shown that there are a number of ways to tap into teachers' professional knowledge and expertise, using carefully planned methods of collaboration and consultation in relation to actual, current experience in school (Upton 1991). These initiatives assu...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• Part I Definitions and scope of differentiation
• Part II Differentiation and literacy
• Part III Mixed ability: The range of learners
• Part IV Issues of assessment
• Appendix: A framework for discussion
• Index