The aim of this essay is to analyse the main strategies of differentiation employed within secondary science to aid effective pupil learning and to reflect upon its
Aspects of Differentiation within Subject Specialisms
The aim of this essay is to analyse the main strategies of differentiation employed within secondary science to aid effective pupil learning and to reflect upon its ability to achieve intended learning outcomes. The main focus of this study will be to evaluate the mode of differentiation by grouping and its interplay with various other forms of separation due to differences. Secondary data will be used to gain an overall perspective of methods of grouping and its implementation, attitudes towards the variety of grouping strategies and outcomes of the various approaches. Primary data will give an insight into various strategies in action and will aim to take an in depth look at aspects of differentiation within the science department of a mixed comprehensive school (school X). Research for this study includes primary data obtained during placement at school X, and secondary data from a variety of reference sources.
'We can define differentiation as any process which divides pupils into subgroups which are then exposed to different educational experiences. Differentiation then covers a great range of phenomena from the allocation of pupils to different classes, subjects, sets, streams, bands or tracks within the same school, to the different treatment of pupils in the same classroom.' (Smith 1981).
Differentiation by ability grouping has had a long history as a key practice within UK schools. The definition above points to a number of methods which have been employed in education over more than half a century. 'Streaming' was the favoured practice of the 1950's, and continued to dominate into the 1960's spreading beyond the realms of the secondary school into junior schools. Equality in education became the dominating policy of the 1970's and 1980's and thus a surge in the adoption of a mixed-ability grouping strategy was seen at this time. Ability grouping reappeared in the 1990's with government policy stating 'setting' as a preferable approach (Boaler et al 2000). 'Unless a school can demonstrate that it is getting better than expected results through a different approach, we do make the presumption that setting should be the norm in secondary schools.' (DfEE 1997)
'Streaming' involves placing pupils in a class within their year group with regard to ability. It encompasses all subjects, thus those deemed to be most able are placed in the top stream and will remain in this grouping for all subject areas and the opposite is true for those considered to be least able they will be placed in bottom streams for all subjects. Mixed-ability grouping is a complete contradiction to streaming, as the name suggests it is the formation of classes containing pupils of a varied mixture of aptitudes. 'Setting' like streaming is also a form of ability grouping but involves allocation to the most appropriate class with regard to ability within a particular subject specialism. (Capel et al 1995)
The 1990's evolution of grouping from mixed-ability to sets may have occurred for a number of reasons, suggestions include; schools perception of the 1988 Education Reform Act as constraining, teachers views that mixed-ability teaching became incompatible with the tightening grip of the national curriculum, the assertion that 'setting' is a popular ideology with middle class parents and the DfEE consensus that mixed-ability grouping was failing to address the needs of every child (Boaler et al 2000). Regardless of the origins of the change ability grouping is now widespread within secondary education in accordance with the White Paper 'Excellence in Schools' (DfEE 1997) which stated that by 2002 'we will have all schools setting pupils by ability'.
In practice it was noted by the Key Stage 3 National Strategy (2002) that, 'setting in Key Stage 3 science varies across schools' although they did indicate that, 'most organise Year 9 pupils in ability sets' and also that, 'more than half of all secondary schools organise Year 8 into ability sets'. The science department at school X appears to follow the approach of the majority of schools its grouping policy is one of ability setting at the Year 8 level (Appendix 1).
Even though 'setting' is now customary practice within mainstream secondary schools it must be pointed out that the process by which it occurs is of great diversity (Ireson et al 2002). Ireson et al point to a number of practices associated with pupil placement with the most common being the use of internal school tests and examinations. In addition to these sources of information teacher judgement, pupil behaviour, motivation and social relationships were also influential factors. Observations and discussions with staff at school X reveal that it uses similar practices to those pointed out in the study by Ireson et al. Internal school tests are carried out at the end of each module and this in association with classwork, homework and teacher judgement form the predominant basis for grouping. Appendix 2 a-c gives an indication of assessed work within a mixed-ability Year 7 group before setting. The sample shows the degree of variation in ability within a class before placement, pupil A who obtained the highest mark on the internal test attained a place in the top set, pupil B with a mid range mark was placed in a middle set and pupil C who obtained a low mark was placed in a low set. The setting procedure at school X is constantly under review, assessments are commonplace after each module and continued evaluation allows for regular re-examination of the attribution of pupils to particular sets.
Appendix 2 also highlights one of the major difficulties of mixed-ability grouping and advantages of setting. The degree of variation in ability observed within the provided sample gives an indication as to the difficulty faced by a teacher attempting to teach pupils at either end of the ability spectrum within the same class. A recent study of teacher's opinions towards ability grouping indicated that there was an overwhelming consensus that teaching and classroom management were aided by setting (Hallam et al 2003).
