Training tips and tools 5 BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 1 | 12 Standards and differentiation – an impossible match? When educational standards for foreign languages were developed and introduced in Austria, competency based foreign language education was the major goal to be achieved through their implementation. The intended “new way of thinking about teach- ing and learning” suggested that at the end of year 8 the learners should be able to do certain things with the foreign language rather than just know lots of things about it. The shift from a primarily input oriented approach to an output oriented focus in foreign language education could not be overlooked. After 2009 it would no longer be enough to “apply” the communicative approach, communicative competence should also be- come visible in the output of all learners. In 2009 the notion of communicative competence had long been around and the com- municative approach had found its way into the curriculum, course books and even into many classrooms. With the publication of the Common European Framework of Refer- ence for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) in 2001, functional com- municative competence became more tangible. With the framework everybody can check which level of communicative foreign language competence they have reached and what goals they might select for the next learning steps. Thus, the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) became a powerful tool not only for curriculum planners, publishers, teachers, assessors and such, but also for the learners themselves, who were offered checklists and portfolios with age appropriate descriptors for self-evaluation 1 . Being given a means to identify where learners are in the processes of language learning in addition to descriptions of what they should be able to do, educators were also given powerful tools to identify what teaching and learning they should be aiming at and how they could best be organised to be successful. Being able to describe what one can already do and what one ought to or would want to be able to do is the basis of any personalised instruction. Therefore, it is somewhat hard to understand why competency based education grounded in standards is often seen as a barrier to good teaching and learning practices as well as differentiation. As suggested by Tomlinson, “[there] is no contradiction between effective standards- based instruction and differentiation.” (2000, p. 9) The standards and the curriculum provide the goals while differentiation shows the various ways to get there. Adding cri- teria for successful achievement of learning outcomes not only provides differentiated 1 European Portfolios published by the ÖSZ and available through the Austrian Schulbuchaktion: http://www.oesz.at/OESZNEU/main_01.php?page=013&open=11
Transcript
Training tips and tools 5
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 1 | 12
Standards and differentiation – an impossible match?
When educational standards for foreign languages were developed and introduced in
Austria, competency based foreign language education was the major goal to be
achieved through their implementation. The intended “new way of thinking about teach-
ing and learning” suggested that at the end of year 8 the learners should be able to do
certain things with the foreign language rather than just know lots of things about it.
The shift from a primarily input oriented approach to an output oriented focus in foreign
language education could not be overlooked. After 2009 it would no longer be enough
to “apply” the communicative approach, communicative competence should also be-
come visible in the output of all learners.
In 2009 the notion of communicative competence had long been around and the com-
municative approach had found its way into the curriculum, course books and even into
many classrooms. With the publication of the Common European Framework of Refer-
ence for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) in 2001, functional com-
municative competence became more tangible. With the framework everybody can
check which level of communicative foreign language competence they have reached
and what goals they might select for the next learning steps. Thus, the CEFR (Council
of Europe, 2001) became a powerful tool not only for curriculum planners, publishers,
teachers, assessors and such, but also for the learners themselves, who were offered
checklists and portfolios with age appropriate descriptors for self-evaluation1. Being
given a means to identify where learners are in the processes of language learning in
addition to descriptions of what they should be able to do, educators were also given
powerful tools to identify what teaching and learning they should be aiming at and how
they could best be organised to be successful.
Being able to describe what one can already do and what one ought to or would want
to be able to do is the basis of any personalised instruction. Therefore, it is somewhat
hard to understand why competency based education grounded in standards is often
seen as a barrier to good teaching and learning practices as well as differentiation. As
suggested by Tomlinson, “[there] is no contradiction between effective standards-
based instruction and differentiation.” (2000, p. 9) The standards and the curriculum
provide the goals while differentiation shows the various ways to get there. Adding cri-
teria for successful achievement of learning outcomes not only provides differentiated 1 European Portfolios published by the ÖSZ and available through the Austrian Schulbuchaktion:
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 2 | 12
feedback on the fulfilment, well phrased criteria also mark stepping stones on the way
to success. Thus, differentiated tasks can be planned with the bigger goal in mind and
become signposts on the roadmap to competence (see “Planning competency based
foreign language lessons”).
Before the 70s learning was generally differentiated by speed and the learners were
often assessed on a norm referenced basis. Thus, the best learners in a class often
determined the “level” to be reached and also the rate of teaching. A decade later
learning was differentiated by level. In practice this meant that three ability groups were
established in general secondary education. Teachers were “lucky” if their classes
were big enough to form three separate groups, which led to more homogeneous set-
tings in terms of ability. If not, they were left with a heterogeneous class and the task of
assessing the pupils according to their assigned level. Often, worksheets for three dif-
ferent groups were handed out or materials from course books at two levels were used.
If teachers did not have the time to plan a differentiated programme, open ended tasks
had to do the job. Academic secondary school teachers were less “fortunate”. They
were supposed to be teaching “high achievers” but in reality they have always had to
come to terms with relatively heterogeneous groups. Although the differences in ability
may not have been as great as in general secondary schools, they were still existent
and had to be dealt with. What all teachers always had to cope with, however, were
their learners’ differences in motivation, interests, styles of learning, experiences, and
social background. In this respect, German speaking countries followed the concept of
“Binnendifferenzierung”2 to individualise learning, while “äußere Differenzierung”
through streaming constituted more homogeneous groups, though for the same rea-
son.
