EDUC 4721 Differentiation for Diverse Learners

Assignment 3: Reflection on Practice

By Andy Thomas
My understanding of differentiation is something I believe will change over time and develop
as I gain more experience. Inclusion is no longer a word that is used in regards to including
those with a disability (Jarvis, 2014a). Inclusion encompasses every student within a given
class. Differentiation and inclusion must be thought of in the same sense, you cannot
differentiate without inclusion, and you cannot be seen to be including everyone if you do not
differentiate. Each student comes into our classroom with a different background, different
beliefs, values, experiences, readiness and expectations of their own learning. For us to
differentiate effectively we must take all of these factors into consideration and above all,
adopt a growth mindset. That is, see students as having an unlimited potential, not simply as
having a fixed ability that has a limit that cannot be increased. One article suggests that
students may not like school because of their own fixed mindset, so changing this attitude in
our students is also an important aspect of differentiation (Lou, Abrami, Philip, Spence,
Poulsen, Chambers, et. al., 2009) As teachers who differentiate we are providing activities
that our students are interested in to promote engagement, yet appropriately challenge them
and give them the tools to become independent learners. It is important to see differentiation
as an ongoing practice, not something that is simply added on at the end of a lesson plan as a
way of addressing one student in the class who might be struggling or to further the learning
of a gifted student (Jarvis, 2014a). Inclusion means addressing the needs of every student to
the point they feel valued, whether this be based on readiness, interest, learning profile or a
combination of all three.
The Disability Standards for Education (Attorney-Generals Office, 2005) describe the
inclusion of students with a disability in a regular schooling environment and standard
curriculum in such a way that does not discriminate or ostracise the student. It outlines ways
in which educational facilities can make this a reality, by providing the Standards in
conjunction with written guidelines to aid implementation. Upon reading the justification for
the Standards, it becomes clear that the principles of effective differentiation and inclusion
have been considered. In the Ministers foreword it is noted that the inclusion of all students,
regardless disability have the right to access schooling and curriculum that is indifferent from
that of any other student (Attorney-Generals Office, 2005). This view is mirrored by Krause
(2010) who describes the way in which society is moving away from the term Special
Education and towards the term Inclusive Education. This has essentially arisen from the
implementation of the Standards, as students with a disability have the right to education
within a regular school. The philosophies expressed by the Standards are also similar to those
expressed by Conway (2014) who discusses the importance that should be placed on equal
access to education for all students, before outlining multiple ways that the curriculum
outcomes can be approached and differentiated for students with disabilities. Section 3.3 of
the Standards is perhaps the most important in terms of incorporating the philosophy of
inclusion and differentiation (Attorney-Generals Office, 2005). It describes the word
adjustments in the context of education and explains that they refer to the differentiation of
activities, facilities and services provided to students with a disability (Attorney-Generals
Office, 2005). Standard 3.4 explains that adjustments need to be made reasonable, performed

in a way that regards the students disability, ability to participate and their ability to achieve
the learning outcomes (Attorney-Generals Office, 2005).
The school I was placed in for my final professional experience was a category 7 school
which was populated by a middle to upper-middle socio-economic status families. The school
has high academic expectations from their students and, as a result, has many specialist
teachers and programs in place to help meet these expectations. The class I was placed in had
28 students, all from Australia or England. Within the class there were 2 students diagnosed
with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), one student undiagnosed although in the process of
being evaluated for ASD and one student with a severe intellectual and disability working at a
reception-level adjusted curriculum. Each of these students had a Negotiated Education Plan
(NEP) for which regular meetings where had to ensure that students were being appropriately
challenged and meeting the learning goals set out in their plan. So whilst there is not much
cultural or linguistic diversity within the school, certain classes contain vastly different
student readiness levels that must be addressed.
Within my placement class, the impact the aforementioned students had on the learning in the
class was relatively minimal. The student with an intellectual disability had access to over
eighteen hours of School Services Officer (SSO) each week. This meant that he had a
completely different program to the rest of the students in the class. Although the topics that
he would cover with his SSO coincided with what the class was doing, the level of work he
was given was always appropriately adjusted to his readiness level. One important aspect of
this was the students learning environment, of which importance is placed upon by Garguilo
and Kilgo (2010). The student responded well to tactile and physical learning experiences due
to poor writing ability, therefore the classroom, as well as his own learning space, were
equipped with learning tools and toys that help engage the student and motivate further
learning (Garguilo & Kilgo, 2010). The students with ASD worked well with a highly
structured routine, but found it difficult to get work done without extensive instruction. One
of these students in particular, was showing signs of developing a learned helplessness, where
the student begins to see that no matter how much effort they give, they will not experience
success, this led to the student being unmotivated and at times unwilling to complete any
work during the course of a day (Jarvis, 2013).
The way in which the classroom teacher handled these differences in learning styles and
readiness was generally with a fixed mindset. On occasions it felt as if the work being given
to the student with a disability was simply to keep him active and wrote learn a lot of basic
concepts and ideas, rather than scaffold the work in a tiered manner, with the intention that
learning would take place over time, compared to what the rest of the class where doing.
Tomlinson (2004), explains that there are 4 stages of independence. Whilst this particular
student was in the skill building stage (stage 1), I feel that with a growth mindset (the premise
that the student is highly capable of achieving relevant standards against the curriculum and
becoming an effective individual learner over time) the student may begin to feel that there is
a purpose to doing the tasks that he is undertaking and therefore begin the process of
becoming an independent learner, even though this may take far longer than any other student
in the class.
The SSOs that worked with the student with an intellectual disability had a number of
excellent strategies to ensure he was being appropriately challenged. A structured list of the
steps he needed to go through in order to complete the task were given, this included visual

