Chapter 9: Grouping, Differentiation, and Technology

 

Description:

            Chapter nine provided an intensive overview of the various models that are used to group students for academic instruction. On this subject, Slavin introduces differentiation and provides various examples and models of how differentiation can be used to address the varying needs of students.

            The remainder of the chapter consists of describing how technology can affect student learning. Slavin provides various examples and models that schools and educators can consider using to help support and extend learning through integration.

 

Analysis:

            Chapter nine opens with a description of a break down of  a model of school learning. The various features of this model include quality of instruction, appropriate level of instruction, incentives, and time (Slavin, 2018). Slavin explains that these components are necessary for true internalized learning to take place (Slavin, 2018).

            Slavin moves to describe each of the components of the QAIT model of learning in more depth. Quality instruction is characterized by the actively engaging students in the content (Slavin, 2018). The content and lesson activities should be delivered in an intentional and logical way that promotes retention of information as well as the development of connections between a students’ experiences and the content (Slavin, 2018). To determine the appropriateness of the content, teachers should seek to a gain an understanding of their students’ level of mastery and adapt their lessons and learning opportunities to fit their students’ needs (Slavin, 2018). Teachers are encouraged to consistently check of understanding in order to make meaningful adjustments (Slavin, 2018). The incentive potion of the learning model is centered on how to motivate students (Slavin, 2018). Slavin provides examples of incentive types in this section (2018). The final section of this model is time. Slavin explains the differences in the two categories of time, allocated and engaged (Slavin, 2018). The author also warns that teachers should be proactive in controlling their time as much as possible due to the external factors that affect the flow of a classroom (Slavin, 2018).

            Moving on the next sections are focused on how to address the varying needs of individual students through grouping. Here Slavin expounds on the idea of tracking or sorting of students based on ability level (Slavin, 2018). Between-class tracking occurs when whole classes are created for students who all share similar attributes or ability levels (Slavin, 2018).  Slavin includes the criticism of between-class tracking. First, usually only high stakes test results are used to determine the ranking, lower ability students experience lower instructional quality and expectations (Slavin, 2018). Also, these students do not experience the positive effects of high performing or knowledgeable peer groups (Slavin, 2018). Finally, Slavin explains there is a stigma that often surrounds these lower tracked students which affects the classes learning experience and social-emotional perceptions/relationships (Slavin, 2018).  

            Due to the over representation of students from marginalized groups, stigmatization, lack of academic and social resources this consensus is that this type of track should be avoided (Slavin, 2018).  With this in mind, Slavin explains that an untracking approach should be made to help mitigate the negative effects of tracking (Slavin, 2018).

            Untracking refers to the creation of heterogenous groups that are held to high expectations and given various opportunities and strategies to reach mastery (Slavin, 2018). Regrouping can be a middle ground for student ability grouping. Regrouping is often used in math and reading content and is characterized by students participating in heterogeneous classes for most of the day, but are ability grouped in these content areas (Slavin, 2018).  Slavin also includes a description of the Joplin Plan which intermingles various age groups in a content area (2018).

            Slavin also discusses the within-class ability grouping method which is where a heterogenous class has homogeneous groups that allow for students to move in and out as they develop skills (Slavin, 2018).  This grouping methods has proven to be more advantageous at meeting students’ needs academically and social-emotionally (Slavin, 2018).

            Slavin included a section where student retention is discussed. It seems that research does not support the effects of retaining students (Slavin, 2018).  However, rather than placing a student into the next grade or retaining them, “…should be given special attention, diagnosis, and intensive interventions, such as tutoring, until their achievement falls within the normal range (Benson, 2014; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2014 as cited by Slavin, 2018).

            Moving forward Slavin explores differentiated instruction or personalized instruction is a method to help adapt instruction to help need the academic needs of students and helping them reach grade level performance, “Part of the idea of differentiation is that even though all students need to reach the same goals, some will take more time and others less time to do so” (Slavin, 2018, p.122). Apart of providing this instruction style is to allow students to redo various work tasks after instruction takes place (Slavin, 2018).

            Peer tutoring is one recommended type of differentiation (Slavin, 2018). There are two general types of same age and cross age tutoring (Slavin, 2018). Salvin maintains that research supports cross age tutoring more often the that same age model ( 2018). Tutoring must be directly taught how to be a tutor and have knowledge of the topic(Slavin, 2018). Beside peer tutoring, there is teacher tutoring has shown the most results regarding boosting student performance (Slavin, 2018). However, this is often difficult to consistently provide due to lack of resources (Slavin, 2018). Nevertheless, it has been shown that the investment in the one-to-one model is worth the investment (Slavin, 2018).  

            Moving forward, Slavin begins to discuss various factors that could influence a student’s academic success negatively. Students that are from unstable, low-socioeconomic environments or students that are exhibit some social or cognitive exceptionalities are consider “at risk” students (Slavin, 2018).  Slavin explains that students’ access to financial resources and their family dynamics are indicators of their academic performance (2018)}. Later in school these factors still play a large role in student achievement; however other factors such as behavior, attendance, retention, and reading levels begin to affect student academics (Slavin, 2018). In order to address and mitigate the effects of these factors various programs have been developed.

            Compensatory education programs are programs that are proactive in helping, “…prevent or remediate learning problems among students who are from low-income families” (Slavin, 2018, p. 226).  Slavin describes Headstart and Title I program are programs that are used to help intervene and reduce the effects low-income environments have on students and increase academic performance (2018). Research has shown that Title I programs show that in order for students to show significant and prolonged gains the Title I programs should be integrated throughout the school and into the curriculum (Slavin, 2018). Otherwise, implementing Title I programs in isolation or by using between-class grouping methods there is no significant nor prolonged change in student achievement (Slavin, 2018).

            Early intervention programs are programs are based on proactive and preventative methodologies rather than remediation (Slavin, 2018). The programs involve addressing the home environment and infanthood, “…emphasize infant stimulation, parent training, and other services for children from birth to age 5...” (Slavin, 2018, p. 226). These program shown to be effective in increasing student achievement and identifying student needs in a timely manner (Slavin, 2018).

            Comprehensive school reform programs are focus on integrating quality and research based strategies across all aspects of a school and a student’s learning experience (Slavin, 2018). Research shows that there is a noticeable affect on achievement for those students and families that participate in these programs (Slavin, 2018).  

            Research in summer school programs did not yield substantial or consistent results (Slavin, 2018). Those results became more positive when the school programs included tutoring within the program (Slavin, 2018).  Slavin explains that this is a program where students participate in both enriching and academic activities (2018). However, Slavin warns that summer school programs must have structured, intentional, and meaningful course work for students to engage with in order to be beneficial (Slavin, 2018).  Summer school is often associated with credit recovery or preventing learning loss for poorly preforming students or students from low socioeconomic environments (Slavin, 2018).

            Once Slavin discussed the various program models that can be used to support student learning they continued on to discuss the effects technology on education. Students are surrounded by technology despite their economic status (Slavin, 2018). Schools have moved from using CAI programs which yielded little benefit to a more robust integration of technology as a learning tool (Slavin, 2018). Slavin makes the comment, “…There is a tendency for school districts and government to invest in technology without a clear idea of how it will be used or what its outcomes are likely to be” (Schneider, 2011 as cited by Slavin, 2018).

            Slavin moves on to describe the various ways technology is used in classrooms and how it influences student learning.  Computers, tablets, and interactive white boards are materials that students often have access to that support their learning Schneider, 2011). Electronic response devices or “clickers” are beneficial in that they provide immediate feedback on student responses (Slavin, 2018). Research shows positive results in student engagement and performance when these items are used to support learning (Slavin, 2018).

            Learning technology consists of numerous categories such as word processing is where students compose written work using a word processing program  (Slavin, 2018). Spreadsheets are used more by adults to collect and data and create visual representations of the data (Slavin, 2018). Databases are are collections of information that can be used for references and research (Slavin, 2018). Computer assisted instruction, or CAI programs are programs that provide learning and practice opportunities to students at various levels (Slavin, 2018). Drill and practices programs provide immediate feedback but can quickly lose their novelty (Slavin, 2018). Tutorial programs are CAIs that are designed to teach or support the learning of new material (Slavin, 2018). Finally, instructional games are basically a gamification of drill and practice models (Slavin, 2018).

            The internet has become a vital utility for educational purposes not only does it allow students access to a wealth of information through databases but the internet can help students connect to various communities that would otherwise be difficult or impossible (Slavin, 2018). Slavin explains that internet allows students to used various educational applications, participate or experience simulations, and complete web quests (a virtual scavenger hut) (Slavin, 2018). Access to the internet also affords students the opportunities to create multimedia projects which provide students with the change to explore how various materials convey messages and information (Slavin, 2018). Finally, schools can often purchase programs, integrated learning systems, to promote or support student learning (Slavin, 2018). However, research shows there is are limitations to the benefits that these programs provide (Slavin, 2018).

            Moving forward, Slavin describes various collaborative sites that student can use to share their work, information, thoughts, and ideas such as wikis and blogs (Slavin, 2018). Social networks and podcasts are also places where students can experience and communicate with various individuals from all around the world on a variety of topics  (Slavin, 2018).

            Slavin goes on to describe the various types and ways educational television and embedded multimedia support students. Research has show that education television can help promote reading skills in students (Slavin, 2018).  Embedded technology is a strategy that integrates videos, songs, or other activities in a lesson (Slavin, 2018).  Assistive technology is unique in that it helps student with disabilities (Slavin, 2018).

            Blended learning and flipped classrooms are instructional models that integrate technology in various ways to help support and extent student learning and mastery of the content (Slavin, 2018). Various programs can be used to assign digital homework (Slavin, 2018).