However, the more recent understanding of differentiation is completely different from
the above. It is a way of thinking and a coherent philosophy about learning rather than
the mere production of resources for diverse groups. Although differentiation by speed
or ability still has its justification, there are now many more aspects that are to be con-
sidered if personalised learning should be the goal of differentiated instruction.
2 also called “innere Differenzierung“
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 3 | 12
Illustration 1: Learning styles (Jensen, 1996, p. 130)
The above picture explains without words why teachers should differentiate instruction:
all pupils are different; they have diverse preferred channels of intake, learning styles,
and brain development. They will only perform at their best if they are offered diverse
channels of input as well as varied opportunities to produce output. However, this does
not suggest that pupils should be spoon fed or that learning always has to be made
easy and pleasing. According to Jensen (1996, p. 6) life is not like that and our brains
are not designed for instruction – which aims at learning content that is made simple
and accessible – but for selection survival, because life will not offer a “Special Ed”
programme. Quite on the contrary, “[f]lexibility, hard work, adaptation, [and] compro-
mise are as important in learning as the subject being taught” argues Fleetham (2013,
p. 1).
Thus, differentiation should not be misinterpreted as the need to make things as simple
as possible to reach all leaners, but to thrive for complexity and challenge that is ap-
propriate and that will stretch all learners rather than limit them to tasks and activities
that are always “right”. Differentiation should be good teaching and a positive and
healthy attitude towards achievement, a philosophy that should be integral to all educa-
tional thinking and lesson planning, as well as school and teacher development.
Therefore, our first obligation is to harmonise standards based teaching practice with
best teaching practice. “Once those are aligned, differentiation – or attention to the di-
verse needs of learners – follows naturally.” (Tomlinson, 2000, p. 8)
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 4 | 12
The below statements are taken from Tomlinson’s list of beliefs and the philosophy of
differentiation as a way of thinking about the classroom and from Richards’ & Rodgers’
definition of competency based language teaching (CBLT). To reflect on the alignment
between the two, try to identify the statements as originally related to differentiation (D)
or CBLT. The solution and materials to organise a sorting activity with chopped up slips
can be found at the end of this chapter (see Appendix) and in a supplement on the
DVD (TM5.1).
What do the statements describe: differentiation or competency based language teaching? Fill in D or CBLT.
1 Students who are the same age differ in their readiness to learn, their inter-ests, their styles of learning, their experiences, and their life circumstances.
2 Students will learn best when the teaching focusses on what the learners are expected to do rather on what they are expected to learn about.
3 The differences in students are significant enough to make a major impact on what students need to learn, the pace at which they need to learn it, and the support they need from teachers and others to learn it well.
4 Students will learn best when teaching focusses on the functional and inter-actional perspective of language.
5 Students will learn best when supportive adults push them slightly beyond where they can work without assistance.
6 Students will learn best when language learning is connected to the social context it is used in.
7 Students will learn best when they can make a connection between the cur-riculum and their interests and life experiences.
8 Students will learn best when language is seen as a medium of interaction and communication between people who want to achieve specific goals and purposes.
9 Students will learn best when learning opportunities are natural.
10 Students will learn best when teaching and learning are adaptive to the changing needs of students, teachers, and the community.
11 Learning is more effective when classrooms and schools create a sense of community in which students feel significant and respected.
12 Students will learn best when they perform tasks typically required in real-life situations.
13 The central job of schools is to maximise the capacity of each student.
14 Students will learn best when they apply basic and other skills in situations commonly encountered in everyday life.
Table 1: Differentiation or competency based language teaching? Statements adapted from Tomlinson (2000, p. 6) and Richards & Rodgers (2001, p. 143)
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 5 | 12
E8 standards and the newly adapted curriculum provide a sound basis for the
WHAT and WHY of differentiation. The HOW is left to the teachers, who know best
about the needs and interests of their learners.
To differentiate appropriately for each pupil is a complex task and time consuming one.
Teachers have to be aware of the fact that time constraints and institutional conven-
tions may restrict their creativity and motivation to develop the best possible pro-
gramme for each child. When it comes to “compromising” the ideal learning plan, it is
always a good idea to develop the pupils’ independence and to help them think about
their learning, find materials or tasks that are “a bit too hard and not too easy”, and to
know where and how to seek help when needed.
“In this way, classrooms will differentiate themselves, the teacher becoming the pro-active provider of diverse engaging choices that the pupils thought-fully select, rather than being the dispenser of expert knowledge, differenti-ated to 3 levels, which the pupils attempt to absorb. [……] Because effective differentiation can be more about changing […] beliefs to do with classroom learning than about plugging a new activity into […] lessons. It's harder to change what we think than what we photocopy.” (Fleetham, 2013, p. 1)
Tomlinson and Imbeau (2011, p. 18) suggest that differentiation is the response to the
learners’ needs through aligning the content, product, and process to learner readi-
ness, interest, and learning profile.
