I remember as a child having the children in our classroom divided into reading groups. The best readers were in the A group and the worst ones were in the D group. Of course the letter D was quickly equated with the word dummy on the playground. The next year the school modified their approach by using colors instead of letters but everyone knew that the kids in the red group were the poor readers. The following year they changed to bird names … but of course it really didn’t matter what they called the group, all the kids knew who was in the smart group and who was in the dummy group.
So when I heard Rick Wormli speak about grouping kids in the classroom for differentiated instruction, it sent shivers down my spine. According to this theory students should be grouped according to their individual “learning styles” and given different instruction and assignments. Well we can rename it but it’s still labeling and it’s dangerous. Kids are very vulnerable and tend to believe what adults tell them directly and indirectly. There is such a plethora of learning theories around, I am not exactly sure on what basis Wormeli thinks kids should be grouped, but I did hear him say one clip that the teacher should know if the student is a visual, auditory or tactile learner. Some educational researcher’s have questioned this whole notion claiming that we are all a mixture of learning styles depending upon the message. Everyone is a visual learner if Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie is delivering the lesson and everyone is a auditory learner when we listen to a good joke.
Giving kids different assignments is also dangerous. Let’s say one person does a PowerPoint (or web page) and another does an essay and another does a video presentation for the class. They all learn the same material right? On the next assignment do we let them continue to do the same thing? Do we let little Jane do videos all year and then wonder why she can’t read and write? Do we let the shy little book worm hide in the corner and read books all year or do we challenge him to step out of his comfort zone and do a class presentation? Can we insist that he does a class presentation with out insisting that others do as well? Because he, and probably his parents, are going to think you are picking on him by making him do a presentation if nobody else in the class has to do it that way.
What if we have the entire class do an essay for one lesson, a web page for the next lesson and a video presentation for the third? With the children working sometimes in groups and sometimes individually. By having variety everybody will get some assignments in their area of strength and everybody will have to do something outside their comfort zone. Nobody is being labeled or unfairly singled out.
Wormeli says “fair isn’t always equal”, in my opinion, that’s a bit like inviting some friends over to your house for dinner and giving only the skinny ones dessert.
Hey Shauna – I realize that this blog is a place for you to sort your thinking, but wow, please understand you have grossly misinterpreted not only my presentation, but also differentiated instruction in general. This does a disservice to educators, parents, and students. Here are just a few responses to what you’ve posted:
ReplyDeleteGrouping students flexibly and temporarily is justified, research-based, and common sense. If you are a classical guitarist, I’m not going to make you sit through the first lesson of the E minor chord all over again while I teach those just learning how to hold a guitar properly. You’ll move on to advanced fingering and adagios. Homogeneous grouping is actually comfortable to most students – they want to be where the lesson meets their developmental need. They feel hurt and humiliated when it doesn’t. The scary part would be if a grouping was permanent – there was no chance to change groupings – and become a label as you suggest. Then, just like you, I would be upset by this. Temporary groups in which the teacher ceaselessly assesses students and creates dynamic membership over time works very, very well, and is preferred by students. Read up on this, you’ll like it.
In another example, we all would pull some students who were struggling in a math lesson to one side and do a mini-lesson with them as necessary to get them up to speed, then have them re-join the group when ready. No teacher on the planet knocks this practice as being insensitive to students or creating those monstrous reading groups you write about here.
If your classroom culture is one in which academic struggle is seen as virtuous and learning differences are strengths, then this should not be an issue. There is no labeling, no diminished experience. Relying on an outdated educational horror stereotype, you distort differentiation and would have us sacrifice compassionate, substantive learning. This makes little sense.
You’re right – we all learn in very common ways, so it is not necessary to always parse lessons into modalities, styles, intelligences, etc.. It’s important, however, that teachers remain mindful that some forms of accessing and processing of content have more sway with some students, especially in moments of struggle. It’s the pragmatist credo: Whatever works for students to be successful. One student brings a wealth of background to the classroom lesson, so he learns well with just a lecture and no visuals. Another student, however, has a limited background and needs a few more visuals – examples – a model to build – terms set to music, etc. – and he’s just as successful as the first student. This is not “shiver inducing” fearsome labeling students as one learning style over another, as you indicate. It’s being a sensitive, effective teacher.
‘More in the second response. – Rick Wormeli
Response Continued….
ReplyDeleteI have to ask this: Were you even at the seminar I did in St. Paul? Were you there and decided to zone out in a few places? Never in the whole seminar did I indicate, suggest, or declare that teachers let students do the same assignment all year long as you indicate in this post. In fact, no book on Differentiated Instruction indicates this. If you recall, I spent considerable time emphasizing the need to teach students a variety of ways to access and process learning, such a 6 or 7 ways to take notes, not just one way. Differentiated classes, when properly conducted, teach students to be autonomous and versatile, handling non-differentiated situations. Do not winnow this down to pre-conceived, ill-informed notions about differentiation. Your suggestion about the whole class trying a variety of assignments is great, but that’s not going to work in all situations. By this logic, everyone would have to sit through the lesson on how to reduce fractions to simplest terms in a math class because a subset of students needs to learn it, and we don’t want to single anyone out and make them feel bad. They don’t feel bad. They want to learn, belong, and contribute. When they can’t, that’s when they get upset.
You seem to really be commenting on the factory model of schooling that requires us to teach so many readiness levels in one room in one hour each day, and this is definitely a problem. We try to mitigate this negative approach to learning, however, because we teach everyone, not just the easy ones, and that requires thoughtful, flexible grouping from time to time.
As far as inviting a friend over for dessert goes, differentiating is much more like asking who would like coffee with their dessert and if so, what they would they like in it. I might offer ice cream with the pie, or I might make something gluten-free or lactose free for those with such concerns, but everyone would be able to fully engage -- without labels -- with the classical guitarist playing in the family room.
-- Rick Wormeli
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You are absolutely correct, I did not attend your presentation in St. Paul. I have however listened to your online segments and the webcast of your presentation in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately your book is not available at our local library.
ReplyDeleteDo you know of any universities, colleges or post secondary institutions that operate on this model?
I might suggest that you do a little reading on inclusive education in which children are all given the same learning goals, standards and assignments. You might find it interesting to find out how students feel when they are segregated and given "different work" even when done "dynamically". In inclusive education modifications to the lesson, when necessary, are done as invisibly as possible to preserve the dignity of the learner.
ReplyDeleteSo rather then having Joe and Jane go over to that table and re-learn fractions again while the rest of us move on to the next lesson, the teacher might privately arrange for them to stay after class for a little extra help.