Introduction to Differentiation
Any parent who has experience in preparing a meal to allow for the various needs of a vegetarian adolescent, a fussy toddler and several adults with assorted preferences can understand the concept of differentiation in teaching. Deane and Tumber (1998, pp4) explain it like this: “Since all learners are different and have individual needs, preparing a balanced diet for all of them is as involved as planning a delicate meal which has substance but which must also cater for everybody’s tastes and dietary needs.”
Differentiation is simply the term given to the teacher’s adaptation of lessons in content and presentation to fulfil the educational needs of the wide range of personalities present in the classroom. Undoubtedly, teachers have always differentiated to some degree but it became increasingly important with the introduction of the National Curriculum.
Convery and Coyle (1993, pp1) quote an adapted passage from ‘A View of the Curriculum’, HMI discussion document, HMSO 1980:
“The curriculum has to satisfy two seemingly contrary requirements. On the one hand it has to reflect the broad aims of education which hold good for the children, whatever their capabilities and whatever the schools they attend. On the other hand it has to allow for differences in the abilities, aptitudes and needs of children, even of the same age.”
This encapsulates the dilemma in differentiation – how to deliver education of uniform quality to which all children are entitled, whilst simultaneously catering for their individuality.
We will proceed by first identifying some of the characteristics which affect pupils’ approach to learning. We will then consider some practical solutions which the teacher may use when planning lessons, and will finally conclude with some general reflections on the subject.
Differentiation and the Individual
Ability is a significant factor in differentiation, but differentiation involves far more than this. Certain factors will impact a pupil’s capacity to learn and Convery and Coyle (1999) suggest that these factors may be categorised as social, affective or intellectual. We will consider these in turn.
Social factors relate to the child’s background, upbringing and home culture. Parental attitudes, both positive and negative may be reflected in the pupil’s approach to the subject concerned. At the extreme of the social spectrum, there are many children who suffer abuse, neglect and poverty at home and all of these factors will clearly have a bearing on the child’s receptiveness to education. Similarly, drug use, now estimated at 50% of 15 to 17 year olds, may also impact pupils’ ability to learn.
Affective factors are those relating to the pupil’s own feelings: their attitudes, interests, experience, personality, motivation, responses and preferences. The age and maturity of our pupils will impact their response to both course content and teaching style and while the age of pupils in a class will span a full year, maturity, particularly around the time of adolescence will vary considerably. In some respects, gender might be considered another affective factor, because boys and girls differ in their preferred learning styles, but equally this could be a social factor, resulting from social conditioning, or even an intellectual factor, relating to boys’ and girls’ strengths in different areas of intelligence.
The nature of intelligence has been researched considerably in recent years, and increasingly schools are recognising the concept of ‘multiple intelligences’.
“Howard Gardner, an American neurologist suggests that we have several forms of intelligence:
• linguistic intelligence, cited in the left hemisphere of the brain, enables the use of rhetoric, helps the semantic storage of information and has a strong aural and oral component
• logical-mathematical intelligence involves the formal operation of symbols according to the accepted rules of logic and mathematics…
• visual-spatial intelligence, cited in the right hemisphere of the brain, enables us to notice fine details
• bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence, cited in the motor cortex, describes the ability to use parts of the body to solve problems or generate worthwhile products
• musical intelligence involves the capacities or imitation of vocal targets
• interpersonal intelligence encompasses the ability to notice and make distinctions
• intrapersonal intelligence enables us to access our feelings and draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding our behaviour.
Deane and Tumber 1998, pp7
It is possible that the intelligences identified by Gardner are only a starting point, as they may be examined in still further detail. For example, a pupil demonstrating a high level of linguistic intelligence may struggle with certain aspects of learning a modern foreign language (MFL) as they are separately challenged by the individual skills of listening and responding, speaking, reading, and writing. Ainslie (1994, pp4) clarifies this, “…some people learn languages more easily than others. This may apply overall, with some learners finding all aspects of language learning more difficult than others, or it may apply to particular skills.”
The progress made in this area of research has some exciting consequences. Pupils are valued according to their ability, regardless of the form it takes and teachers may capitalise on these abilities by presenting lessons in the form that their pupils are most able to assimilate.
Highly intelligent children are still recognised, and they too have the right to education that stimulates them to produce their best. The most able are sometimes classified as having special educational needs (SEN), although this term is more commonly associated with children with educational difficulties: those who have physical handicaps or dyslexia, those who are hearing or sight impaired, as well as children with particularly disruptive behaviour. The significant point here is that all SEN children have special requirements and their teacher will need to be sensitive to these.
