Big Idea: Before I can implement differentiation supports for my students that will lead to increased intellectual autonomy, I need to find out what my students actually need from me. Here, I interview my students and discover that differentiation by process would serve them best.
Roadmap:
-
Background
-
Data Analysis
-
Connection to Literature
-
Reflection and Next Steps
References: Bender (2012), Ford (2012), Government of New South Wales (2021), McCombs (2010)
Background
Key Idea: Before I could begin differentiating instruction for my students, I needed to make sure I understood what exactly my students needed through group student interviews.
​
After analyzing Artifact 3, I solidified my theory – that I could leverage differentiation to foster my students’ intellectual autonomy. Although I had already gathered various research sources on how that differentiation might look, I thought it might be best to learn about my students’ needs directly from the source. I already had this concern during Artifact 1 when I was gathering hard data regarding my students’ academic levels. How could I truly support my students if I did not reach out to them directly to discover their needs?
​
I decided to use student interviews to gather student-specific data on how I could help every individual student. Since I have quite a few students, interviewing every student seemed implausible. Instead, I landed on using group interviews in order to maintain a relatively close and comfortable setting, while still reaping time savings. I chose four questions to ask that would give me insights into how they currently feel about my teaching, as well as what kinds of support they would like to see moving forward. Both of these aspects are important; in order to improve, I not only need to know how to improve, but also what my baseline is.
​
Data Analysis
Key Idea: Although my students' responses show that they already feel quite supported in my class, they provide a lot of insight into what further kinds of differentiation would be most helpful for advancing my students' intellectual autonomy.
​
Looking across the groups at the interview questions, a few trends start to emerge. In the first question, students showed that they currently already feel quite supported in my class. They like that I make it a positive, communal, and relaxed space (eg. responses 1, 2, 3), while still giving everyone the resources and attention they need to succeed (eg. 1, 6, 9, 19, 22). In the second question, they hit the same point – that I’m willing to spend time with students to ensure that they understand the material (eg. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18) while still having high expectations of them (eg. 7, 13, 19).
​
The third and fourth questions were actually pretty similar in nature, but I posed both of them because they framed what I wanted to know – how I could further support my students – in two different ways. I hoped to elicit further knowledge by asking both questions, which indeed happened to be the case. I learned about many different ways I might differentiate in my support for my students; some students need to be more physically active (eg. student 2), some need physical accommodations (eg. 9, 10, 22), some need more time (eg. 3), some need more organization (eg. 6), some need more detailed explanations (eg. 7, 9), some need additional practice (eg. 2, 3, 7), and some need more collaboration (eg. 5, 17, 18).
​
It was interesting to see how my students mostly thought I was doing a good job, but still had some requests for differentiated supports I could give. That shows me that they care deeply about their own learning and want to make sure they are as successful as possible. Looking at what kinds of supports they wanted, there were some commonalities across the students, but overall the biggest pattern was that they each needed some kind of individual differentiation. This shows me that the group interviews were indeed a good idea. The differentiation data I collected in Artifact 1 gave a much more shallow look at my students’ needs. Without diving deep into their individual observations, perceptions, and requests, I would not be able to incorporate appropriate and effective differentiation in the future.
​
One of the biggest takeaways of this artifact is that teaching and learning really do require those important interpersonal connections. I could look at school data on my students all I want, but I would be unable to figure out how to best support my students. Talking to them is the most direct and effective way to find that information out, even if it might take more time. However, I also must acknowledge that my interviews were somewhat constrained. Because I did not have time to connect with every student individually, I could have missed out on additional supports that they might desire, but are not comfortable saying in front of their peers.
​
Connection to Literature
Key Idea: Drawing on Bender (2012), Ford (2012), the Government of New South Wales (2021), and McCombs (2010), my students' intellectual autonomy would benefit most from differentiation by process, since my students learn in different ways and would greatly enjoy having choices in their learning.
​
Nevertheless, the group interviews give me a lot to think about. Since Phase 2 of my research is focused on group-level differentiation, I need to find ways to categorize my differentiated supports in a way that makes sense for my students. To do so, I turn to the literature. Bender’s book (2012) is a valuable resource here. It discusses multiple ways to group student needs together, such as by content, by process, and by product; or by physical, procedural, or cultural structures. Similarly, the Ford (2012) article suggests grouping differentiation strategies based on content, process, product, or affect. And finally, the Government of New South Wales (2021) recommends differentiation by challenge level, by complexity, by resource availability, by learning outcome, by procedure, or by end product.
​
These three sources are actually quite similar. Many of their recommended group-level differentiation strategies are the same at their core, with slight modifications to name or enactment. For example, one theme is differentiation by process. Bender recommends giving students alternate avenues to complete assignments; Ford recommends letting students choose how they want to work; and the Government of New South Wales recommends offering different procedures through which students can work. My task, then, is to figure out what kinds of group-level differentiation works best for my set of students.
​
Looking over the responses to my interview questions, I believe I should indeed start by differentiating based on process. Some of my students learn aurally, some visually, and some tactilely. Some prefer to work alone, and others in groups. Some like to watch me enact a task before they follow along, and others like to jump right in and explore for themselves. By differentiating between groups of students based on the processes through which they learn best, I can ensure that they feel comfortable with how they are learning. This, in turn, helps them to become more autonomous because they themselves are choosing what processes they utilize to reach the end goal. According to McCombs (2010), providing students with these kinds of choices is instrumental in further nurturing their natural motivations and intellectual autonomy.
​
Reflection and Next Steps
Key Idea: This artifact has given me insight into the specific kinds of differentiation that would most benefit my students, so the next step is to enact those differentiation supports to gauge their impact on intellectual autonomy.
​
This artifact was incredibly useful to collect because it gives me direct insights into what my students need from me. Furthermore, by analyzing it through the process of writing, I can see so many connections between this and my previous artifacts (notably Artifact 1), as well as with the various literature. By analyzing the responses question by question, I was able to determine group-level trends that lend themselves to group-level differentiation based on the frameworks I discovered through my research.
​
I am now ready to enact Phase 2 of my research – group-level differentiation for my students (by process), with the end goal of promoting intellectual autonomy in knowledge acquisition, application, and creation. I have the resources I need to create lessons that incorporate group-level differentiation. The next step is to see if these supports do actually lead to increased student autonomy, and if there are any unforeseen shortcomings that I may need to address as I progress through Phase 2 and begin thinking about Phase 3, or individual-level differentiation.