Annamária Kótay-Nagy: DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION WITH TECHNOLOGY IN THE HUNGARIAN EFL CLASSROOM
›
2 Theoretical and Empirical Background
›
2.1 Differentiated Instruction
›
2.1.1 Definition, History, and Theoretical Underpinnings

2.1.1 Definition, History, and Theoretical Underpinnings

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

“But what exactly is meant by ‘differentiation’ and what does it entail in practice? Is it just a new word for what teachers have always done to take account of the diversity of learners in their classes? If so, why do we need a new term for it? Why does it need to be made such a priority issue for discussion and development in schools? If not, how is it different from what we have always done? What else does it imply that we need to do or think about? Where does this imperative come from and why is it important?” (Hart, 1996, p. 8).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The questions posed by Hart (1996) in her book on differentiation address a timeless aspect of teaching: the intricate diversity of classroom life and teachers’ drive to cater for this diversity. What distinguishes DI from intuitive responses to learner variance is that it places individual differences at the heart of instructional planning, and thus moves away from a one-size-fits-all understanding of teaching. Described by Blaz (2016, p. 9) as a “way of thinking about teaching and learning”, DI as a principled teaching approach aims to provide meaningful learning opportunities for each student by allowing them to pursue different learning paths. As Fox and Hoffman (2011) formulate, “at the heart of it, differentiated instruction is about empowering every student to learn and master the class objectives and standards to the highest level of his or her potential” (p. xv). Tomlinson’s (2017) definition corresponds with this conceptualisation, as in her understanding, DI is about providing learners with multiple “avenues to acquiring content, to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can learn effectively” (p. 1).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The rationale behind differentiation is rooted in the belief that a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching may not be sufficient for addressing the diverse needs of learners (Armstrong & Haskins, 2010; Hart, 1996; McBride, 2004; Tomlinson, 1999), as students learn in different ways (Jensen, 2005; Sousa, 2011; Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011), which can be traced back to differences in a variety of aspects (e.g., cognitive abilities, prior knowledge, motivation, learning styles, cultural backgrounds).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Besides, the imperative for DI is further driven by a growing awareness of the ethical responsibility of teachers to provide equal access to education for all (Hart, 1996; Wormeli, 2006). In contemporary classrooms, the ability to differentiate effectively is in fact becoming a critical component of teaching competence. As Darling-Hammond contends, in the 21st century, “teachers need a much deeper knowledge base about teaching for diverse learners than ever before and more highly developed diagnostic abilities to guide their decisions” (2006, p. 5).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The origins of DI as a principled teaching approach can be traced back to the theoretical shifts in pedagogy that began to unfold in the 1970s (Marks et al., 2021). These changes were rooted in a constructivist understanding of the learning process, which holds that meaningful learning can only be achieved by establishing what learners already know and then presenting new information in a way that students can create their own meanings (Smith & Throne, 2007). Originally, DI centred around the teaching of gifted students, then, in the following decades its scope extended and soon students with special educational needs (SEN) were also included in its focus. Eventually, around the millennium came the realisation that DI can, and in fact, should concern all students in the classroom (Blaz, 2016; Furcsa, 2020).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The conceptual basis of DI is an amalgamation of several theories (Roiha, 2014). As mentioned above, its origins are rooted in the constructivist learning theories emerging in the second half of the 20th century, advocated by the developmental psychologists of the time such as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. While Piaget’s (1954) cognitive constructivist theory holds that learners take an active role in the learning process by making meaning out of information, Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory looks upon the learning process as a social and communicative act where students learn with the help of more knowledgeable others as they operate within their zone of proximal development (ZPD), i.e., the zone between their actual and potential developmental level. Proponents of DI claim that the aim of differentiation is to discover each learner’s actual developmental stage and adapt teaching so that it corresponds to their own personal ZPD (Roiha, 2014; Subban, 2006).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In line with the Piagetian and Vygotskian theories, DI also draws on Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Learning Objectives (Blaz, 2016; Heacox, 2009). The model identifies six educational goals along the various levels of thinking: knowledge (i.e., obtaining new information), comprehension, application, and the ‘higher-order’, i.e., cognitively more challenging levels of analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. His taxonomy, and especially its revised version (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which operates with the categories of remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating, has been considered by practitioners of DI as an inventory of learning objectives that can be used flexibly when planning lessons with students’ different developmental stages in mind (Blaz, 2016; Heacox, 2009).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligences is another concept embraced by practitioners of DI (Roiha, 2014; Santamaria, 2009; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). The model identifies distinct types of intelligences—verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist—each suggesting that learners vary in their talents and that teaching should be adapted in a way that each learner has the opportunity to unlock their potential. Gardner’s (1983) categories are considered as instrumental in differentiating lessons based on students’ learning profiles (Blaz, 2016; Heacox, 2009).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Apart from the theories mentioned above, as Tomlinson and Allan (2000) point out, DI is also based upon the work of psychologists who highlight the role of personal interest in intrinsic learner motivation (e.g., Collins & Amabile, 1999), autonomy (e.g., Bruner, 1961), and flow (e.g., Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). Proponents of DI argue that tapping the personal interests of students lies at the heart of differentiation practices (Tomlinson et al., 2003).

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As can be seen from the overview, the theoretical basis of DI is formed by a mixture of different considerations. The complexity of the notion in terms of its theoretical underpinnings and history has given rise to several misconceptions. The next section addresses some of the most common myths.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave