Differentiation models part 2 - Handa

The second part of the review. Though I am still sorting out how this will actually look in the classroom, I am thinking that Handa's model has much to offer all students. Starting from a core set of outcomes, products and learning, extension can then be added on. Most teachers would already be doing something similar for struggling or students with learning difficulties, so it is really adding to spectrum of learning rather a whole separate thing. Anyway, the course has been incredibly interesting and will certainly be leading a change in my teaching practice this year. Apologies for the readability of the reference list. I will figure that out one day.

Handa’s Learner-Centred Differentiation Model

Manoj Chandra Handa was a New South Wales English teacher when he developed the Learner-Centred Differentiation Model (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). Based on research of the efficacy of a number of other models, with a particularly close relationship to the work of June Maker, and drawing together the work of many theorists, Handa has created a model designed for Australian schools in particular. He has built on Maker’s four elements of differentiation with the addition of the outcomes element.

Handa begins with highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in education both in and out of the classroom. The teacher becomes the “scaffolder of learning” (Handa, 2009) facilitating the progression from learner to “autonomous thinker”. He focusses on the idea that the first question that needs to be asked is: “How will students learn this?”

This increased focus on outcomes is an advantageous one, fitting in with the Australian Curriculum. The Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) sets the standards that all students must reach at year level up to year ten (ACARA, 2016). This highlights the importance of front ended assessment tasks; the focus of the assessment outcomes then dictate the learning within a particular unit. The core components are considered first, considering the why, what and hows of the unit, then complexity and extension built onto this scaffold (Handa, 2009). There is then a focus on productive rather than reproductive thinking which shows and allows creativity.

The core focus of the Learner-centred Differentiation Model is the development of thinking processes. Rather than a focus on taught content, the student is encouraged to consider concepts which can then be filled with relevant content as required (Handa, 2009). Conceptual thinking leads to a deeper understanding of information, which in turn leads to the ability to evaluate, transfer learning, and creatively solve problems. Handa argues that critical thinking about concepts is “analysing, evaluating and being creative progressively”. This focus does not necessarily only address the needs of gifted students. It can be applied to a mixed ability classroom with equal, if not greater, success.

Rather than artificially compressing the curriculum, the Learner-centred Differentiation Model, encourages the use of cognitive technologies. The whole to part manner of learning “concepts, issues and generalisations first, then facts and topics” (Handa, 2009), is aided through the thoughtful use of technology as a research and teaching tool. Tools such as virtual classrooms, allow students to explore at their own pace. Discovery learning leads to students acquiring knowledge unique to themselves. Killen (2013) highlights that learners learn better when solving problems, with the preference being for there to be a real need to solve the problem. Unlike the perception of student lead or research based exploration held by some educators, that sees the student flounder in the shallows of learning (Di Biase, 2018), Handa emphasises the importance of scaffolding systems and purpose. At the same time, the ability to move more quickly through the core curricula, allows more time for thinking and analysis. This model, seen more as guidelines than prescriptive rules encompasses the ability to allow all to participate, the nature of student enquiry providing natural differentiation.

This development of a cognitive and conceptual approach to learning leads to the opportunity to demonstrate learning through a wide range of products. These products may be both formative and cumulative in nature, and should aim to push students out of their comfort zones in order to challenge them so take risks (Handa, 2009). Marking criteria should be deeply understood by student or, even better, developed by them and the product should “convey a genuine application of synthesis and analysis”. That learning should have some connection to the real world should be a given, particularly for middle years learners (Bahr, 2005). With this emphasis on problem solving leading to a variety of products being produced, the Learner-centred Differentiation Model is accessible by all students.

As stated earlier, Handa’s model is built upon the base of the work done by June Maker over many years (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). Combined with Maker’s Problem Solving Continuum (Rogowski, 2012), there is the opportunity for teachers to differentiate readily in the mixed ability classroom, providing individualised learning for all. That Handa has addressed the principles outlined by Maker is outlined in his model’s structure. There are modifications in the areas of content, process, product and the learning environment. That there is the addition of outcomes adds to the model’s ability to be readily implemented into an existing curriculum system.

While Handa speaks of the importance of leadership within education, it is not necessarily in traditional school leadership roles. Rather there is a focus on the classroom teacher who is effective in the classroom and influences others throughout the school (Handa, 2009)(Handa, 2013). The focus is on networks rather than hierarchies. This is part of the thinking that has the potential to lead change from within, rather than waiting for departmental directive. The effect of this is the empowerment of individual, or small groups of teachers. While there is still a need for support or at least to be unshackled by the traditional school leadership, there is much a teacher can do within their own classroom. This requires teachers to be prepared to take a chance, stepping outside their comfort zone, in order to drive measurable change that can then lead broader uptake within the school community.

