Seminar:
Questions before Answers
I have always learned most effectively by doing. While I can remember what I read or am told, for me to be taught through hands-on experience is to be taught in a different and deeper way. I will not just remember: I will learn.
Term II provided the opportunity to uncover and analyze--through a series of formative assessments--how one particular student learned, and how applying this information could benefit her in the future. This experience led me to question how I could provide a similar level of attention to an entire class. I began to wonder how small group instruction, coupled with formative assessment, could be used to differentiate instruction throughout a classroom.
However, as I focused in on my question, I remained far less comfortable with the notion of answering it through teacher research. My challenge was twofold:
-
understanding what teacher research is;
-
envisioning a feasible way to implement it in a classroom.
It was not until I read Stremmel’s (2012) and Britton’s articles that I grasped what teacher reasearch is, and how manageable and beneficial it could be.
My professional experience is at nonprofits, not in classrooms. Before beginning TEP, I had never taught. Following college, I spent three years working at a food bank in Southern New Jersey. While at the food bank, I designed and implemented a monthly mobile pantry program.
I ultimately developed five distinct pantries located across three counties, each of which served a unique population. I planned and attended each distribution. I observed and tracked everything, from the number and size of families in attendence to which commodities were prefered in which communities. I made adjustments between each distribution. Each month, I repeated the process.
Overtime, the distributions improved and better met the needs of the clients.
As I read Stremmel’s and Britton’s articles on teacher research, this experience was not far from my mind. I realized that my process had shared the essence of teacher research, that I had undertaken it and experienced the benefits. And while I had undoubtedly worked hard, it had been manageable. Suddenly, something clicked.
I had both my question and a method for trying to answer it.
Looking for Answers
Following Term II, I reflected that the time that I had spent working closely with my student had enabled me to learn as much about myself as a student of education and future teacher as it had about her as a learner. Above all else, I gained a deep appreciation for the importance of formative assessment in establishing an effective learning environment. While summative assessments such as unit tests “measure what students have learned at the end of some set of learning activities”, formative assessment “involves the use of assessments…as sources of feedback to improve teaching and learning” (How People Learn, 140). The subject-based assessments that I conducted during Term II were all formative. As the authors note in How People Learn, “given the goal of learning with understanding, assessments and feedback must focus on understanding, and not only on memory for procedures or facts” (140). As I worked closely with my student, I was able to gain a wealth of information about her comprehension. I learned not only what she seemed to comprehend, but also how she seemed to comprehend it.
Howard Gardner, in his theory of multiple intelligences, conceives of intelligence as a composition of various skills and areas of strength. For example, an individual can exhibit areas of intelligence as diverse as:
-
linguistic;
-
spatial;
-
interpersonal;
-
intrapersonal;
-
body-kinesthetic.
Within the theory, while “all humans partake of each intelligence to some degree, certain individuals are said to be ‘at promise.’ They are highly endowed with the core abilities and skills of that intelligence” (28). However, “while some individuals are ‘at promise’ in an intelligence, others are ‘at risk’” (28). This condition can be critical to education because, “those at risk in an intelligence will be most likely to fail tasks involving that intelligence. Conversely, those at promise will be most likely to succeed” (29). Fortunately, Gardner (Chapter Two) asserts that:
Under the multiple intelligences theory, an intelligence can serve both as the content
of instruction and the means or medium for communicating that content. (32)
If instruction and assessment is structured exclusively around/in consideration of one intelligence, it may be an inaccurate way to gage a learner’s abilities or advance his or her learning and achievement.
Gardner’s theory has helped me both in understanding my own learning and aiding that of the students with whom I have had the opportunity to work. I firmly believe that differentiated instruction is important for all students. I know that I work and learn differently from others. Although I have succeeded in school, I do not presume that my learning style is superior. For whatever reason, it has enabled me to succeed in my classes. Who can say that a different learning style would not have proven more successful?
I believe that all students can—and should—be viewed as diverse learners. Each child has his or her own strengths and faces his or her own unique challenges. My goal as a future teacher is to understand each student’s individual needs so that I can teach as effectively as possible. I intend to be mindful of what I ask students to do, how I am asking them to do it, and why. Ideally, all students should have the freedom to learn in the most effective way possible.
The real challenge seems to be in allocating time and resources equally to best serve all students, regardless of learning style or ability. Reflecting on my experiences to this point has lead me to believe that small group instruction, coupled with formative assessment, may be a feasible way to differentiate instruction throughout a classroom. Going forward, I intend to address this question through teacher research.
During Term III, I wrote, taught, and reflected on four small group lessons: one for literacy, one for math, one for science and one for social studies.
Gardner’s theory was not far from my mind as I wrote and taught my Term III lessons. For each lesson, I attempted to incorporate a variety of modes of instruction. I employed visuals, graphic organizers, and manipulatives whenever possible. I sought to provide options for the students.
My overarching goal was to supplement/compliment what the students have been learning in class. This took different forms for each subject.
-
I developed my literacy lesson to reinforce a concept that the classroom teacher had recently introduced.
-
As with literacy, my social studies lesson was written for a broad cross-section of students.
-
I planned my math lesson to provide additional exposure to and practice with the concept for a small group of students I had been supporting in the classroom.
-
My science lesson in particular was planned to supplement the curriculum, by allowing a group of students—who had demonstrated a high level of ability and interest—to engage in a deeper exploration the concepts being covered in the classroom.
Differentiating my lessons in this way provided much for me to analyze. Reflecting on my experiences confirmed my original belief that small group instruction may enable appropriate differentiation within a larger classroom. However, I have also realized that I had overlooked a critical component of my question. Specifically, I had not fully comprehended that writing and teaching my lessons would be as much about me as it was my students.
Based on my observations and analysis, I believe that the content and structure of my lessons overall was both solid and effective. The changes that I would make are management based and logistical.
Perhaps the clearest lesson that I have learned in teaching my Term III lessons is that expectations are critical to maintaining focus and attention. This was especially evident during my literacy lesson, which I taught first.
During the lesson, I sought to follow established classroom routines and procedures for behavior and participation, which I reviewed with the students as we began. I had assumed that this would be sufficient in terms of setting expectations. However, I quickly realized that this was not the case.
Periodically, some students became distracted and went off task. At these times I attempted to redirect and refocus the group by reminding them of the expectations. I also made a point to acknowledge students for following directions. While the students seemed to respond to these efforts in the moment, the effect was short lived; I needed to pause multiple times, detracting from the flow of the lesson.
In retrospect, I should have anticipated this difficulty. While I have been present in the classroom since September, I am not the classroom teacher. As such, it proved necessary, especially after removing the students from the classroom, to set expectations clearly. While debriefing my lesson, my observer suggested that it would have been more effective to display the expectations in writing. She explained that this would serve as a constant reminder to the students and allow me to reference the expectations more subtly. I agree with this assessment completely.
Moving forward, I plan to continue examining the role of small group instruction as an effective and feasible way to provide appropriate differentiation to a class as a whole. One differentiation strategy that I would like to explore is tiering.
According to the NSTA, individual lessons can be differentiated in terms of content, process, or product. Students then work in groups, which may be defined by readiness, learning profiles, and/or interests.
Through the lens of teacher reasearch, I also intend to examine my own teaching and development.
I have always learned most effectively through hands-on experience. While student teaching, I have a unique opportunity to do, and I do not intend to waste it. Through my experience and reflections, I will not just remember: I will learn.
Graphic Original
Inspired by: http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=48723