Description:
Slavin (2012) starts out this chapter by stating, “effective instruction takes a lot more than good lectures” (p. 250), and the perfectly describes the purpose of this chapter. From groups to technology, the decisions we make in our classrooms on a daily basis have a direct impact on how our students progress.
Analysis:
Because there are many different components to effective instruction, teachers look to different models to determine what best suits the needs of their students. John Carroll described that idea that there are different components to teaching, and these different components need different amounts of time allocated to them depending on the situation. The QAIT model stems from this idea and stand for quality of instruction, appropriate levels of instruction, incentive, and time. Savin (2012) states, “For instruction to be effective, each of these four elements must be adquate” (p. 251). This model requires that we as teachers consider all of the different types of students entering our classrooms. They are all coming from different backgrounds with different experiences and skill sets. Teachers really struggle with making adequate accommodations for so many different types of students. Savin (2012) notes that “accommodating instruction to student differences is one of the most fundamental problems of education and often leads to politically and emotionally charged policies” (p. 253). Different countries deal with this different, and in the U.S. it has changed over time. While students used to be assigned to different tracks, they are now sometimes grouped by ability within classes. Some students even have their own programs developed for them where they work independently at their own pace. Teachers hear about abilities and differences every day, and each solution comes with its own positives and negatives. Research on grouping students by class according to their abilities shows that it isn’t very effective. We have already discussed collaborative and cooperative learning, and the lack of that type of learning in these types of classes is one of the reasons for their downfall. When low-performing students are around other low-performing students, there are no good leaders and role-models for them to learn from. Additionally, measures that group students in these classes may be unreliable. In my school, I don’t see much class ability grouping, Instead, I see a lot of untracking, where the focus is on “placing students in mixed-ability groups and holding them to high standards but providing many ways for them to reach those standards” (Slavin, 2012, p. 256). Those who voice issues with untracking are not the parents of the low-achievers, but the parents of the high-achievers. They tend to think that this slows down the progress of their children in an attempt to speed up the progress of the others. In a mixed-ability class, within-class ability grouping is an option for teachers, and this is usually seen in elementary classes, especially in reading.
No matter how students are grouped, teachers must differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of everyone. One way to differentiate instruction is to use peer tutors. Savin (2012) states, “Research evaluating the effects of peer tutoring on student achievement has generally found that this strategy increases the achievement of both tutees and tutors” (p. 260). As we have all heard time and time again, “The best way to learn something thoroughly is to teach it to someone else” (Slavin, 2012, p. 260). Teachers can also tutor students.
Some students need more than just differentiation to be successful. For those students, programs are put in place to help them achieve everything they are capable of. Students are at “at-risk” fall into three categories: compensatory education, early intervention programs, and special education. Compensatory education programs “are designed to overcome the problems associated with being brought up in low-income communities” (Slavin, 2012, p. 263). The largest program that falls in this category is Title I, a name with which we are all very familiar. Title I, funded by the federal government, offers services to students who come from low-income families. Where compensatory education programs focus on remediation, early interventions programs focus on prevention. An example of an early intervention program is reading Recovery, a program that provides one-on-one reading tutoring to students in first grade. Comprehensive school reform programs are “schoolwide approaches that introduce research-based strategies into every aspect of school functions” (Slavin, 2012, p. 266). A popular CSR program is Success for All, which puts in focus in serving disadvantaged communities. This program provides tutoring, family support, and help with curriculum implementation. Savin (2012) states, “Longitudinal studies of Success for All have shown that students in this program read substantially better than do students in matched control schools throughout the elementary and middle grades and that they are far less likely to be assigned to special education or to fail a grade” (p. 267).
Technology also helps with differentiation and adds another important component to instruction. Computers, tablet, interactive whiteboards, and clickers are now commonplace in classrooms across the country. Since the integration of these devices is recent, there isn’t much research. However, there is no doubt that the Internet gives teachers many more opportunities to get students engaged in the material. Webquests, simulations, and ease of communication helps “students become active, creative learners” (Slavin, 2012, p. 273).
Reflection:
This was a very interesting chapter to me. I’ve always gone back and forth about whether or not I think students should be grouped by ability or merged in classes, and I definitely see the pros and cons to both. Honestly, I see it differently as a parent than I do a student. When students are grouped together, they learn from each other—in a perfect world. Yes, ideally the strong students raise the level of the class for the weak students, thus helping everyone. As a teacher, I know that this isn’t always the case. It is sometimes? Of course, but not always. Low-achieving students often come with behavior problems and a host of other issues that demand a lot of time on behalf of the teacher. I understand that teachers should differentiate and it shouldn’t matter, but the reality of the situation is that teachers don’t have enough time to plan 30 different lessons for each student in a class five times a day. If I consider each individual child, I’m planning for 150 different students in one day. This is impossible.
Like is the case with everything else, grouping really depends on the situation. Tomlinson (2015) outlines the social disparities that come along with tracking: “Tracking perpetuates class and race-based disparities as assignment to high track classes reflects a disproportionate number of White and mid to high income students and assignment to lower track classes reflects a disproportionate number of student of color and students from low income backgrounds” (p. 204). She also notes that when tracking occurs, there is often a rise on specific class choice. On the opposite end of the spectrum, she notes that “evidence also suggests that heterogeneous classrooms with focused attention to students’ varying needs, and in the context of high quality curriculum and instruction, can benefit a very broad spectrum of learners” (Tomlinson, 2015, p. 204).
This made me think of a situation we had in my school just this past year. The school used to let anyone join the gifted class as a part of the “honors” section of the class. Students who didn’t pass the gifted test but made good grades could opt for the challenge even though they weren’t gifted. Next year will be the first year that students can’t do this, and they are very upset. Students who aren’t technically gifted will be placed in the regular classes. They see this as unfair because they know that it won’t be as challenging and they won’t learn as much. This is disappointing, and I think a lot of this depends on the climate of the school and the teacher.
Now, I also see the other side of the equation. I’ve seen over and over again a strong student in a “normal” class help a struggling student “see the light,” and it is very rewarding for me, for the students—for everyone. There is something that I love about mixed-ability grouping that makes it the best way in my opinion: it is real world. In the real world students have to work and collaborate with all kinds of people, not just the people who are most like they are. In the article “Mixed-Experience Classes can work well together with a little Creative Thinking,” Debbie Block (2011) outlines the experience of a middle-school orchestra teacher and her struggles after she couldn’t divide her beginning and advanced students into two different classes. What did she do? She had them teach each other and found that her reminders to the advanced students to teach small things like posture “also made them look at their own posture and instrument position” (Block, 2011). In addition to the peer tutoring, she also gave the advanced students an independent assignment to ensure they remained challenged.
These readings definitely made me think about the different levels I have in my classes and encouraged me to utilize what I have to make the experiences better for everyone. In the future, I think I’ll use more grouping to ensure that my students have the opportunity to learn from one another daily.
References:
Block, Debbie Galante. 2011. "Mixed-Experience Classes Can Work Well With a Little Creative Thinking." Teaching Music 18, no. 4: 58. MasterFILE Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed June 25, 2016).
Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Society, 52(3), 203-209.
No comments:
Post a Comment