aids as a constant reminder to keep on track. This same structure and routine weere important
in the planning of learning tasks for the two students with ASD. Westwood (2011) highlights
structure and routine as key elements of lesson planning for students with disabilities.
The Context Statement for the school has a number of references to the amount of different
technologies and resources that they have available to help foster the learning of students
with varying learning styles (School, 2015). The Statement also refers to the numerous
teaching pedagogies that are employed by the teacher at the school, citing group work,
individualised programs and whole class explicit instruction to meet specific needs (School,
2015). These pedagogies are widely regarded as the main teaching pedagogies that should be
used within any effectively differentiated classroom, and as Sternberg and Li-Fang (2005)
suggest, it is the interplay of different pedagogies that help to cover the learning preferences
for each student. Not only do Sternberg and Li-Fang (2005) suggest the variety of
pedagogies, but the variety in which students are instructed within these pedagogies,
expressing that there are different levels and scopes of self-government for which each
student has a different preference. It is suggested that teachers change their method of
instruction in order to cater to these varying methods of self-government (Sternberg & LiFang, 2005). Whilst this is not present in the Context Statement, it is evident that the school
places importance on addressing each individual students needs (School, 2005).
Overall, I believe the school has an effective approach to differentiation within its School
Context Statement, however, within my observation over a limited time, I found that at times,
some of the principles of differentiation where not employed effectively. The first two of the
three pillars of differentiation (Philosophy and Principles) (Jarvis, 2013) are covered, as
evidence by the clear recognition and removal of barriers to inclusion within the School
Context Statement (School, 2015) as well as the pillar of Principles that involves flexible
grouping, quality curriculum, a positive learning environment and respectful and challenging
tasks (Jarvis, 2013). However, I feel as if the last pillar, Practices, within the context of my
placement classroom, is not being fully addressed. The principles and philosophy are
identified within the Context statement, but there is little connection to the planning of
effectively differentiated lessons that still meet the curriculum standards. Pagliano and Gillies
(2008) suggest that thorough reflection of practices and student progress needs to happen to
inform the progression of the implementation of the differentiated curriculum. This is where I
feel the class I was situated in could move towards a highly effective differentiated
classroom.
I created 4 different subjects worth of differentiated units before embarking on my final
placement. I knew going into my first ten observation days that it was of the utmost
importance for me to know my students both personally and academically as this would form
the basis for my planning. I held a similar view to that of a teacher in an article by Tomlinson
(2003) in that I planned to see success of each individual student over the course of the six
weeks, rather than just adapting the curriculum to an average level that all students could
achieve. I had purchased some small notebooks that allowed me to write some short notes
about each student for different subjects that I would be planning. These notes could be a
simple as The student consistently avoids maths. Or The student finishes their work to a
high standard in a short period of time. This allowed me to keep each student in mind when
planning units of work. When it came to creating the units, I always had a checklist with the
principles of differentiation that as a way of ensuring I employed respectful and challenging

tasks, ongoing assessment, flexible grouping and instruction, and that I positively responded
to readiness (Jarvis, 2014b).
I used the principles of Understanding by Design in my unit planning according to Wiggins
and McTighe (2011). I tried to imagine the big idea for each unit I was planning, and this had
to be done in a way that was not easy for students to answer immediately, rather, it had to be
uncovered over time (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). This involved planning to unify the
different concepts, identify the key strategies, recognising the key assumptions students
would hold and preparing to solve any dilemmas that students may face throughout each unit
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). The most important aspect of this approach for me was ensuring
that the big idea was something that endured the course of the unit. I worked hard to create a
big idea for each unit that would keep students interested and striving for the end result.
The main challenge I faced in implementing the differentiated lessons and units was time.
Because I was so set on differentiating appropriately, I spent more time each night trying to
appropriately move on to the next lesson. Another challenge that I faced was a varying
schedule of SSO time for the student with the intellectual disability. I would plan lessons for
the student thinking that there was no SSO to help him, but nearly each time this happened,
an SSO was present and they continued with his individual program.
What made differentiating easier was the preparation I had done to inform my planning
process. I used pre-assessments for every unit of work to gauge readiness, and exit cards were
handed out most lessons to inform the next step. The notebook with student notes allowed me
to differentiate by both interest and readiness, as I had a good understanding of what each
student was interested in.
Thinking critically about my teaching practice, I am extremely pleased with the outcomes
that were achieved by my students, which does provide some good, quantifiable feedback of
my practice. However, I feel as if one area I can improve on is in the area of assessment. I am
generally pleased with the assessment tasks that I gave students throughout my units,
although I feel as I could have better incorporated the use of summative assessment. I was
able to gauge student mastery of a topic as described by Moon (2005), but I felt as if I didnt
provide enough differentiation of the final task. I differentiated final tasks based on interest,
but I feel I could have incorporated readiness into them further.

