A Critique: Deferential Differentiation1
A Critique: Deferential Differentiation: What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want?
Student Name
Course Information - Number
Nipissing University
For
Dr. Thomas Ryan
September 16, 2015
Introduction
Differentiated instruction is the modification ofcurriculumis [UA1]to suit the individual students’ learning needs and preferences. Differentiated curriculum is the modified curriculum that results from the differentiated instruction[UA2] (Kanevsky, 2011). This curriculum is modified to suit each individual student’s learning needs and preferences. Differentiated instruction and curriculum are important as students[UA3] do not all learn in the same method as other students. Students have their own preferences for how to learn, and should therefore be given the opportunity to be educated the way they most efficiently learn.
Dr. LannieKanevsky is an associate professor of the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. Focusing on cultural-historical concepts Dr.Kanevsky studies the development of gifted children with regards to their quality of learning. Her article: “Deferential Differentiation: What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want?” was published in 2011 in the National Association for Gifted[UA4] Children. This study was on the differentiated curriculum needed to suit[UA5] the needs of gifted students within classrooms.Kanevsky’s thesis statement is[UA6]:“Deferential differentiation occurs when curriculum modifications defers[UA7] to students’ learning preferences by recognizing and including them in the design process” (2011, p. 279).
Summary
Kanevskybegins her[UA8] article by stating that teachers have the responsibility of designing and implementing a differentiated curriculum for the students. She notes that students are also able to help in discovering learning techniques. The author states that because class sizes are increasing along with the diversity within them, it is more difficult to meet the individual needs of students[UA9] (Kanevsky, 2011, p. 280). Because of this, the teachers are able only to make small changes to the curriculum in order to suit the classroom even though larger changes may be necessary to ensure that the students are learning efficiently.
Kanevskysuggests one option to make differentiated instruction more manageable: “learning preference surveys” ([UA10]p. 281). These surveys would give students options to choose the way they would like to learn, thus reducing the amount of work for the educator. Kanevsky notes that deferential differentiation of the curriculum includes every individual student’s need for being involved in theirlearning (p. 284). The author’s next point is that learning preferences and style differ according to the individual. She notes that the two are very different. Learning styles are traits that remain the same; whereas learning preferences vary depending on the situation the learner is in (Kanevsky, 2011). She goes on to discuss how the characteristics of the student aligns with the learning experience. Differentiated curriculum is modified to fit the student’s learning needs. Kanevsky’s study focused on differentiation forms as presented by Maker, another researcher. She concludes her study by saying that the individual student is the most suitable person for analyzing differentiated curriculum. Students and teachers are able to find a place of fairness within the classroom in regards to all of their needs and desires (Kanevsky, 2011).
The researcher conducted the study using[UA11] 646 grade 3-8 students. These students came from a school district in Canada[UA12] and one in the United[UA13] States. These students completed a survey that used a 5-point Likert scale (Kanevsky, 2011).This was an ethical study in that no [UA14]harm was caused to the students. The researcher ensured that the students were able to understand the questions by having educators and students previously review the questions. The survey was administrated by the regular school staff (Kanevsky, 2011).This helped ensure the students were in a comfortable and familiar situation.
Evaluation
Kanevskylays a strong foundation [UA15]by discussing the learning preference surveys that teachersused during the research to determine from students their preferred method of learning. This helps the reader develop an understanding of the research Kanevsky conducted, and how the surveys had been implemented. Important, pertinent terms that may be uncommon to the audienceare clearly defined[UA16]. In addition to this, she distinguishes the differences between differentiated curriculum and differentiated instruction[UA17]. Before administrating the survey, the researcher had a pilot group to ensure the language was suitable for the students. Changes in the language were made based upon the pilot group (Kanevsky, 2011). The pilot group helped ensure that the students would understand the questions, making the results more reliable.
Weaknesses of the study include the research limitations. Kanevsky conducted her study only in suburban areas (Kanevsky, 2011). To broaden the research, she could have researched urban areas. [UA18]Kanevsky could have also studied more than one school district in Canada and the United States. This would help the results be more transferable[UA19] to other populations. Kanevsky separated the students who were classified as gifted students and those who were not. As she noted, there could have been gifted students in the non-gifted group but they had not been identified as so [UA20](Kanevsky, 2011). The results could have been different if all of the gifted students were tested separately from those who are not gifted[UA21].
The author did use appropriate methods to gather data. The Possibilities for Learning surveys were administrated by the student’s regular teacher or a coordinator from the school. These surveys asked students their preference for learning experiences. The students used a 5-point Likert scale system (Kanevsky, 2011). This was an appropriate method since it was simply asking what the students [UA22]liked about their learning environment, the content they were learning, and the learning processes (Kanevsky, 2011). Since the author’s objective was discovering the student’s individual preferences for learning, the survey covered every aspect of the learning experience in the classroom.
The evidence used by the author was accurate[UA23]. Kanevsky concludes that the students, both gifted and those classified as not gifted, did support the curriculum differentiation by Maker, the researcher who discovered how to implement curriculum differentiation. In this section, their results were similar. Kanevsky notes that this does not mean that they should have the same curriculum, however (p. 281). The learning preferences differed from those classified as gifted and those classified as not (Kanevsky, 2011). This was expected since some students learn at a faster pace than others. The [UA24]students had the opportunity to say how and what they would like to learn within the classroom (Kanevsky, 2011). This shows that students have individual preferences, as was expected.
