Do you Really Differentiate?
By Brent Loken

I considered myself a very good teacher. I had just finished my National Boards in Science, had given workshops at both the NCTM and NSTA National conferences, had taught everything from 3rd grade to AP Physics and Chemistry and was writing a few papers on education. Exciting things were happening in my classroom, and I believed my efforts were maximizing student learning. Then along came differentiation.

I’d heard of differentiation and believed I was doing it in my classroom. This “buzz word” had been around education for a long time and most teachers believed they naturally did it. Sometimes I would give students an assignment using technology, sometimes we would build things with our hands, other times I would have students journal and I always treated each learner differently. Wasn’t this differentiation? At a certain level I was naturally differentiating in my classroom, however, I was still stuck in the old “one size fits all” paradigm of curricular instruction. I was creatively using different types of assignments, but I still expected each student to do the “same” assignment.  The difference, however, between natural differentiation and conscious differentiation is profound.

I am using the term “natural differentiation” as what naturally happens in most classrooms and what most teachers call “good teaching.” Conscious differentiation, however, is what happens in classrooms where teachers have read, researched and experimented with differentiation strategies and have shed the “one size fits all” philosophy. This type of classroom looks very different, feels very different and is totally student centered.

This evolution into conscious differentiation has not been easy. I have always been very proud that my classroom was considered “difficult.” We built mathematical models of everyday events using the latest digital software, we explored the most challenging problems in math and science and I was given the most challenging teacher award by my former students. I gradually came to realize, however, that I was not reaching every student. I was doing a great job for the advanced students who understood the advanced content I was giving them, but there was always a contingent of students who just seemed to float on the surface of curricular understanding. They somehow got through these difficult tasks but didn’t really internalize them. These students were my C students and I accepted that not everybody in my class could earn an A.

Then I began carefully looking at my standards and reflecting on what I really wanted each student to learn. What I was asking of my students actually went above and beyond the standards. Was it fair to my students that my difficult interpretation of these standards made it impossible for some students to earn an A in my class? If they met the standard and demonstrated mastery, couldn’t everybody earn an A? For the past year I have been reading, researching and reflecting on differentiation and have designed a unit that sheds the “one size fits all” paradigm and focuses the individual instead of the group.

Besides breaking this paradigm, I also wanted to create a unit that fostered independence, cooperation, trust and critical thinking. Skills that would still be relevant long after these students graduated from our school. Most teachers want to develop these skills with their students in their own classroom. However, I have realized the “one size fits all” teacher centered approach doesn’t foster the environment where these skills can be developed and practiced by students.

There isn’t a single recipe for creating a differentiated unit in your classroom. However, let me give you a list of strategies I found important during our expedition on Systems of Equations in my Algebra class.

Pre-test: The pre-test allowed me to see what my students knew and then use this information to tailor make the unit to appropriately challenge each student. I also used this information to divide the students into three groups. Each groups’ unit of study was slightly different and appropriately challenging. I found this grouping actually increased student confidence instead of stigmatizing the students as some may suggest.

Student Contracts: Before beginning, each group entered into a formal contract with me. This contract described the task and outlined the objectives and grading criteria. Well written contracts are worth the time they take because having a clear understanding of what is expected dramatically increases student performance. This formal agreement forced me to pay the students with a letter grade upon successful completion of the contract and put the responsibility of the grade into the hands of the students.

Tiered Assignments: Using tiered assignments allowed each group to master the objectives but in very different ways. Groups completed many of the same activities, however as the students progressed through the expedition each group’s activities began to vary. Using tiered assignments has changed my philosophy on grading. Before using differentiation, only students who could fully understand my “challenge” problems were awarded with an A and therefore these problems became the gatekeepers of that elusive grade. However, if a student is able to demonstrate mastery over a benchmark, they have as much of a right to earn an A as do the gifted students. This differentiated unit allowed some groups to master benchmarks sooner than others and therefore set off on paths that led to more challenging problems while other groups spent more time on mastering these benchmarks.

Compacted Assignments: Students were given the freedom to determine homework assignments and the number of problems needed to complete to understand the material. This freedom had two benefits. It turned each assignment from a task given by the teacher to an assignment chosen by the student. This choice turned homework into something that students looked forward to and actually enjoyed. This result was completely unexpected. Secondly, by having students determine how much homework they needed to complete, students naturally compacted their homework and progressed through the unit at an appropriate pace. Faster groups moved into the challenge problems more quickly, while groups needing more time were given the freedom to take more time.

