In my last blog I mentioned limiting teacher talk and as a result a colleague shared an interesting article on 4 Strategies to Model Literacy which also stresses the importance of limiting the amount of time teachers speak. Although this may seem logical, it is in fact very challenging; as a support teacher going into other classrooms as well as having my own classes, I understand why teachers often explain instructions far too detailed and go on and on. They are concerned students won’t do things right or feel things need to be explained further, so its out of concern rather than enjoying lecturing. I am constantly questioning the time I speak to my students as a whole class but have noticed I now explain things only once, use aids (board/projector) to support what I am saying and go round checking and answering individuals concerns, those who did not get it from the first moment. A great way to manage time better and keeping students engaged!
This method of limiting my talking time is also a form of differentiating as the second action of going around the class and checking or assisting the students who are not quite getting it provides them with the attention they need to get on with it. There are many ways to differentiate, many great books and links explaining ways but it is still something I believe many teachers struggle with. Conversations I sometimes have with colleagues are justifying the lack of differentiation by claiming limited preparation time, pressure to get through curriculum or that it is the job of the support teachers. Generally fair arguments but what is learning all about for each individual student if we don’t differentiate? Is it fair to just expect all students to perform at a given level? Should we only differentiate for the Learning Support or EAL students? Studies clearly suggest not and a simple Google Search on “differentiating in the classroom” can get you started.

In my grade 9 English Language Arts classes I need to differentiate a lot, so I am constantly searching for ways to do so besides reflecting on what worked or didn’t. Introducing thinking routines has also taught me to learn from my failures just as I expect my students to, and I happily share with students what I think worked or didn’t, just like I want them to share their ideas with me. Thinking routines create food for thought and discussion besides visualizing student thinking. However, not all students feel comfortable discussing openly in the classroom, even if I do my best to create a culture in the classroom where they should feel safe enough. Part of the problem is also some students still not being “educated” sufficiently to be able to discuss fairly and in a well mannered fashion which goes at the cost of others not sharing their thoughts comfortably. So while I am training my classes to discuss in a more educated form, I have started using technology to hold discussions silently.
Whilst supporting in grade 10 classes, I realized my fellow teacher was posting discussions on the course Schoology (a type of Moodle system for schools) page and getting students to comment and reply to poetry. I thought this was a truely great way to differentiate and discuss because students can take their time, prepare their comments and post them when ready. Setting time limits is important here. The pace is much slower than a open classroom discussion which may go way over the heads of Learning Support, unengaged or EAL students due to it’s speed. Grammarly is another useful tool here because some students can write their comments on it first and them copy and paste onto the course platform, avoiding language errors (spelling, punctuation, grammar). Here the cyber discussion allows everybody to discuss at their pace, while monitored by the teacher. By adding some criteria to the discussion and telling the class it is a formative assessment it also forces the less engaged students to take it seriously. All in all an easy yet great way to differentiate.

As you can see in the photo, the essential questions were: “what’s my body language while presenting?” and “how should I use my body when presenting?” Clearly not really content orientated. Nevertheless what struck me most throughout the class was the number of students who thought it was assessed and who had a hard time comprehending the idea of focusing on skills. Throughout the two classes I had a number of conversations explaining these things again and again. (And yes, at my school students are very used to and comfortable with being spoon-fed!)
However, though pressured, I continued by justifying to myself that these circumstances where beyond my control and I was on the right track. Towards the end of the novel I did a thinking routine:
Options varied from writing an essay, a letter to Orwell, rewriting/writing another chapter or more artistically making a voice-over video/PP or a collage/canvas, a poem, etc. Under guidance I gave the students the freedom to express themselves freely as long as they followed the criteria and rubric.
Those who chose more artistic approaches where clearly explained they needed to include a written aspect explaining their ideas, planning and so on. Once again the results were extremely positive and students who were not as strong in writing were able to demonstrate their understanding in other ways. The assessment was broken down a series of stages which allowed me to check and discuss progress with students and question or guide their thinking.
My G9 ELA are ready to start their next unit based around a Memoir by E.Wiesel, Night. As I did not want to start the novel before the winter break, I decided to create a non-fiction summary activity to introduce the dark theme of Holocaust and Genocide, coincidentally linking it to their Social Studies unit on Syria.
It was in the following class that the element of differentiation came into play. The librarian had selected a number of articles of different lengths and language complexity of which we selected three. The first being the shortest and simplest and the third being the longest and most complex from a language perspective. All three articles were either about Syria, Genocide and/or the Holocaust. Together with the Social Studies teacher and a Learning Support colleague we selected which student would summarize each article. I did not explain to the students in detail why they were all given different articles but needed to do so after the assignment as some questioned it as they are not used to this type of approach. At RAS unfortunately most teachers differentiate little and seem to think it is the responsibility of the support teachers, EAL or LS. This in itself is a point I strongly disagree with simply because in a classroom with students each individual learns at their own pace, is able to achieve to the best of his/her abilities and are not all at the same stage in the learning process; no one ever is. Support teachers can adapt tasks for specific learning needs but it is the subject teachers who should also play an important role in differentiating for all their students and not just provide one task for all.
After assessing the summaries, what surprised me most were two trends I observed. The first being that on the lower end students were not using their own words but copying from the text to different degrees, something that was discussed besides being in the rubric which they had read and checked for understanding earlier. The second trend was that on the higher end, even with a more challenging article the students mostly wrote outstanding summaries only forgetting minor details. The main one being to start the summary by mentioning what is being summarized, in this case an article of some type.