The DfEE stated in 1997 that, 'mixed-ability grouping has not proved capable of playing ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Appendix 2 also highlights one of the major difficulties of mixed-ability grouping and advantages of setting. The degree of variation in ability observed within the provided sample gives an indication as to the difficulty faced by a teacher attempting to teach pupils at either end of the ability spectrum within the same class. A recent study of teacher's opinions towards ability grouping indicated that there was an overwhelming consensus that teaching and classroom management were aided by setting (Hallam et al 2003).
The DfEE stated in 1997 that, 'mixed-ability grouping has not proved capable of playing to the strengths of every child.' (DfEE 1997). Setting at that time was seen as the answer to raising levels of achievement (Capel et al 1995). Although more recently with the setting policy very much in place it has been found that, 'There is no clear statistical link between the extent of setting in schools and the attainment of pupils' (OfSTED 2001). Research is drawing attention to the possibility that setting not unlike mixed-ability grouping is besieged by its own concoction of intricate problems. There is a question mark over the ability of schools to accurately place pupils in the correct set, it has been indicated that factors other than ability and attainment may be influencing the procedure and creating room for error. These additional levering factors have also been indicated as contributory to the formation of unbalanced groups with regard to social class, ethnicity and gender (Ireson et al 2002). Tomlinson (1987:106) reports that, 'Factors related to class, gender, ethnicity and behaviour can be shown to affect the placement of pupils at option time, even those of similar ability.'
Compounding the concern that pupils are being placed in the wrong sets is the worry that once attributed to a particular set there is little scope for movement. It has been asserted that there can be practical difficulties accompanying group movement, constraints such as group size and curriculum organisation may factor. Also a lack of general in school assessment may contribute. The lack of scope for movement is thought to be of major concern when considering pupil motivation, the opportunity to advance to a higher set is thought to be a considerable motivational factor to those within the lower sets (Ireson et al 2002).
In addition to the effect on motivation concerns have been raised as to the effect setting may have on self-esteem and general school self concept. Much research has focused on the inequities of ability grouping especially for the students within the low sets increasing awareness of the inadequacies of the system and its perpetuation of low self esteem and poor general school self concept for these pupils. This has for a long time been seen as an unfortunate symptom of the ability grouping process and has generally been brushed aside for the more favourable view that setting is advantageous and enhances the experiences of top set pupils. Recent research however has begun to bring to light what has been described as the 'top set effect'; this has been accredited to negative effects of pressure causing anxiety and unhappiness for some pupils placed in high groups (Boaler 1997). Teacher's opinions were found to be in agreement with the view of low self-esteem developing in those of low attainment they also believed that these pupils were in danger of being alienated and this situation cultivating difficult behaviour. They were nevertheless in disagreement as to the affects on high achieving pupils they retained the view that grouping was beneficial for these pupils and maximised their attainment also shielding them from negative peer pressure (Hallam et al 2003).
There appears to be the risk of considerable problems with both mixed-ability grouping and setting. The DfEE's concerns that mixed-ability grouping was failing to address the needs of every child (Boaler et al 2000) would not be misplaced if also attributed to setting. Certain areas in both methods of grouping need addressing to ensure optimum success. The Key Stage 3 National Strategy 2002 highlights factors which may encourage greater success for setting they include, 'close teamwork, cooperative planning and careful monitoring by science staff to make sure that pupils can move from set to set as their progress demands and that expectations for all pupils are suitably high' (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk). It may be pointed out that to address the needs of every child a more individualistic approach may be required whatever the adopted grouping strategy (Postlethwaite 1993). Ireson et al 2002 also points to this fact and stresses that, 'Teachers may need to be reminded that sets are not homogenous'. Thus in addition to differentiation by grouping other forms of differentiation with a more in depth regard for the individual must take place. If it is to be taken into account that even in a setting environment groups 'are not homogenous' (Ireson et al 2002) then consideration as to whether or not a pupil may need to be given a separate task or if a different outcome needs to be expected should be taken into account. This problem was highlighted by OFSTED, 'secondary schools need to give attention to matching work more effectively to the knowledge and skills of pupils of different abilities' (OFSTED 1993).