The Learner-centred Differentiation Model is a flexible model that could be adapted across a whole school district or simply aspects into an individual classroom. This aspect potentially offers solutions that other models are unable to due to more complex, whole school, requirements. There is the scope for individual teachers to become leaders within their schools, demonstrating how these processes can be used to deliver differentiation across the whole class.

Final Thoughts

There is a real need within schools to deliver individualised teaching for all ability levels. Masters (2019) identifies that education needs to be in line with 21^st century needs and the importance of flexible methods of learning and teaching. Many of the models focused on developing the gifted and talented student hold both of these points as vital foundations of their structure. In the end, it is up to the individual teachers, faculties, schools and regions to identify their own needs and the model that will work best in their individual context (Karnes & Bean, 2008). Both Renzulli and Handa have developed models that are proven to work in the real world, though are only two of many models and means of addressing the needs of students in the education setting. This is an area that needs continual development for both students and society at large.

References

Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-talented-students

Di Biase, R. (2018). Moving beyond the teacher-centred/learner-centred dichotomy: Implementing a structured model of active learning in the Maldives. Compare, 1-19.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. (2009). Learner-centred Differentiation Model: A New Framework. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 55-66.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. (2013). Leading differentiated high-performance learning. Australian Educational Leader, 35(3), 22-26.

Jericho, A. (n.d.). Inquiry into the Education of Gifted and Talented Children. Board for Lutheran Schools.

Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (2008). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.une.edu.au

Masters, G. (2019). Big Five Challenges in School Education. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/columnists/geoff-masters/big-five-challenges-in-school-education. Accessed on 26th January 2019.

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Merrotsy, P., Jones, M., & Gunn, I. (2016). Education for the Gifted and Talented – Topic 5: Differentiation. Armidale, Australia: University of New England. Retrieved from http://www.une.edu.au

Rei, S., & Renzulli, J. (1989). The Secondary Triad Model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 55-77.

Renzulli, Joseph S., & Renzulli, Sally Reis. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Focus on Student Strengths and Interests. Gifted Education International, 26, 140-3), p.140-157.

Differentiation models part 1 - Renzulli

The final essay for Education of the Gifted and Talented. It is two parts due to the length. The first part looks Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The second Handa's Learner Centre Differentiation Model. While both have much to offer, I feel that Handa has developed a model that is adaptable and provides an individual teacher with the ability to more effectively differentiate for all students.

Introduction

There are a number of different models of gifted differentiation promoted throughout the education universe. While many of these are interrelated in both concept and creators, the effectiveness of any given teaching strategy is, in the end, dependant on the ability of a teacher to implement the strategy in the classroom. In modern education in Australia, there is much variation between states and school regions and/or districts in approach to the identification and teaching of gifted students. With that in mind, it is the purpose of this paper to consider the effectiveness of two models for differentiation: Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, with a focus on the secondary model, and Chandra Handra’s Learner-Centred Differentiated Model.

Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Renzuli introduced the world to the concept of the Triad Model of gifted development in 1977. Since then, following many trials and research, he and his team have developed the Schoolwide Enrichment Program. Originally, the model was designed for the top ten percent of the student population, though this has since been broadened to up to twenty percent in order to create a larger talent pool (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). This talent pool forms the basis of the gifted education structure within the school. Called the Revolving Door Identification Model, this is not a static group due to students having the ability to move in and out as appropriate (Gibson & Effinger, 2006). While this model of identification is aiming for inclusivity and flexibility, there is little here in place for the under-motivated student, rather it is relying on intrinsic motivation.

Once students are in the talent pool, they engage in lessons based around the enrichment triad. After being orientated to the services that are available, they progress to the differing styles of lessons, called types (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Type one looks at content outside of the regular curriculum, type two at “process orientated teaching activities” (Reis & Renzulli, 1989), and type three sees the students engage in self-directed study that leads to the students becoming investigators creating their own product. The need to create such classes is a hurdle for schools to overcome.

The requirement for schools to significantly alter their structure provokes a number of challenges to the successful implantation of Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Although there is some scope for flexibility in implementation, such as the guidance provided by Barbara Moller (1986) in implementation and the development of buy-in from invested parties, there remains a need for student and teacher to largely step away from the curriculum. The curriculum itself is to be compacted using services provided by Renzulli Learning™, enabling students to get on with learning the “Renzulli Learning System Profiler” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010) has identified. It is a system that requires investment of both the entire staff and part of the school’s budget.