To make differentiation manageable, and in order to provide the necessary terminology to examine the subject, it is inevitable that pupils should be categorised using some of the terms mentioned above. Teachers today however, are charged with the responsibility to remember that there are as many individuals as there are people, and must respond accordingly.
Differentiation Methodology
So, how do we put the theories into practice? Ainslie (1994, pp9) recommends, “Our first step is to find out as much as we can about our learners as soon as possible; we then need to implement a range of strategies which will respond to the needs of each individual”. This is not necessarily straightforward because as Wringe (1989, pp106) points out, “Pupils’ interests and aspirations may fluctuate back and forth”. It may be that just as we feel that we have got the measure of our pupils, the whole game-plan changes. Youth culture is extremely fast-moving, and to maintain our credibility it is important that we keep up with it.
The teacher can differentiate in response to the needs of their pupils by the way in which they manage their course, deliver their lessons and organise their classes. Deane and Tumber (1998) identify ‘differentiation by content’ whereby the teacher takes responsibility for the selection of overall course material and its general direction, and ‘differentiation by response’, which is the way in which the teacher adapts their assessment of pupils’ work to acknowledge individual capabilities.
Convery and Coyle (1999, pp 9) mention two aspects of lesson delivery. ‘Differentiation by variety’ focuses on teaching styles, “All teachers are different. They will have preferred teaching styles… Extending one’s teaching repertoire is an important factor in providing a stimulating learning environment.” ‘Differentiation by range’ focuses on learning styles, “All learners are different. They too will have preferred learning styles… Providing a variety of approaches and activities will ensure that equally a variety of preferences is catered for over a period of time.
Strategies for differentiation by class organisation may be expected to fit into one of the following categories:
1. “Everyone is set the same task but different learners of their own volition will perform it at different levels or in different ways.
2. Everyone works with the same material, but different people are set tasks of varying degrees of difficulty.
3. Different tasks can be set based on different materials, though within the framework of the general objectives of the lesson.
4. Everyone starts with the same activity, and once the group has finished, the supplementary/extension activity is given to them. Some of the groups may never get to the extension activity.”
Ainslie (1994, pp 35)
This broadly outlines the various ways in which differentiation may be approached, but we may also consider some of the possibilities for differentiation in greater detail. The first category mentioned is equivalent to what other writers describe as ‘differentiation by outcome’, because we can expect to see widely differing end results. This is possibly the most commonly used form of differentiation. Convery and Coyle (1999, pp47) remark that, “As a result of many discussions with teachers over the years, and in our own teaching experience, one of the most straightforward ways of differentiating is where a single, open-ended task is set up, which allows learners to work within it at their own level according to individual needs, and where differentiation by outcome operates.”
There is the danger that this approach to differentiation may become ‘differentiation by not bothering’, such may be the laissez-faire attitude to preparation! This may be avoided by ensuring that when differentiating by outcome, “the teacher must have a clear idea of the range of outcomes expected, and must communicate this to the class and/or individuals”. (Convery and Coyle, 1999, pp57)
‘Differentiation by task’, and ‘differentiation by support’ both fit into the second category - in each case the learners are using the same material/resources. They are then either set different tasks according to their ability, or given the same task together with greater or less support (for example additional time, information or additional assistance).
A wide range of options fit into the third category. ‘Differentiation by text/resources’ involves giving individual pupils the material best suited to them, which may or may not be combined with a different task. ‘Differentiation by ability’ is similar again, but in this instance, pupils are grouped according to ability levels within the class and appropriate work selected for each group. ‘Differentiation by interest/choice’ is exactly as it sounds, different materials (and possibly different tasks) are given to pupils to allow for their personal preferences.
The fourth category involves a different approach. We are already accustomed to the idea that lesson plans should highlight clear learning objectives. Convery and Coyle describe the element that is essential for all pupils to master as ‘core’, which is then supplemented by ‘reinforcement’ exercises to consolidate learning and ‘branching’ exercises to develop ideas further.
In organising our classes this way, we may be almost clinically precise with our lesson planning, putting maximum focus onto the critical ‘core’ objectives. Whilst this may provide for a thorough and disciplined approach to differentiation, Dutton (1997) warns that we must guard against, “the rather tiresome practice of giving more able pupils an extra few worksheets to complete if they finish early”. If we focus too much on the core activities and simply provide the more able with follow-on activities to keep them occupied then we could perhaps consider this to be ‘differentiation by cop-out’!
