Secondary School Teachers’ Understanding Of Differentiation Through A Plan-Teach-Reflect Process: Conceptions, Misconceptions And Implications

Author(s):

Mary Koutselini(presenting / submitting)Floria Valanidou(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 11 A, Differentiation, Performativity, and Gender Equality in Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

17:15-18:45

Room:

B217 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Jean Murray

Contribution

Differentiation has been defined as a pedagogical approach with which teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, and student products to address the diverse needs of learners and/or small groups of learners to maximize their learning opportunities in a classroom (Koutselini, 2008; Tomlinson, 1999). In addition, differentiation is actually a realistic response to the call for enhancing quality of teaching for all learners, and thus is considered an effective epistemological approach based on a constructive framework creating a teaching-learning paradigm (Koutselini, 2008), which seeks to respond to the contemporary European and international educational aims. Still, differentiation is an approach not theoretically and practically accessible to all in-service teachers, let alone student teachers (Holloway, 2000), who may seldom, if ever, experience differentiated instruction during their teacher-preparation programmes (Tomlinson, 1999). Thus, differentiated teaching and learning remains one of the biggest challenges (Konstantinou-Katzi et al., 2013) for both student teachers and in-service teachers (primary and secondary school teachers) to understand and apply in order to respond to the diverse learners in most classrooms. But, regardless of how challenging differentiation could be, teacher-education and teacher-training programmes should prepare teachers and equip them with both the practical (i.e. methods) and propositional knowledge (i.e. theory) (Thiessen, 2000) concerning differentiation. After all, the activity (or practice) of teaching comes prior to the actual role of the teacher (Macmillan, 1987), who should keep pursuing professional development.

This paper provides data-based accounts on secondary school teachers’ understanding of differentiation as has originated from their own experience, that is their own planning (lesson plans), enacting (school experience programme) and reflecting (written individual reflection) (e.g. Koutselini, 2010; Koutselini & Patsalidou, 2013) during the course “Theory and praxis of effective teaching” of the pre-service pedagogical training. Pre-service pedagogical training lasts one year and it is compulsory for all teachers who are appointed in the secondary education schools of Cyprus. Taking into account the fact that differentiation is not reactive, that is, it does not involve planning a lesson for everyone and trying to adjust it on the spot when it is not working, but rather proactive, in other words planning a lesson plan involves addressing learner variance and differences from the outset (Koutselini, 2008; Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Tomlinson et al., 2003), this paper examines both teachers’ planning (lesson plans) and enacting (active teaching) with regard to certain differentiation principles. In addition, it presents their reflections, since reflection has long been used in teacher-education and teacher-training programmes in various ways (i.e. reflective diaries, essays), thus encouraging student teachers to analyze their own teaching practice so as to consider its effectiveness (Adler, 1991). So, a plan-teach-reflect process was used during the course. Methodological and pedagogical issues arising from secondary school teachers’ conceptions and/or misconceptions are discussed in light of the divide between theory and practice (Koutselini & Persianis, 2000), something that the fields of curriculum studies and teacher education have long challenged, and the reflective paradigm of student teachers’ development.

Based on this conceptual framework, the aim of the paper is two-fold: firstly, to examine whether and how secondary school teachers understand differentiation through their planning (lesson plans), enacting (active teaching) and reflections on their own teaching during their school experience programme, and, secondly, to point out conceptions, processes, and misconceptions that prevent effective application of differentiated teaching and learning. Specifically, the paper answers the following questions:

(a) Is there any gap between lesson plans and active teaching of secondary education school teachers, and, if any, in what dimensions?

(b) Do their reflections on their teaching reveal any misconceptions or other limitations that restrict effective implementation of differentiated teaching and learning?