This includes front-loading vocabulary (see lessons 1 and 7), targeted small group in-
struction (see lesson 8), materials that apply key ideas and skills to real-world situa-
tions (see lessons 4 and 6), varied teaching modes (see lesson 5), materials at varied
readability levels (see lesson 1), tiered activities and products (see lessons 7 and 8), or
varied resource options (see lesson 1), to mention but a few.
An overview of examples of differentiation based on student need by Tomlinson and
Imbeau is found in table 2.
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 6 | 12
Readiness Interest Learning Profile
Content • materials at varied readability levels
• spelling assigned by proficiency
• alternative presenta-tion methods
• targeted small group instruction
• front-loading vocabu-lary
• highlighted texts
• range of materials that apply key ideas and skills to a variety of re-al-world situations
• teacher presentations designed to link to stu-dents interests
• varied teaching modus (e.g. verbal, visual, rhythmic, practical)
• video or audio notes for students who learn better with repeated listening
Process • tiered activities
• mini-workshops
• flexible use of time
• learning contracts
• varied homework as-signments
• RAFT options
• expert groups
• interest centres
• supplementary materi-als based on student interests
• jigsaw
• independent studies
• interest-based applica-tion options
• RAFT options
• choice of working con-ditions (e.g. alone or with a partner)
• tasks designed around intelligence prefer-ences
• RAFT options
• blogs and vlogs to share ideas
Product • tiered products
• personal goal-setting
• varied resource op-tions
• check-in requirements based on student in-dependence
• providing samples of good student work at varied levels of com-plexity
• use of students’ inter-ests in designing prod-ucts
• Design a Day options
• use of contemporary technologies for stu-dent expression
• complex instruction
• varied formats for ex-pressing key content
• varied working ar-rangements
• varied modes of ex-pressing learning
Table 2: Examples of Differentiation Based on Student Need (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2011, p. 18)
With increasing insight into the learners’ readiness levels, interest, and learning pro-
files, teachers can differentiate more and more effectively. Thus, differentiation is an
exceedingly personalised process that cannot be replicated.
Nevertheless, the examples of successful differentiation on this DVD can still be mod-
els for any classroom and frameworks for differentiation can be applied regardless of
individual learner needs.
Taking into consideration that differentiation and competency based foreign language
teaching in English lessons both aim at communicative competence, a general model
for task development according to complexity, difficulty, and various levels of scaffold-
ing seems both meaningful and useful. For example, Fleetham’s Differentiation Wheel
seems to provide an appropriate model when planning guidelines for differentiation.
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 7 | 12
The Differentiation Wheel
As soon as teachers have selected or created a “Differentiation Wheel” (2013)3 they
share it with the pupils and explain how it works.
• First, individual pupils choose a task they consider easy and one that seems just a bit too hard for them.
• Then the pupils put all the tasks in order of easy to hard in pair work. • They compare the rank ordered tasks with their own selection and finally decide
on a task they can ‘just do’ and a slightly more complex follow-on task. • In the next step they carry out both tasks. • After completion the pupils find peers who have attempted the same tasks and
compare their results. They discuss if their predictions about hard tasks were correct and define how much progress they have made.
The templates below and in training material TM 5.2 have been adapted to be used in
the E8 context:
Diagram 1: Design Template 1 (TM 5.2)
To put the Differentiation Wheel into practice teachers will develop or select tasks that
focus on the target goal and that combine the specified learning outcomes. Simpler
combination tasks can concentrate on a reduced number of learning outcomes and
may also offer some help. More complex combination tasks provide challenges that do
BILDUNGSSTANDARDS E8 | Teaching videos and training materials 12 | 12
Appendix
1. Solution: odd numbers = Differentiation; even numbers = ‘Competency Based Lan-guage Teaching”
2. Thinking skills: Language activities grouped according to thinking skills at 4 levels
concrete - factual
RECEPTIVE
recognising words / phrases / sentences identifying concrete information at word / phrase / sentence level select(ive attention to) words / phrases / sen-tences of a concrete type
PRODUCTIVE
naming listing describing identifying who, where, when, what using telling, stating collecting, arranging, drafting (�drawing) memorising, reciting, singing copying, repeating
abstract - conceptual
INTEGRATING
summarising paraphrasing describing key parts describing relationships explaining understanding/describing how and why understanding/describing effects reporting
SYMBOLISING
using models using symbols depicting representing drawing illustrating showing tabulating (making diagrams) charting
analytical MATCHING
comparing and contrasting categorising sorting differentiating discriminating distinguishing creating analogies or metaphors sequencing
predicting judging deducing explaining phenomena in terms of concepts
ANALYSING ERROR
editing, revising, identifying errors or problems, evaluating, identifying issues of misunderstandings,
diagnosing
creative- critical
PROBLEM SOLVING
developing strategies hypothesizing on cause/effect overcoming problems generating ideas and plans
EXPERIMENTING/ INVESTIGATNG
implementing strategies describing and explaining cause/effect describing effects of varying conditions making predictions testing ideas and plans and reporting results present results and justifying them