We must also be sure to guard against an over-reliance on extension activities for the more able students only, because less able students may become discouraged. Convery and Coyle (1999, pp30) remind us that, “all students need more intensive practice at certain times whilst learning the language, just as all students need the stimulus of extension work in order to experience the challenge of moving forwards”. Their solution is a more united approach to differentiation whereby regardless of pupil ability, “Branching work, mainly extension and reinforcement, grows out of core work, taking into account the individual goals, interests and needs of each learner”. Wringe (1989, pp114) concurs
“The setting of different tasks to different pupils does not have to take place all the time. When a new topic or even a new function is first introduced, a great deal of what is presented may be new to all pupils and the presentation may be in relatively simple terms without boring the most competent.”
This implies that teachers not only need to exercise their judgment in how to differentiate, but also in recognising when it is either unnecessary or inappropriate.
Conclusion
Writers on the subject of differentiation appear united by the idea that it is, “not as difficult or time-consuming as many traditional teachers have assumed” (Wringe 1989, pp115). Convery and Coyle (1999, pp10) note that, “Many teachers who have not previously considered the concept of differentiation may find on closer examination of their teaching styles that they have been instinctively using differentiation without acknowledging it”. Either with or without the classification, most teachers spontaneously use their traditional expertise in ‘differentiation by questioning’ in oral work, as they automatically adapt the nature and content of questions to each individual pupil. Activities involving reading, writing and listening require more forethought as there are inherent difficulties both in theory and in practice.
With regard to the theory of differentiation, Harris (1995) questions some of the assumptions that have been associated with it, in particular, the “assumption that we know what makes something easy or difficult” and is surprised that “relatively little seems to have been written which explicitly addresses the question of the criteria which can be used to determine the ease or difficulty of a task.” Meanwhile, the Non-Statutory Guidelines “do not offer a coherent theoretical framework” and therefore teachers do not have scientifically established, uniform points of reference. This is evidenced by the wide discrepancies between coursebooks as a result of authors’ individual interpretations of the different ability levels.
Harris continues, “We need furthermore to acknowledge the complex relationship between the criteria – between the content of the topic and grammatical complexity for example, between the length of the text and the nature of the task set”. Assuming that this is possible, there still remain the learners themselves to complicate the issue because, “the set of feelings, attitudes and abilities that the learner brings to a task is fluid and variable rather than fixed and easily measurable.”
In view of this relationship between topic, task and pupil, there is the possibility that “simpler” tasks set for lower achievers, may consequently be less interesting. Less interesting tasks undoubtedly make a difference to pupils’ levels of motivation, such that we may be unintentionally reinforcing under-achievement.
With regard to difficulties in the practice of differentiation within the classroom, Wringe (1989, pp115) acknowledges the danger that in working with differentiated groups, precious teacher/pupil contact time may be reduced as the teacher’s time is divided between each group. Not only that, but, “one felt obliged to get as much into 10 minutes as one had previously covered in 30. One had to prepare three lessons instead of one and teaching was stressful as one constantly had to break off to discipline those told to get on under their own steam”.
Wringe, however, believes that the move to communicative objectives has relieved the teacher from many of these concerns because of increased pupil autonomy, and because, “there are many communicative activities which, provided they are sensibly set up in the first place, do not need continual and detailed monitoring.”
It is clear that certain techniques can help to make differentiation easier. For example, teachers can encourage pupils to take more responsibility for their own learning by selecting their own work from a store of readily available resources. By separating resources from tasks, a single resource may also be adapted for a number of differentiated activities. Mixed-ability worksheets may be planned to enable children to achieve differently while working on the same project, thereby reducing paperwork.
Even allowing for the teacher’s willing and conscientious attitude to differentiation, the extent of the variety within our classes, and the behavioural difficulties present in many schools today, sometimes prove to be an insurmountable problem and many teachers admit to having to resort to catering for the majority.
The principles behind differentiation are well-intentioned, however much research has yet to be done. Until then, it is clear that differentiation will remain an inexact science, and may be practised only as far as individual teacher’s understanding and ability, and the pupils’ level of cooperation, permits.
References
Ainslie, S. (1994), Mixed-Ability Teaching: Meeting Learners’ Needs, London:CILT
Convery, A. and Coyle, D. (1999), Differentiation and Individual Learners, London: CILT
Convery, A. and Coyle, D. (1993), Pathfinder 18: Differentiation – Taking the Initiative London:CILT
Deane, M. and Tumber, M. (1998), Differentiation, Cheltenham: Mary Glasgow Publications
Dutton, N. (1997), Getting started: differentiation, in The Language Learning Journal No 15, 10-13
Harris, V. (1995), Differentiation – not as easy as it seems, in The Language Learning Journal No 12, 13-15
Sutton, R. (1991), Assessment A Framework for Teachers, London:NFER-Nelson Publishing Company Ltd
Wringe, C. (1989), The Effective Teaching of Modern Languages, New York: Longman Publishing
