Edited by

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DIFFERENTIATION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES 11that the more able and less able pupils in the group were inadequately cateredfor; in some cases, even the middle group remained under-challenged becauseexpectations of the notional average underestimated what pupils were reallycapable of achieving.Although mixed-ability classes were not the sole target of criticism, theproblem was noted to be particularly acute in mixed ability situations becausethe range of ability was so wide.It was surprising to find that in a large number of cases mixed abilityclasses were taught as though they were homogeneous groups. The work wasusually pitched at a level thought appropriate for the majority of the class,and inevitably this was unsuitable for pupils at each end of the spectrum.Sometimes, the level aimed at was below what the average pupil could attain,and the result was a slow pace, undemanding work and generalunderachievement.(DES 1978a p. 49)However, teaching to the middle was observed to be a common practice,whatever the mode of grouping. Grouping by ability, per se, was not a sufficientbasis for ensuring that pupils abilities were appropriately provided for. A giftedchild was not catered for, simply by being placed in a top stream or set (DES1977), nor were the least able children necessarily appropriately helped bybeing taught together in a selected group:They frequently had the advantage of being taught in smaller classes, withthe possibility of receiving greater individual attention, but theprogrammes offered to them were seldom successfully pitched at a levelwhich both retained interest and demanded worthwhile achievement.(DES 1979 p. 40)Where explicit steps had been taken to adapt teaching to accommodatedifferences within a teaching group, these had in many cases succeeded only incatering for a different pace of working. HMI noted, too, that the use ofworksheets and individual assignments often had the effect of reducingopportunities for genuine intellectual challenge, for using personal initiative andfor engaging in independent thinking:Even when they were genuinely matched to the abilities of pupilsandthis was rarethe assignment sheets had certain disadvantages. They hadto be explicit to enable work to proceed without reference to the teacher,and as a result were often over-directive and reduced opportunities forpupils to think for themselves and to use resources. For the same reason, theytended to over-emphasise transfer of information and to encourageintellectual conformity rather than intellectual curiosity and independence
12 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?of thought. By asking for a written response to a written stimulus theyreduced opportunities for discussion, with the result not only of limitingprogress in oral skills but also of restricting opportunities for thedevelopment and understanding of concepts that can arise through talkinground a subject.(DES 1978a p. 54)In setting their expectations of pupils, teachers needed to bear in mind that moreable pupils often disguised their capabilities from teachers, levelling theirperformance down to the average of the group. The limitations of the teachersown experience could also lead them to underestimate pupils potential:A not inconsiderable number of teachers had no experience of the level andquality of work that can be achieved by able pupils in setted or streamedgroups, and found it difficult to appreciate their potential and meet theirneeds when they encountered them as individuals or as a small minority ina mixed group.(DES 1978a p. 51)Equally, it was important to ensure that children perceived as less able werenot underestimated and given an impoverished curriculum, either because oftheir weaknesses in the basics or because it was felt that they could not copewith challenging tasks:It is not merely a matter of seeing that a range of subjects appears on theirtimetable but that they, as much as any other children, maintain contactwith stimulating experiences. Academically less able pupils need to haveplenty of opportunity to exercise their imagination and reasoning powerthrough a variety of subjects.(DES 1984 pp. 446)Thus, HMIs concern about lack of differentiation in teaching was in effect aconcern about entitlement and opportunity at all points of the notional abilityrange. What was being proposed did amount to quite a significant departure fromteachers existing practice. It involved a concerted effort to develop practice attwo levels. At the level of method, the task was to introduce greater variety andflexibility into teaching approaches in order to cater for differences (here definedin terms of notional ability), and in a way that would genuinely enhance thequality of learning opportunities provided for all children. At the level ofexpectation, the question was how to ensure that demands made on pupils weresufficiently challenging: neither underestimating their capabilities nor makingunrealistic demands that would prevent them from participating fully and gaininga sense of achievement in their work.
Page 2 and 3: Differentiation and the secondary c
Page 4 and 5: First published 1996by Routledge11
Page 6 and 7: v10 Integration or differentiation?
Page 8 and 9: viiTABLES7.1 Language Project topic
Page 10 and 11: IntroductionSince the late 1980s, t
Page 12 and 13: INTRODUCTION 3Chapter 2 looks at ho
Page 14 and 15: INTRODUCTION 5difficulties. Barbara
Page 16: Part IWhat is differentiation?
Page 19: 10 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?my own w
Page 23 and 24: 14 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?treatmen
Page 25 and 26: 16 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?Many put
Page 27 and 28: 18 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?goal of
Page 29 and 30: 20 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?been org
Page 31 and 32: 22 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?thinking
Page 33: 24 WHAT IS DIFFERENTIATION?develope

Edited by

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?