The author leads the reader to the same conclusion as she was led to. Kanevsky says, “In classrooms, the individual is the most appropriate unit of analysis for differentiating curriculum. The best practice is to assess and respond to each student’s learning preferences rather than applying the outcomes of this study to nonparticipants[UA25]” (p. 282). The conclusion is drawn that students should have the opportunity to voice their desires and needs in their learning. The author continues to say that teachers should not have to cater to each individual student’s needs, but the student needs to be able to learn in other ways and this will benefit them in their lives (Kanevsky, 2011). Kanevskyfound it applicable to draw a compromise with the teachers and the students. This leads the reader to the same conclusion as herself in that although students have preferred methods of learning, they need to be able to learn in other ways in order to work with others in their future (Kanevsky, 2011).
Dr. Kanevsky built a logical argument. She says, “s[UA26]tudents come to school to learn more than just subject matter; they come to learn to be learners[UA27]” (p. 289). Although students have preferred methods of learning, they must be able to adapt to others. Teachers and students can find a balance between the student’s desires and what the teacher thinks they need (Kanevsky, 2011). Kanevskyis fair to provide the students with the opportunity to voice their desires, while maintaining structure. This allows the teacher to still have control of the room, while providing them the opportunity to serve her students’ desires. Kanevsky’s concluding argument is “reciprocal relationships and caring are keys to successful deferential differentiation and effective collaboration…” (p. 280[UA28]). This is a sound argument to make in that students and teachers need to work together in order to have a good learning environment. Teachers need to serve their students’ learning desires, while students need to respect their teacher’s structure and learning strategies.
There is not a lot of evidence for a counter-argument. Some would argue that the individual student’s desires should be the motivating factor for what that student learns.Kanevsky, however, makes an excellent point in saying that students will have to be in other learning environments and be involved in other learning strategies throughout their lives. Students are there to learn how to learn (Kanevsky, 2011). Kanevsky does agree with the critics who say the individual student should be at the center of the learning as she states: “the individual is the most appropriate unit of analysis for differentiating curriculum” (p. 282). The author leaves room for counter-evidence by saying that more research could be done on self-determination in terms of students working in only areas they are passionate about or have an interest in (Kanevsky, 2011). Research could be done[UA29] in this area to provide a counter-argument for Kanevsky.
The article appears to still be valid[UA30], as not much newer research has been conducted on differentiated learning within classrooms. One study conducted in 2012 shows how teachers implement differentiated learning in their classrooms. One example entailed having “learning targets” for the students to reach. The students had charts on what they needed to work on, as designed by the teacher. This study’s solution was for teachers to create standards that the students are able to reach (Dobbertin, 2012). This confirms Kanevsky’s argument that students have different learning needs (2011). The students are able to set goals for themselves and the teacher helps them meet it (Dobbertin, 2012). More research could be completed on how to implement differentiated learning within the classroom. This could help confirm or dispute work previously done. It could also provide teachers with practical ideas of how to properly implement differentiated learning within their classroom.
Dr. Kanevsky was successful in making her point. She discussed how students are able to assist in discovering how differentiated curriculum could be implemented in the classroom. She also discussed how each individual student’s learning preferences could be incorporated into the curriculum by the students and the teacher working together to achieve learning (Kanevsky, 2011). This fulfills her thesis by explaining how different learning preferences could be incorporated into the classroom. The teacher still has control of the room, while the students are learning to learn (Kanevsky, 2011).
Conclusion
I agree with Kanevsky’s argument to a point. [UA31]I agree that the individual student’s learning desires and preferences need to be included (Kanevsky, 2011). I do not agree that [UA32]students are at school to learn how to learn (Kanevsky, 2011). It cannot be denied that students need to take in information in various ways from a variety of forms, however I think[UA33]students need to discover how they learn best on their own. For example, students should be given the opportunity to experience hands-on learning, listening to teachers explain the topic, researching the topic themselves, or another way that the students can think of. While it is important for students to learn in ways that are not comfortable for or your preferred in order to prepare for future situations, I think it is also important for students to conduct most of their learning in the way they learn best. This would help ensure that students are gaining the most out of their learning. I do agree with Kanevsky’s idea of how to incorporate every individual student’s needs into the classroom (2011). With approximately 30 students in each class, there needs to be a balance. Students need to learn how to sacrifice their preferences to make the teacher’s job easier as well as to serve his or her fellow students. Therefore the author makes a sound argument in how to find the balance in the classroom by including multiple learning styles within the classroom.
The article is very detailed and provides some ideas of how to incorporate differentiated learning within the classroom. The article has sound arguments, and the author had experience in the field of research before conducting this research. The author, or perhaps future work, could provide more practical ideas and resources for how to implement differentiated curriculum in the classroom.
References[UA34]
Dobbertin, C. B. (2012). “Just H[UA35]ow I Need to Learn It”.Educational Leadership, 69(5), 66-70.
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential D[UA36]ifferentiation: What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279-299.
[UA1]awkward
[UA2]omit .
[UA3]what level ?
[UA4]Gifted Child Quarterly
[UA5]meet
[UA6]suggests,
[UA7]?
[UA8]omit gender
[UA9]logical
[UA10](p.#) yr would follow name = APA
[UA11]with 646 participants (volunteers)
[UA12]province ?
[UA13]state?
[UA14]As ethical approval was granted by the University
[UA15]Includes a historical background via the literature
[UA16]good
[UA17]ok
[UA18]ok
[UA19]generalizable
[UA20]omit
[UA21]ok
[UA22]could all students read the ? – if not it is a limitation – was there a pilot study ?
[UA23]valid – many types of this
[UA24]traditionally
[UA25]omit – see APA
[UA26]s
[UA27]omit
[UA28](p.#) APA
[UA29]ok
[UA30]what type ?
[UA31]changed
[UA32]why explain
[UA33]believe
[UA34]bold
[UA35]lowercase
[UA36]lowercase