Reference List
Attorney-Generals Department. (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Plus
Guidance Notes). Retrieved from

http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/disability_standards_for_educatio
n_2005_plus_guidance_notes.pdf
Conway, R. N. (2014). Australian schools, policy and legislation in perspective. In M. Hyde,
L. R. Carpenter, & R. N. Conway (Eds.), Diversity, inclusion and
engagement (2nd ed., pp. 15-20). Retrieved from
http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/ecf848c4-ee7a-4d4e-a549-f88040599d95/1/Australian
%20schools%2C%20policy%20and%20legislation%20in%20perspective.pdf
Garguilo, R. M., & Kilgo, J. L. (2010). Designing learning environments for young children
with special needs. In An introduction to young children with special needs: birth
through age eight (pp. 216-245). Retrieved from
http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/c308721f-5b73-40eb-b9e2-05b17ef9ef24/1/Designing
%20learning%20environments%20for%20young%20children%20with%20special
%20needs.pdf

Jarvis, J. (2013). Differentiating learning experiences for diverse learners. In Learning to

teach in the primary school (pp. 52-70). Retrieved from
http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/f314eede-6b55-4a3b-9ea7c40a7f80b4b5/1/Differentiating%20learning%20experiences%20for%20diverse
%20students.pdf

Jarvis, J. (2014a). Supporting diverse gifted students. In Learning to teach in the primary
school (pp. 297-304). Retrieved from http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/717386c6-07c4477c-a08f-8a66efe3d9ff/1/Supporting%20diverse%20gifted%20students.pdf

Jarvis, J. (2014b) Lecture 2 EDUC4720_4721 on Vimeo. Lecture, Flinders University.

Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/87368244 Accessed on 13/06/2015.

Krause, K. D. (2010). Learners with special needs and inclusive education. In Educational
psychology for learning and teaching (3rd ed., pp. 327-331). Retrieved from
http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/544e6d86-3f9d-4eb6-8555-75b70f9fc217/1/Learners
%20with%20special%20needs%20and%20inclusive%20education.pdf
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (2009).
Why is it so hard for students to understand abstract ideas? In D. T.
Willingham (Ed.), Why don't students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers
questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom(pp. 6780). Retrieved from http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/8c557bb6-f18b-4417-9cac767598eb0bce/1/Why%20is%20it%20so%20hard%20for%20students%20to
%20understand%20abstract%20ideas.pdf

Moon, T. R. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. Theory into Practice, 44(3),
226-233. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218813566?
accountid=10910
Pagliano, P., & Gillies, R. M. (2008). Curriculum, adjustments and adaptations. In A. F.
Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Education for inclusion and diversity (3rd ed., pp. 201234). Retrieved from http://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/6ca17ef0-296d-4e2c-8895fb148534a5c8/1/Curriculum%20adjustments%20and%20adaptations.pdf

School, P. (2015). School context statement. Retrieved from School Context Statement.pdf
Accessed on: 10/06/15
Sternberg, R. J., & Li-fang, Z. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated
instruction. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 245-253. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218848376?accountid=10910
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/oct03/vol61/num02/Deciding-to-Teach-Them-All.aspx

Westwood, P. S. (2011). Students with intellectual disability and autism. In Commonsense

methods for children with special educational needs (6th ed., pp. 28-30). Retrieved
from http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/
(S(gm515efvz4kewdrsu4ke5u3x))/Reader.aspx?
p=614806&o=478&u=a3gvhMYMHb%2fNVCUWO0HhPw%3d
%3d&t=1434345876&h=EF8A5BA03ACB8FF8B25B4D06C26B960134D41574&s=
36808001&ut=1451&pg=14&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2#
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). Essential questions and understandings. In The
understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units (pp. 70-88). Retrieved
from http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/
(S(wlvcg3xzxjr1oyi3ige1i1d2))/Reader.aspx?p=698904&o=478&u=a3gvhMYMHb
%2fNVCUWO0HhPw%3d
%3d&t=1434415708&h=77D0EAAE80457D6CAC0EE746E44026DA8F2252A1&s
=36822035&ut=1451&pg=81&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2