            Finally, Slavin wraps up the chapter by outline the various barriers and challenges around using technology to support student learning.  First, cyber bullying is on the rise as more and more individuals connect online (Slavin, 2018). There are various strategies and approaches that teachers and schools should consider regarding how to address or prevent cyberbullying instances (Slavin, 2018). Cell phones in class can also be a challenge due to the distractions they cause (Slavin, 2018).

            Teachers and staff should always educate students on cyber safety to help protect students and prevent any harmful events (Slavin, 2018).

            Slavin also discusses the uses of technology for teachers and administers by included a brief list of suggestions for both groups. In this section the author does discuss the concept of a “digital divide”.  This is a term used to describe the inequality to quality and stable technology and internet access between high and low socio-economic students(Slavin, 2018). Salvin suggests that schools investigate various options to help bridge these gaps such as providing hotspots and partnering with other organizations to help increase student and family access (Slavin, 2018).

 

Reflection:

As an educator it is obvious that one of the most frustrating things about our educational system is that all students are unique in their needs, experiences, and knowledge. Slavin was correct when he explains that in perfect world each student would have one-to-one education. However, differentiation is our next best option. Differentiation is key to a successful and inclusive classroom. I admit that it is one of my weakest points. I have never received any formal support or guidance on how to create differentiated groups in my content areas. I do my best, but I know I can do better especially in my science classes. I believe I am unsure of what those groups would look and sound like. I do think one of these biggest challenges for teachers regarding differentiation is class size and professional support. Slavin even points out there is a connection in the number of groups and the success rate differentiation has.
            I am much more confident in my ability to create math groups, but I still would like a teacher that successfully uses groups to guide me. My math curriculum currently will not allow for groups in this manner; therefore, I am limited. Nonetheless, it is an area I am interested in developing more professional development in.

      My district has used various programs such USA testprep, IXL, and Mobymax to help support student learning. However, I have some concern that educators can rely a little too heavily on these programs rather providing true teacher intervention.

      I did enjoy the fact that Slavin specifically addresses the usage of peer and teacher tutoring. Use same-age tutoring and teacher tutoring as part of my differentiation strategy. But, thinking about it, I have never directly instructed my students on how to be a tutor. I believe that is something that I will be revisiting and implementing in the up coming year. I have provided conversation and conflict resolution supports, graphic organizers, and anchor charts, but I have never explicitly discussed the role of tutoring as a “job”.

I did find the idea of “tracking” to be interesting as well. I had never heard of the term until this chapter. Looking back, I do recall the different classes we had when I was a student. I suppose it is my naivety, but I still am unsure why teachers that are not “highly qualified” or skilled are always coupled with students in need of intervention. Also, I don’t understand why these students are ground down with drills and restricted from enriching opportunities. I wonder if the research results regarding between-class grouping would change if researchers controlled those variables.

Since I am in elementary, I do use in class grouping almost on a daily basis. I do like that these groups are flexible and change often. It does help destigmatize lower ability students.  I am very interested in the Joplin Plan. I think that is an interesting approach and would certainly be interested in seeing that in action. I know we did something similar during our ILT when we were remote learning. We used the scores from a learning program to determine the skill deficits. At that point all students, no matter their grade or age, would log with the group’s teacher to receive instruction on their respective skill. I truly feel that we saw results using this strategy and I would like to see this model continue now that we are on campus.

      I did have a question about student retention. I do understand that intervention is vital, and the retention doesn’t help students in many ways. However, in the lens remote learning or students have missed critical foundational skills would it not better to retain those students rather than holding them accountable for new level material as well as content skills they are deficit in? By deficit, I mean lack completely. I suppose this is another area would like some more knowledge in. How to provide such intensive intervention without compromising the students’ social-emotional and academic wellbeing.

      Moving on, I have already discussed various aspects of integrating technology in the classroom. I, honestly, believe not twenty-first-century classroom can be complete without the meaningful integrating of multimedia and technology in the curricula. I truly feel that each school should offer a technology specials or connection class. I know one of the largest barriers I have with implementing technology in my lessons is time. I have to teach the skill, website, or app. I before we use the item, I must allow students time to practice and before I know it all the time is gone. I feel that part of the school reforms and the twenty-first-century movement should consist of a multimedia or technology for each school. The teachers will, of course, educate students on various skills, but they will also teach students how to use sites like Padlet, powerpoint, mentimeter, etc. That way teachers do not have to chose between instruction of content and instruction of an application. I think the removal of that barrier as well as having a professional to collaborate with regarding designing lessons with meaningful technology integration would be profound.

Finally, I want to address the “digital-divide”. My district has been deeply affected by this phenomenon. When we first moved to remote learning my technology team worked tirelessly to partner with various companies to obtain grants for hotspots and there is this one family that we could never connect with. The local utility company could not help because of their location and the hotspots could never maintain a stable connection. This family depended on paperwork because of their lack of access. There were devastating academic repercussions for that family because of this issue. So, I believe that the state should prioritize equitable and affordable access to quality internet because we are in the twenty-first-century.

Reference:

Slavin, R. E. (2017). Educational Psychology. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134524177/