Self Assessed Assessments: Throughout this unit, each group was assigned a filing cabinet which contained all of their assignments, assessments and answer keys. Students were allowed to take their quizzes and exams when they had scheduled them and then correct these on their own. Anticipation was high as students waited to see if they scored above 85%, which was the mastery level I had set. By having students correct their own assessments, they began to naturally see what concepts they understood and what concepts they needed more work on. If they scored below 85%, they spent more time with the material and were allowed one re-take. If the student didn’t pass the re-take, extra time was scheduled outside of class. I found this open and trustful approach very difficult at first and was worried that some students may cheat. However, the students actually became more trustworthy because I trusted them. One student commented on this in my class Blog, “When you said: I can't stop you from cheating, it had a much greater impact than simply saying: if you cheat I'll send you to the principle's office. Because that made us more aware of the consequences of cheating and that we are responsible for ourselves, our own learning.”  

Reflection: Throughout this unit I asked students to reflect on their daily performance and then assign themselves a grade. Upon completion of this expedition, each group was given time to reflect on their performance as measured by their contract. A convincing argument was then written for the grade they believed they had earned. In this argument, they were allowed to defend any daily violation I had noted or any part of the contract they failed to fulfill.

The differences in my classes have been remarkable and this unit has been the most professionally rewarding experience of my career. All students are engaged in class and have taken responsibility for their own learning. This structure has taken me out of the spotlight and students no longer look to me as their primary resource to answer a question. As a matter of fact, they have gotten so used to answering each other’s questions or digging through the text-book for answers that I have had to get used to their new independence and resourcefulness. This consciously differentiated classroom has given me time to get to know my students. I spend each class engaged in one-on-one or small group instruction instead of standing up and delivering the same content on the same day. Ironically, my grade distribution is pretty much the same as before. The difference is that students feel like these grades are their own, not some randomly assigned letter given by the teacher. More importantly, the students also feel like they learned more. On a survey given at the end of this unit, 84.5% of my students either strongly agreed or agreed that this type of classroom helped them learn more than the traditional learning environment, 91.55% believed working in groups of the same ability helped their learning, 90.0% believed using contracts was a valuable experience, 88.7% believed that reflecting and grading themselves was valuable, 97.2% believed that this unit taught them important life skills and 95.8% of my students said that the freedom was important for their learning.

I was inspired to write this article because I wanted to share with each of you how professionally rewarding conscious differentiation can be. However, the professional satisfaction is only a tertiary benefit because the real reason to do it is its effect on students. However, if you still have doubts, maybe a recent Blog entry from one of my students will convince you to give differentiation a try.

“In this last expedition “Systems of Equations”, I not only learned the math but I also learned life long skills about how to plan ahead, carry out a plan, and work independently. It is definitely more difficult than I expected. First, when planning ahead, you must look at the whole picture and estimate how long you will take on each thing needed to be accomplished. Sometimes it’s hard to determine how long it will take you to finish a single thing on the list. Once you start following the plan, you may encounter some problems such as not passing an exam, taking longer to finish homework or the signing of an objective. Then, you start falling behind schedule and you have to come up with a new plan. This is hard; however, I think it was important to go through because in the real world, things don’t always go according to plan. It was a good experience managing our time. This is a skill that will most definitely be used in the future. I liked having the freedom of determining our grade because then we not only have a chance to reflect, but we can also try and get the grade we believe we deserve. Schools should not only be teaching academic material, but also life long skills. These are the things that are really important in life. If you can’t learn how to live your life with skills such as managing time and planning ahead, it will be extremely hard to focus on other things.”

For more information on differentiation and what a differentiated classroom looks like, please visit my webpage at: http://tiger.tas.edu.tw/ms/loken/webpage/index.htm

Here you will find books on differentiation and videos of what a differentiated classroom looks like. Or if you have any more questions, please contact me.

About the author::
Brent Loken is currently teaching at Taipei American School and will be the director of curriculum development at Hsinchu International School next year
brentloken@hotmail.com