The change within the school is to begin with a small group of teachers. Renzulli identifies this group as the interdisciplinary planning team, whose job is to develop the program to fit the needs of the school and the students (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Renzulli highlights a major potential weakness in the model when he refers to the importance of having the whole faculty on board. Negativity within the faculty can destroy the chances of success for a program before it even gets going. The implementation of a program of this scale also requires that administration and regional directors are on board. While this should not by itself dissuade a school or faculty from looking at this model, it is an aspect that needs to be considered.

This issue is not helped by the nature of the segregation, particularly in the Australian context. There is a tendency in Australia to see gifted education as helping those who do not require it (Jericho, nd). That being good at school is good enough. The requirement for separate classes for gifted students within the school environment is generally frowned upon with little regard to the efficacy, or otherwise, of said classes. Renzulli (2006) identifies the need for effective change, requiring all parties within a school community, and further afield, to be supportive and involved. Again, this should not necessarily been seen as a block to the implementation of any program, however it is a potential obstacle.

When considered through the lens of June Maker’s principles (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), the Schoolwide Enrichment Model kicks many goals. With curriculum content being compacted, this allows scope for students and the facilitating teacher to cover content more closely aligned with student interests. The goal of this differentiation of content is to take the student from a narrow band of interest/s, to a broader understanding of interrelated concepts and knowledge (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). The type two classes set students up for success, utilising a range of discovery, research and learning processes. The aim of the type three group is that students will produce a product that is truly their own; the result of a student lead project. An essential part of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is the modification of the learning environment, requiring all invested parties to welcome large changes to curriculum and learning construction. All of Maker’s principles are catered for.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model has much to offer, while asking much of the school at the same time. There are a number of, potentially high, hurdles for a program of this scope to be put in place. There are limits to what schools can do as well as limits to this model. Though called schoolwide, there is little for those not meeting the requirements of the talent pool. Instead, it is focused on gifted services and the “development of gifted and creative behaviours” in students with the potential to benefit from such a program, as well as “some type of enrichment for all students” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). A bit like trickle down schooling. In the current Australian context, it would seem there is much to hamstring such a model.

Differentiation

A particularly long post this time around looking at differentiation. I have included some headings so you can skip ahead as you like. There are a couple of hyperlinks embedded and the thrown together references at the bottom. Please feel free to comment.

Upon my pulpit

There is much to consider in this week’s topic, so please bear with me. Rather than focus too much on a particular model of differentiation for giftedness here, I will concentrate on differentiation more broadly. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I do not feel I have come to terms with the varying models sufficiently at this point, although Handa’s Learner-centred differentiation model does strike a chord. Secondly, as I have done throughout these posts, my focus is on the class as a whole and how I might better serve them all. Which is the reason that Handa strikes a chord, but more on that at a later date.

I will begin with a quote I have saved as a sticky note for just such an occasion. “Differentiation is something we in the teaching profession have put out there to placate parents [and] on a good day you can do it if you’ve given up your weekend to plan a lesson, but when push comes to shove you teach to the middle and that’s the reality” (McGowan, 2018). At the time I saved this, I believed it wholeheartedly. I have watched fellow teachers struggle to find the time to prepare, feeling that they are failing their students if they have not provided a variety of scaffolds for each lesson. In some ways this is a worthy goal. In a very real way, it leads to frustration, burn-out and hating the job. I have felt for a while that differentiation need not be that way; it could be much simpler. This week’s readings have confirmed – confirmation bias perhaps – just that.

Just a quick aside before coming back to that.

There are two common approaches/scaffolds/myths dragged out whenever we start talking about differentiation: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Gardener’s Multiple Intelligences. Dealing with Gardener first, while we all have differences, the idea that parts of the brain work in isolation from others is a myth. Geake (2007) outlines that increased intelligence requires increased levels of interconnectivity across the whole brain and includes all senses. He goes on to state that neuroimaging does “not support multiple intelligences; in fact, the opposite is true”. The kind of thinking that unreservedly embraces multiple intelligences, is the same kind that also says ‘you can’t do this because this is the way you think. The same is true with the polarised brain, left vs right thinking. Intelligence is dynamic.

We recently had an excellent example of the dangers of this with one of our Aspies at home. My wife mentioned that an activity – a slackline – would be good for my son to help with his spatial awareness. While I was setting it up for him a few days later he told me that he would struggle with it due to his lack of spatial awareness. This sort of negative self-prophesy highlights the importance of both words and how easy it is for kids to put themselves into a labelled box. Even if they have to build it themselves.

