Setting and the need for differentiation?
Mar 26th, 2007 by Don Ledingham
I had an interesting conversation with a teacher today about there being little need to differentiate in classes which have been set (put into ability groupings for certain subjects e.g. maths, english)
Such an assertion must be based upon the premise that all pupils are placed (through accurate assessment) in the appropriate set and that the class - which might number 25-30 - are a homogenous group.
I’m interested in this point of view as I haven’t been able to come across any research which proves that setting is more effective than mixed ability classes. I have often heard the argument that setting makes the teaching process easier. Maybe that’s because there’s no need to differentiate? Or is there?
You always need to differentiate and I’ve never not seen a good teacher differentiate, even if it is just in the way questions are posed to some kids differently from others. Maybe it only seems easier to teach because we’re less conscious of making those differences but having mixed ability is better since it forces us to think more about the varying ways we might teach a concept - better for all concerned.
I too have yet to read compulsive evidence about setting in the primary sector. I have seen and been part of setting exercises before in maths and language and many of the teachers involved proceeded to further sub-set their already set group. No net measurable gain in attainment was achieved.
If you consider the management of a triple composite class for example, are you setting or differentiating? Or both…..
Am I right in thinking setting came ‘back into fashion’ as a result of HMI promoting ‘direct teaching’.
As Ewan states even within a set of 20 you’re still teaching 20 individuals but you can use direct teaching strategies. Anyone that’s taught a compostie class could write an endless list of advantages. I’m not sure with regard to secondary but am not convinced it benefits primary classes.
In the relatively narrow field of instrumental instruction, we have our equivalent of differentiation within setting - in ensemble work. This is especially true in large inter-school ensembles. A 32-person guitar group, for example, naturally falls into 4 x 8. Within any given section, there will be:
those for whom the part is just right
those for whom it is something of a challenge
those for whom it is a breeze
With the advent of score writing software, parts can be modified once rehearsals are underway – either to avoid distress or to sustain interest. In the case of the removal of notes, I feel that, time allowing, it’s better for them not to be there than to be there and omitted – one less thing to remember. Where do the extra notes come from for those finding life too easy? If possible, from the other parts.
I’m a big fan of the Critical Skills Programme http://www.criticalskills.co.uk/) - well the theory anyway. I’ve not been trained in it and not seen it in action!
Colin Weatherley describes the ‘Motorway Model of Differentiation’: designing learning materials at 3 levels of complexity - for ‘able’, ‘average’ and ‘less able’ pupils. ‘This approach is based on a simple, quantitative model of ability .. but many of the differences in abilities and learning preferences are complex and qualitative’. With this sort of ‘differentiation’, pupils grasp of knowledge can be relatively insecure because they are not bringing their strengths to bear on their own learning.
If we expect, and proved opportunities for, pupils to generate their own knowledge then learning for understanding is much more likely to occur. Here learners enagage in experiential learning, a collaborative environment, results-driven and problem-based learning - with feedback a fundamental component.
It’s hard to get this going - but once up and running, such an approach frees up the teacher to focus on those who are struggling: and that means ALL in the class (and if they’re not struggling at some point then we are not challenging them enough!!).
A pupil once said to me “even though we’re in the top set, we’re still all individuals”. Maybe they understand this better than the adults!
Having just put our whole school into Maths and Writing Sets with the specific aim improving pace and challenge (argh), I sincerely hope that folk who’ve found no improvement in attainment are going to be proved wrong. I certainly find I am working in a more targetted, analytical way and I think the children are generally working harder. Judging by our combined levels of exhaustion at the end of term, we must be putting more effort into school. I still find I need to differentiate, but in a slightly different way and I’m sure fast workers get a more challenging lesson. Does the success of setting depend on the type of school, then? I just hope that we ‘do no harm’ as I read on your blog. Now I’m not going to think about school for two weeks. Cheers. Jane.
A study we undertook suggested it was lots of other things that made a particular classroom organisation work and not the form of organisation per se. So where staff knew about effective teaching and learning, where they took risks, tried out new ideas, involved the pupils in their learning, valued pupiils etc etc then things were better and the form of organisation took a back seat.