'Differentiation by task involves students within the same classroom either receiving different tasks or using different routes to complete the same task' (Hall 1997). This strategy was observed in practice at school X, separate worksheets were used to provide the same learning outcome for all pupils and were mainly used as an aid to pupils of lower ability, those with literacy problems or those who were struggling to keep up with the pace of work of the rest of the class. This form of differentiation by task was employed both within a class and between sets. The use of such worksheets was observed in a year 8 middle ability set (Appendix 3a,b,c and d). It was a single period lesson and was an addition to the national curriculum scheme of work: unit 8L: Light, the lesson involved learning the parts of the eye and how light travels through the eye. The lesson began with closed questions regarding the work that had been carried out in the previous lesson, all pupils responded well and were keen to answer questions. A model of the eye was then used to demonstrate the appearance of the inner eye and to indicate the names of the different parts. The model was also utilised in explaining the path light takes through the eye, how and where an image is focused and how the information passes to the brain. Worksheets were then handed to the class by the teacher, appendices 3a and b were handed to the majority of the class with the exception of two pupils who had difficulties with literacy and were given appendices 3c and d. From looking at the worksheets the differences are obvious, 3a provides detailed descriptions of the different parts of the eye this sheet is coupled with 3b where detailed labels are expected on the diagram. Alternatively 3c has a much more basic layout with word cues already in place, the crossword that follows has descriptions in a simpler form using basic language. The same learning outcome is intended regardless of the worksheet received. When closed questions were used as a plenary successful learning outcomes appeared to have been achieved for all pupils. Differentiation by task appeared to be successful in the situation described at school X although there is a lack of provision with regard to worksheets for pupils at the more able end of the ability spectrum.
After several weeks observations at school X the opportunity arose to teach the aforementioned year 8 group a similar lesson to the one described above. It was a single period lesson from the national curriculum scheme of work: Unit 8L: Sound and Hearing (Appendix 4), the lesson involved learning the parts of the ear and how sound is conveyed through the ear and transferred to the brain (Appendix 5). A starter of closed questions was used to review the work of the previous lesson on how sound travels through different substances. This was followed by a description of the anatomy of the ear using a model and this was built on using a PowerPoint slide to describe how sound vibrations pass through the ear and transmit to the brain. Worksheets were then distributed using the same protocol as the observed teacher; designated worksheets with more basic language were given to the pupils with literacy difficulties. In addition to these sheets extension question sheets were prepared for the more able pupils in the group who were working at a faster pace (Appendix 6). As in the observed lesson questions were used as a plenary exercise to review the work covered, all pupils were willing to impart answers to these questions and it was therefore concluded that objectives had been met (Appendix 7).
Differentiation by task appears to work as a successful strategy at school X no problems were encountered in either the observed or taught lessons. A greater use of extension sheets for more able students may need to be addressed if their needs are to be fully catered for. This positive outcome however is in contradiction to a number of research studies, such as Hall (1997) that found this method of differentiation caused, 'students to become demotivated and even damaged as they appeared to perceive themselves as different from their peers'. The perception of being different and being labelled within the class as being of lower ability was seen to not only demotivate but have a strong effect on self-esteem, this was proposed as a possible cause of declining behavioural standards (Hall 1997). The same study also made suggestions that differentiation by task should where possible be replaced by a mode of peer collaboration to alleviate problems encountered. This suggestion was also made by Turner and DiMarco (1998), 'the focus of much science work on group activity allows some pupils who are weak in certain skills to be supported by their friends'.
'Differentiation is not simply about providing an extension worksheet for the faster pupils and a different worksheet for the slower pupils' (Turner and DiMarco 1998). Neither is it solely a matter of grouping pupils with regard to ability, as stated by Postlethwaite (1993), 'children differ from one another in a great variety of ways, many of which are relevant to their work as pupils in school.' The 1988 Education Reform Act highlighted the need for use of various teaching approaches to encompass the variety of learning styles. Differentiation of pupils by learning styles is a popular conception with educationalists and is strongly linked with the modality theory of learning styles and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (Klein 2003). The modality theory suggests that there are differences in the perceptual channels through which pupils learn and that different groups learn through different channels and this needs to be accommodated for to maximise learning. Gardner's theory is broader than this and suggests there are 'eight cognitive modules' or eight different intelligences an individual is thought to possess a unique profile of intelligence with differing strengths and weakness in the different modules (Klein 2003). The eight intelligences laid down by Gardner are: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist. His theory was not originally developed to become an educational framework but has nonetheless become an influential educational tool (Hopper and Hurry 2000). Gardner himself stated in the Times Educational Supplement (March 1995) that, 'the best possibility is when teachers use MI theory as a way of looking at kids more carefully. I'm interested in whether it helps people notice differences they haven't seen before.'
