The Challenge of Variability
A few years ago, I ended the school year teaching kindergarten and moved to a second grade classroom for the following year. I was eager to expand my skills and welcomed the challenge of learning additional state standards for a group of students at a different developmental level than that with which I was accustomed. Seven and eight year olds entered my room the first day of school with varying levels of academic abilities. A couple of students struggled with basic number sense and decoding CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant) words. These were concepts we had covered in my kindergarten class the year prior. Other students began the year already reading chapter books. In an attempt to meet the varying needs of these students, I thought back to my credentialing classes and scoured texts for ideas.
Differentiation – My First Step
“Differentiation” was a buzzword in the educational community at that time, and it is often still used today. The philosophy is that we provide students with different work according to abilities as measured by a diagnostic assessment. I had learned in my credentialing program that this strategy falls in line with Vygotsky’s work on the zone of proximal development (ZPD). I immediately looked to the teacher’s edition of the district adopted textbooks for ideas on ensuring each student would be provided with work to fit their ZPD. Rather than solely employing a direct instruction model in which I presented a single teacher directed lesson for all students, I sought to meet student needs by providing differentiated work for students to work together in homogenous groups (similar ZPD) while I provided targeted, small group instruction on a rotating basis. I was quite proud that I was able to manage three different spelling lists each week, and my colleagues were impressed with the extensive stapled packets I had created for each list, to be completed throughout the week in students’ homogenous groups. This certainly proved to be more effective than a “one sized fits all” approach in which students would watch me model a lesson whole class (I do), essentially copy my work as individuals (we do), and then attempt to work on their own (you do), but I have since learned that neuroscience and my own action research support a much better approach. Not only did I come to realize that an alternate approach resulted in more student growth, it saved me hours of prep work.
The Freedom to Ditch the Textboook
The year after teaching second grade, I moved districts to cut my commute in half, and looked forward to a new role as a first grade teacher. My principal honored me the professional autonomy to ditch the textbook, to create my own pacing guide and activities that aligned to standards and met student needs. Visit Matt Miller’s Ditch That Textbook site for more tips on strategies to go beyond adopted curriculum. Given this freedom, I wondered if there was a way to go beyond differentiation, to go beyond packets of leveled work.
Looking back, the shift in my instruction matched elements of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Students were given options for demonstrating understanding, they set personal goals, they made choices regarding resources that would best meet their individual needs to complete tasks, they learned to manage their time. This does not mean that I ditched direct instruction completely. But based on the work that students produced in a more open-ended format, I was able to teach mini-lessons that met their needs. I was driven not by a textbook, but by evidence of student learning. In example, as students produced writing based on texts and videos, drew models of scientific concepts, and created mathematical stories, I was better able to provide quick instruction that connected to the context of their learning and met misconceptions I saw in what they produced. The instruction was authentic, it went far beyond check marks for incorrect answers and stars for correct answers given on fill in the blank worksheets. What did this look like in the classroom?
Tips for Going Beyond Differentation
Learning > Timed Stations – When I taught kindergarten and second grade, students rotated stations according to a timer. Many learners finished tasks before the timer and I needed to provide extra work for early finishers. Others did not complete the task at hand by the time I rang the bell to rotate to the next station. In shifting the model, I provided students with two stations to visit each day. Each station met similar standards but had options in how to access content and demonstrate understanding. A group of students working on reading comprehension may have the option to listen to an audio text and then draw a picture to demonstrate understanding, or they could retell a story they read using our puppet theatre and then write down or draw the plot elements expressed via the role play.
Allow for Choice in Collaboration – As an adult, do you work better alone, with a partner, or in a group? Do you have colleagues that differ in what works best for them? The same is true for students. Some students learn best in social settings, others prefer to work independently to process content before speaking with a partner. As is a goal of UDL, the key is to guide students in becoming expert learners who are strategic and goal directed. This occurs through formal and informal conferencing with students, promoting metacognition as they reflect on the environments in which they are most productive. There are also times when students will vary their choices regarding collaboration. A student who had a tough morning at home may prefer to work alone during learning station time, though he/she typically chooses to collaborate with a peer. We teach students to respect each other when we honor individuals with the freedom to make choices as to their preferred learning environment.
Protocols are Key – As Jon Corippo and Marlena Hebern speak of in their book EduProtocol Field Guide, students benefit from structured yet open-ended tasks that can be used in multiple subject areas. My first grade students became adept at completing the same open-ended templates to meet varying standards. Because the structure of the task repeated, students were cognitively available to focus on the content. This is much different than a fill in the blank worksheet copied from a textbook or pulled out of a consumable. Open-ended tasks foster variability. My students became familiar with the protocol of creating a story in writing to represent content, providing a visual representation, and writing a question to a partner. This protocol was effective in mathematics for addition, subtraction, inequalities, and was even expanded to concepts of place value. The protocol could also be applied to scientific concepts. Each student provides individual evidence of learning and has the opportunity to collaborate and demonstrate creativity. Due to the open-ended nature of the prompt, students’ affective filter is lowered. There is no one right or wrong answer. Students who excel at writing have the opportunity to shine by demonstrating their story using text. On the other hand, students who best comprehend content through visuals may write less extensive text than a peer, but their visual representation will be thorough. And this made my life easier as well. Rather than wasting time at the copier, all students needed was a blank piece of paper on which to complete the task.
Our learners are not all the same. I encourage you to free yourself from the textbook, allow student evidence to drive your instructional decisions, and save prep time with repeated, open-ended protocols that celebrate student variability. You may be surprised by what your students will accomplish if given the autonomy to select the resources and methods for demonstrating learning.