Session Information
99 ERC SES 04 K, Professional Learning and Development
Paper Session
Contribution
Introduction, Research Objective, and Context:
Handling differences in the classroom is complex for teachers. Both internationally and specifically in the Dutch context, the emphasis on adapting to differences among students in education is strongly emphasized, by both the Ministry of Education (Van Casteren et al., 2017) and the annual reports of the Education Inspectorate. This research aims to gain a better understanding of how teachers use various sources of information about the student and their development and whether teachers actively involve their students in dealing with differences in the classroom. By gaining a better understanding of the teacher's pedagogical reasoning, this can contribute to teacher education regarding handling differences in the classroom.
Theoretical Framework:
How teachers respond to diversity by deciding about the education of their students has been described by Richard Snow (1997) as an ‘awesome balancing act’ in which teachers continuously need to make decisions about when and how (or not) to adapt to the characteristics and needs of their students (Parsons et. al, 2018). Responding to what a student needs requires knowledge and skills to do this properly (Corno, 2008; Keuning et al., 2021). This is a complex process and there is little research available that specifically draws attention to what practicing teachers actually do to address student differences (Corno, 2008; Loibl et al., 2020) and on the basis of which information they make decisions for their educational actions (Gasse & Acker, 2023; Park & Datnow, 2017). The internal cognitive process of adaptive teaching and differentiated instruction can be perceived as a process of pedagogical reasoning. Loughran (2019) describes pedagogical reasoning as 'the thinking that underpins informed professional practice'. Based on information sources, teachers make decisions to differentiate. Differentiated education implies a proactive alignment of instruction and activities (Denessen, 2017). Additionally, teachers use adaptive education based on diagnostics of affective, cognitive, motivational, and socio-cultural variables of students. It is therefore essential for teachers to carefully collect and analyze the knowledge they acquire about students. Adaptive education can be shaped from different perspectives, one being curriculum-focused and contextual, requiring teachers to have diagnostic skills (Van Geel et al., 2019) and an understanding of the student as an individual to establish effective alignment between the student and the curriculum. Another perspective is student-focused, exploring the extent to which the student is a co-owner of the learning process.
Research Questions:
What information sources do teachers use to reason about differentiation decisions?
How do teachers reason with their knowledge of students to adapt their teaching to their students?
Method
A mixed methods sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2013) was used to collect and analyze the quantitative (teacher surveys) and qualitative data (interviews). The quantitative questionnaire data were analyzed to describe which sources of information teachers use in the different phases of the differentiation process. The information sources questioned are based on research by Jager et al. (2021). Prast et al.'s model (2015) was used as a framework for examining the use of information sources by teachers. With interviews, qualitative information was obtained about the pedagogical reasoning of teachers about how and why teachers use these sources of information to base their instructional decisions on. Research shows that the use of teacher-student dialogue can be beneficial for the self-reflective capacity of the teacher (Hudson-Glynn, 2019), getting to know the student better (Vygotsky, 1978; Hudson-Glynn, 2019) and autonomy of the student (Fletcher, 2012; Black & Mayes, 2020). The teacher survey therefore included questions on these three topics. To clarify the role of the student, the horizontal participation ladder of Smit et al. (2011) has been employed. This study was conducted with primary school teachers in the Western part of the Netherlands, a demographically diverse area with schools in both urban contexts and schools in suburbs and villages. 26 teachers, teaching grades 4 (age 7/8) to 8 (age 11/12), completed the teacher survey. 19 teachers were female, 5 were male and the amount of teaching experience ranged from a few months to 35 years. 13 of these teachers were interviewed, 11 female, 2 male. The participants completed an online questionnaire using Qualtrics. Teachers were asked about which information sources (study of the student's work, observation, teaching method-related tests, curriculum planning, teacher student dialogue, standardized test scores, student file, information from last year's teacher, teacher parent dialogue) and the frequency of use of these information sources to determine the educational needs of students, set goals, shape differentiated instruction and practice and evaluate the process and progress of students. Components of effective student consultation (timing, focus and purpose, teachers’ feedback and follow-up to pupils) as outlined by Morgan (2011) were added to the questionnaire. The data from the questionnaires have been summarized in frequency tables. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews, using a coding framework based on the topics used of the questionnaire. Here, a deductive approach was used with predefined categories serving as the basis for identifying themes in the collected data.
Expected Outcomes
Results and Supported Conclusions: In the differentiation process, teachers use various information sources to different extents and combinations in different lesson phases for differentiation decisions. The collected data on students are mainly used to infer educational needs. Less frequently, students are asked to articulate their educational needs themselves. Teachers mainly perceive students as 'research objects'; observed but not actively engaged in a dialogue. Although teachers express a desire to use the 'teacher-student dialogue' more often for shaping adaptive education, practical constraints such as time, group size, curriculum, materials, and space hinder its implementation. Teachers mainly tailor their approach to differences from a didactic perspective focused on gathering information for appropriate didactic choices and less from a social-constructivist perspective focused on actively involving students in their learning process.
References
Black, R., & Mayes, E. (2020). Feeling voice: The emotional politics of ‘student voice’ for teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 46(5), 1064-1080. Corno, L. (2008). On Teaching Adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, Incorporated. Denessen, E. (2017). Verantwoord omgaan met verschillen: sociaal-culturele achtergronden en differentiatie in het onderwijs. Universiteit Leiden. Hudson-Glynn, K. (2019). Lessons learnt by student teachers from the use of children’s voice in teaching practice. In J. Wearmouth & A. Goodwyn (Ed.), Student teacher and family voice in educational institutions (pp. 15 - 32). New York: Routledge. Jager, L., Denessen, E., Cillessen, A. H., & Meijer, P. C. (2021). Sixty seconds about each student–studying qualitative and quantitative differences in teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of their students. Social Psychology of Education, 24, 1-35. Kahneman, D., Frederick, S., Holyoah, K., & Morrison, R. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. J. Holyoak. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Keuning, T., van Geel, M., & Smienk-Otten, C. (2021). Differentiëren in 5, 4, 3...: Stem je onderwijs af op verschillen tussen leerlingen. PICA. Loibl, K., Leuders, T., & Dörfler, T. (2020). A Framework for Explaining Teachers’ Diagnostic Judgements by Cognitive Modeling (DiaCoM). Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103059-. Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: the foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 25(5), 523–535. Morgan, B. (2011). Consulting pupils about classroom teaching and learning: policy, practice and response in one school. Research Papers in Education, 26(4), 445-467. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 000-000. Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., Pierczynski, M. & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of educational research, 88(2), 205-242. Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2015). Readinessbased differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and teacher selfassessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 90–116. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd. Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2021). A review on the accuracy of teacher judgments. Educational Research Review, 32, 100374-. Van Casteren, W., Bendig-Jacobs, J., Wartenbergh-Cras, F., van Essen, M., & Kurver, B. (2017). Differentiëren en differentiatievaardigheden in het primair onderwijs. Nijmegen: ResearchNed, 2004-2006. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.