In utilising multiple intelligence theory to realise the individual and the individual's needs emphasis must then be placed on encompassing the variety of learning styles within set teaching strategies. This is emphasised by Bourdillon and Storey (2002) who suggest that Gardner's theory, 'reminds us that a 'one size fits all' method of teaching and learning is unlikely to produce uniformly high learning gains in classrooms'. Although a 'one size fits all' method may not be a successful strategy in practical terms devising a lesson to envelop eight different intelligence modalities is stretching the realms of even the most inventive teacher. This limitation was taken on board by Keogh and Naylor (2002), 'although teachers may not be able to plan to meet individual preferences, offering a broad range of learning styles will be helpful to all pupils'.
A survey carried out among year 8 pupils at school X gave an indication of learning styles through choice of activity (Appendix 8). A choice of activities covering a range of multiple intelligence modalities were included on the survey and pupils were asked to put activities in order of preference. Pupils within set 1 gave a high priority to practical and computer work, those in set 3 also favoured practicals but also placed poster creation as a preferable activity, set 5 had slightly different preferences moving away from practical work to select posters, videos and computer work (Appendix 9a-c). The results indicate a high priority for kinaesthetic and visual tasks rather than linguistic activities. However the survey is but a brief snapshot to give an indication of the variety of learning styles which can be found within any one year group.
The investigation has taken into consideration a number of methods of differentiation namely grouping, task setting and learning styles. With regard to grouping, extensive discussion and evaluation of the research available fails to appropriate a clear preferable technique of group organisation. The general consensus from the point of view of teachers is that setting provides a preferable environment to achieve learning goals (Hallam et al 2003). This is however purely based upon what is perceived as a more congenial teaching situation and fails to take into account other issues raised such as the creation of low self-esteem for low ability pupils and anxiety for high achieving students (Boaler 1997). Differentiation by task setting appeared successful within the confines of limited practical research secondary studies viewed this method with a greater air of caution gathering worrying findings as to the effects on low ability pupils (Hall 1997). Focusing on individual differences with regard to learning style appears to attract considerable praise and seems to be a method that can only enhance the quality of education within the classroom although it may have its limitations within the stringent framework of the national curriculum. In overview differentiation is summed eloquently by Turner and DiMarco (1998:110),
'Adopting a differentiated approach to teaching is a matter of being on the lookout for opportunities to guide, encourage and support your pupils in as many ways as possible, using whatever resources, processes and tactics seem appropriate.'
References
Boaler, J. (1997) 'When even the winners are losers: evaluating the experiences of 'top set' students' in Journal of Curriculum Studies 29(2) 165-182
Boaler, J., William, D. and Brown, M. (2000) 'Students' experiences of ability grouping - disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure' in British Educational Research Journal 26(5) 631-648
Bourdillon, H. and Storey, A. (2002) Aspects of Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools. Routledge
Capel, S., Leask, M. and Turner, T. (1999) Learning to Teach in the Secondary School (2nd Ed.). Routledge
Department for Education and Employment (1997) Excellence in Schools.
Hall, S. (1997) 'The problem with differentiation' in School Science Review 78(284) 95-98
Hallam, S. and Deathe, K. (2002) 'Ability grouping: year group differences in self-concept and attitudes of secondary school pupils' in Westminster Studies in Education 25(1) 7-17
Hallam, S. and Ireson, J. (2003) 'Secondary school teachers' attitudes towards and beliefs about ability grouping' in British Journal of Educational Psychology 73 343-356
Hopper, B. and Hurry, P. (2000) ' Learning the MI way: the effects on students' learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences' in Pastoral Care December 2000 26-32
Ireson, J., Clark, H. and Hallam, S. (2002) 'Constructing ability groups in the secondary school: issues in practice' in School Leadership and Management 22(2) 163-176
Keogh, B. and Naylor, S. (2002) 'Dealing with differentiation' in Amos, S. and Boohan, R. (2002) Aspects of Teaching Secondary Science. Routledge
Klein, P. (2003) Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternatives to 'learning styles' and 'multiple intelligences'' in Journal of Curriculum Studies 35(1) 45-81
Office for Standards in Education (2001) Standards and Quality in Education: the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools.
Postlethwaite, K. (1993) Differentiated Science Teaching. Open University Press
Smith, I. (1981) 'Educational differentiation and curricular guidance: a review' in Educational Studies 7(2) 87-94
Tomlinson, S. (1987) 'Curriculum option choices in multi-ethnic schools' in Troyna, B. (1987) Racial Inequality in Education. London
Turner, T. and DiMarco, W. (1998) Learning to Teach Science in the Secondary School. Routledge
Wellington, J. (2000) Teaching and Learning Secondary Science. Routledge
Framework for Teaching Science: Years 7, 8 and 9 (2002) www.standards.dfes.gov.uk