Bloom's taxonomy is upside down

It was very interesting to learn that there is a more updated and detailed version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This detail, discussed by Krathwohl (2002), offers detail missing from the original that I look forward to coming to grips with as I plan for this year. Even more exciting was the idea of flipping the table upside down. Shelley Wright (2012) detailed the concept in her response to the revised taxonomy and I feel there is much to offer. Simply put, putting creativity first is a win. So often we associate the synthesis of ideas with our high flyers. In the final weeks of last term I was provided with an example, by my students, of how this is not necessarily true.

To prepare my year 9’s for the first unit of year 10, we began to look at poetry. On the final day of that class, I gave them a range of poems including this one by Ezra Pound.

In a station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd:
Petals on a wet, black bough.

Their task was simply to gather meaning from the poem without any external help. The focus was totally on their own interpretations. None of them knew what a bough was, but, once this was out of the way, it was the students that had struggled for C’s all year who provided the most insight. Allowed to be creative and being assured that whatever meaning they made from the poems would be “right” in my eyes, the so called strugglers flew past my A and B students.

Creating the meaning then learning how to justify it, even if their creation turns out to be off the mark, teaches creativity, content and an attitude that is more likely to take an academic risk. In this case, simply because there was no risk at all, students stuck their necks out and had a go. I know that I struggled to get started back at studying this trimester because the risk is there, particularly in this format, that my response might be wrong. Allowing, as much as possible, for the content to be built on top of the creativity – the risky part – provides a scaffold for greater success when the time for summative assessment comes around.

Differentiation

Returning, at last, to differentiation it needs to be stated again that “it is physically impossible for any teacher to differentiate every activity, or every lesson every day” (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). There must be a clear understanding of learning needs, best practice, and what good and effective differentiation actually looks like. A lack of understanding leads to the issues that I described earlier on the teacher side and ineffective learning on the that of the student. Differentiation should be providing a match between student needs and curriculum requirements. It can be as simple as providing as providing a sentence starter to get a student writing or more scaffolding for those that need it at assessment time. It is not meant to become burdensome. That does not help anybody.

Is differentiation a load of rubbish?

The misapplication of differentiation leads to response like that of James Delisle (2015). While I disagree with his position, many of his points are valid. Differentiation can be difficult at times and does add, some, work. Likewise, it is hard not to agree that the provisions for “kids on the edge” have disappeared and they should make a comeback – of sorts. His mistake is to place differentiation up against streaming or focused classes. Teachers can, and should, differentiate. With a class of B students there will be a need to address different areas of struggle and ready success. Delisle is heading towards a dichotomous argument that does not need to be has and that does not help his, or the student’s case.

In his response to Delisle, Grant Wiggins (2015) states much that I agree with, though I feel he misses something as well. Dismissing Delisle’s writing as a rant is unhelpful as well. We continually, as teachers, call for effective strategy and implementation from above, whether it be from the department we work under or school admin, while knowing that the real change we seek is unlikely to be forthcoming. Therefore it is up to us. Rather than looking at the limitations of our situations, teachers who want to see change, to implement effective strategies, need to be looking at what they can do. Prove it works. Change what you can. Once that classroom door shuts, the class is ours.

Heading away from the sermon and back to differentiation in the classroom.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska (2011) highlights that design for gifted students should be standards and discipline based, offering “advanced challenge, in depth thinking and doing, and abstract conceptualization”. Upon reading this, I came back to the thoughts of an earlier post considering students as being on a continuum. As such, so should the curriculum be. If these are the goals for the gifted, should they not be the goals for the rest of the cohort? Of course, student responses will be different and the scaffolding will change, but should we not be aspirational on our students’ behalf? Especially for those who cannot or will not be so for themselves, I think the answer needs to be yes.

References

Bloom’s flipped https://plpnetwork.com/2012/05/15/flipping-blooms-taxonomy/

Bloom’s revised https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf

Geake 2008 Brain myths http://amyalexander.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/neuromythologies-p.pdf

Delisle J 2015 Differentiation does not work https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/07/differentiation-doesnt-work.html

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education.  Gifted Child Quarterly, 51,  342-358.

Handa, Manoj Chandra. Learner-centred differentiation model : a new framework. [online]. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education; v.18 n.2 p.55-66; December 2009.

McGowan, M. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/01/kids-arent-widgets-the-radical-thinking-that-offers-a-way-forward-after-gonski

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Merrotsy, P., Jones, M., & Gunn, I. (2016)