Big Idea: Before I can link differentiation to intellectual autonomy, I must first explore the needs of my students. Here, I discover categories of differentiation I can enact, and I devise a plan for differentiation moving forward.
Roadmap:
-
Background
-
Data Analysis
-
Connection to Literature
-
Reflection and Next Steps
References: Bender (2012), Ford (2012), Betts (2004)
Background
Key Idea: I collected school data on my students so that I could better understand their specific needs for differentiation.
​
When I first started my foray into my inquiry, I was confused about where I might start. There are essentially two main concepts at play: differentiation and autonomy. How could I go about analyzing the impact of the former on the latter? The solution soon became clear – I would have to have some sort of baseline for each, before I could enact any kind of practical experiment that would inform my understanding of their relationship.
And thus, I decided on my first artifact: a data-driven attempt at collecting information about the differentiated needs of my students. I started by collecting general information such as name, gender, race/ethnicity, and grade level. Then I moved onto the truly important information – the potential needs of my students. Using the school district’s student data, I found out which students had learning disabilities, and which students were English language learners. I then recorded their grades from quarters 1 and 2, as well as their Star standardized math test scores. Finally, I decided to include data on any preexisting health conditions, as well as records of attendance, since they might deeply impact student learning, and thus student needs.
​
Data Analysis
Key Idea: I have students who would benefit from various kinds of differentiation, including special education students, English language learners, those who are often absent, and those lacking in foundational math skills.
​
My first impression of the data is that I appear to have students with a wide variety of needs. Student 2 has an IEP; students 24 and 26 are English learners at different WIDA levels; students 16, 17, 21, 23, and 25 often have their education interrupted by absences; and students 1, 4, 7, 15, 22, and 26 have low Star math scores under 1000.
What stands out is that it appears as though my classroom would benefit most from differentiation geared towards students who may be lacking in foundational math skills. Based on the data alone, I only have one student with a learning disability, and two students who are English learners. However, I find this to be very surprising. In particular, I have heard from various other sources – other teachers, students’ parents, and students themselves – that some of my other students also have learning disabilities (eg. students 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 22, 27) or are English learners (eg. student 15).
​
On its own, the data seems to show that the current level of differentiation in my classroom is at least passable. The only students that have failed at least one quarter (16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25) are exactly the ones who have a significant number of absences. However, I am unable to draw the conclusion that the differentiation I provide is sufficient. Grades are often a biased indicator because they are only a proxy for measuring true understanding and content mastery.
​
In fact, all of the data collected in this artifact needs to be taken with some skepticism. Although I have collected “hard data”, such data often fails to show causal relationships or underlying factors. As I have already mentioned, IEL and ELL classifications are not always entirely accurate; course grades can fail to accurately measure student learning; and standardized test scores do not always provide a true view of students’ level of foundational math skills. Nevertheless, I can use the data as a starting point to begin thinking about general categories of differentiation I might want to enact, being careful not to silo individual students into one category or another.
​
Connection to Literature
Key Idea: Drawing on Bender (2012), Ford (2012), and Betts (2004), I can best serve my students by providing specific differentiation supports for those who need it most, while still enacting group-level differentiation for all students.
I have already begun to draw some connections with the pre-existing literature found through my academic research. For instance, Bender (2012) describes how students with slight to moderate learning disabilities may not always be classified under an IEP. Bender thus recommends leveraging differentiation in the classroom for all students. Although I can pay additional attention to student 2 to ensure that they are able to access class material given their learning disability, I should also be careful to not neglect potential needs of my other students. In fact, Ford (2012) says something similar about English learners. Some students may have proficient enough English to no longer qualify as English learners, but they could nevertheless still benefit from ELL-differentiated strategies.
​
All of this research ties into the differentiation framework introduced by Betts (2004). Betts recommends two levels of differentiation – group-level differentiation enacted by the teacher, and individual-level differentiation that focuses on students’ individual circumstances. Based on the recommendations by Bender and Ford, I would serve my students best by enacting individual-level differentiation for all of them. However, this may or may not prove feasible given time constraints in the classroom.
​
Instead, I can apply the learnings from Betts’s framework to the data I collected on my students. First, I can provide individual-level differentiation to the students who need it most – that is, the students who have needs significant enough to be detected by formal systems such as IEP/ELL classifications. Then, I can enact group-level differentiation for my other students, so that I can continue to address their learning needs as well.
​
Reflection and Next Steps
Key Idea: This artifact has helped me to devise a plan for differentiation moving forward, but I would like to first corroborate my findings by reaching out to my students directly.
​
Analyzing this artifact in writing, alongside the research I’ve gathered, has proven especially useful in helping me to develop my plan moving forward. By synthesizing student data, learnings from multiple sources, and my own knowledge of systemic issues, I have been able to develop a rough plan for how I might pursue differentiated instruction in the classroom.
​
I have several next steps from here. First, I want to find a way to address the potential inaccuracies with the data I’ve collected in this artifact. In essence, I may need another source to corroborate the information. My current plan is to get directly in touch with my students, since they are likely to know their own needs best. Second, I still need to address the second half of my inquiry – my students’ perceived level of autonomy, and how I can help them to increase their autonomy via the differentiated strategies I’ve gathered thus far.