Method

The methodology is based on the model of grass-root analysis, that is, the idea of transferring knowledge and methodology from the persons actually experiencing a situation with a view to enhancing our understanding of whether and how critically secondary school teachers have understood differentiation of teaching through the analysis of their own data-based accounts. The main method used follows the self-reflective spiral of planning, enacting, observing, and reflecting, which is used in many courses included in teacher-education and teacher-training programmes. Three phases for a plan-teach-reflect project during the course “Theory and praxis of effective teaching” included in the secondary school teachers’ pre-service pedagogical training were designed, and concerned secondary school teachers’ involvement in groups of 3 to 5 in: (a) Planning a lesson based on differentiation, taking into consideration general teaching characteristics (e.g. general teaching skills, classroom management) as well. Teachers were asked to choose grade/level, lesson and subject according to their discipline (e.g. philology, science), taking also into account the school curricula. During this phase they were also asked to describe themselves teaching their lesson plan and write in detail everything they thought should happen during their communication in the real classroom. This was called “my teaching scenario”. (b) Enacting – teaching one lesson plan at schools. In this phase secondary school teachers were asked to get involved in active teaching where they taught one lesson plan at schools and received detailed feedback on their performance by their peers and the instructor who attended their lesson. (c) Reflecting upon the teaching practice focusing on specific methodological principles of differentiation and other issues regarding teaching. Secondary school teachers were asked to write individually a short reflection, at the beginning of the “classroom discussion on teaching”, pointing out “good” and “bad” incidents. At the end of the discussion, all of them had to reflect individually on their teaching by thinking “what I should do differently and why”. Therefore the data-based accounts obtained were: a) lesson plans, b) “my teaching scenario” documents, and c) short written individual reflections. Content, thematic and discourse analysis was performed on data in order to examine secondary school teachers’ understanding of differentiation principles and criteria in theory and practice.

Expected Outcomes

Secondary school teachers have no difficulty integrating differentiation in their lesson plans especially with regard to the range of instructional and management strategies they can use to differentiate certain aspects of teaching, for example, content and process. In some lesson plans, learners’ readiness is taken into account and thus some general differentiation principles such as mixed-ability grouping, respectful tasks and ongoing assessment are apparent. Additionally, most teachers describe the prerequisite, basic and transformative knowledge based on which they make an effort to respond to the needs of different students. They understand the connection between constructive teaching and differentiation but they have problems in implementing it. Thus, they do not always have a clear picture of what to differentiate (i.e. products) taking into account the learners’ variance. Yet, they plan different activities and use a variety of methods and material alternatively, as interesting teaching devices, but not as a means of responding to students’ style and readiness. Concerning their active teaching, they cannot always carry out differentiation effectively in class. For example, they may teach, at the beginning of the lesson, in front of the whole classroom, the prerequisite knowledge by having all students, including those who have mastered it to “wait or repeat”. In addition, they hesitate to use cooperative learning so as to reinforce differentiation due to many reasons such as the lack of training, experience, and perseverance. Concerning their written individual reflections, these are quite diverse in the nature of reflection, reasoning and pedagogical discourse put forth, especially with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the teaching practice based on differentiation. Findings are discussed in the light of the dialectical interplay between theory and practice and the reflective paradigm of teachers’ development pointing out a number of misconceptions which must be deconstructed during teachers’ education and training.

References

Adler, S. (1991). The reflective practitioner and the curriculum of teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 17(2), 139-150. Holloway, J. H. (2000). Research link: Preparing teachers for differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 82-83. Konstantinou-Katzi, P., Tsolaki, E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Koutselini, M. (2013). Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: An action research study in tertiary education.International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(3), 332-349. Koutselini, M. (2008). Listening to students’ voices for teaching in mixed ability classrooms: Presuppositions and considerations for differentiated instruction. Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 17-30. Koutselini, M. (2009). Teacher misconceptions and understanding of cooperative learning: An intervention study. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(2), 34-44. Koutselini, M. (2010). Participatory teacher development at schools: Processes and issues. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Action Research in Education (Vol. II, pp. 243-263). London, UK: Sage Publications. Koutselini, M., & Patsalidou, Fr. (2013). Project ID: EACEA-521386: Towards achieving Self Regulated LEArning as a core in teachers’ In-SErvice training in Cyprus. Report to the European Committee. Koutselini, M., & Persianis, P. (2000). Theory-practice divide in teacher education at the University of Cyprus and the role of the traditional values of the Orthodox Church. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 501-520. Liston, P. D., & Zeichner, M. K. (1990). Reflective teaching and action research in preservice teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 16(3), 235-254. MaCmillan, C. J. B. (1987). Defining teaching: Role versus activity. In B. Arnstine & D. Arnstine (Eds.), Philosophy of Education 1987, (pp. 363-372) (Normal, Ill, Philosophy of Education Society). Thiessen, D. (2000). A skillful start to a teaching career: Α matter of developing impactful behaviors, reflective practices, or professional knowledge? International Journal of Educational Research, 33(5), 515-537. Tobin, R., &McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3-9. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Personalized Learning, 57(1), 12-16. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119-145.

Author Information

Mary Koutselini (presenting / submitting)

University of Cyprus, Cyprus

Floria Valanidou (presenting)

University of Cyprus

Department of Education

Nicosia

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.