Category: Differentiated Instruction (Fall 2006)
What teaching a college course on DI taught Lifsa Schachter about the roadblocks to implementation and why they must be overcome.
In response to the interest in differentiated instruction (DI) among Jewish educators, I offered a distance-learning course on DI at Siegal College of Judaic Studies in Cleveland during the summer of 2006. The participants represented a geographic, professional and denominational cross-section of American Jewish educators. The messages gleaned from this experience have implications for those looking to expand differentiated instruction in Jewish school settings. All of the course participants reported that they already differentiate to some extent (as effective teachers have done throughout time) and wanted to learn how to do it more effectively. We held many discussions based on their own practice and observations from the field that gave me insights into what has to happen if differentiated instruction is to take hold in Jewish schools.
In this paper I will comment on four societal conditions that led to the increased interest in differentiated instruction and then will reflect on what has to happen if differentiated instruction is to be successfully promoted.
The notion that learners have different learning styles and capacities has long been acknowledged within the classical Jewish tradition: “Hanoch la’naar al pi darko” admonishes us to “Educate the youth according to his way” (Proverbs 22:6). Similarly, Ethics of the Fathers reminds us that “There are four types who study with the Sages; the sponge, the funnel, the strainer and the sifter” (Pirkei Avot 5:17). But while these ideas are a part of our tradition, the reality in most educational settings has generally operated on the “one size fits all” model. Four powerful societal changes have begun to place pressure on this model. All these developments strongly support the differentiated classroom (Driscoll, 2002) and the need for Jewish education to accommodate it.
Four societal changes that support differentiation
(1) New kinds of learners
Partly in response to the inclusion movement in the general educational world, Jewish schools are now dealing with new kinds of learners. While for many centuries the strategy in Jewish education was to identify and promote the elite student, today’s cultural realities requires a much more inclusive approach (without abandoning the need to also reach the most talented and gifted learners). Seen another way, Jewish education traditionally favored the auditory learner, such that children who preferred other learning styles often dropped out, sometimes to be acculturated into Jewish life through the home and the community. Today, however, when the school fills roles of education and acculturation that may have previously been filled by home and community, Jewish schools are faced with the challenge of reaching learners who do not respond easily to standard approaches to Jewish learning. Schools must accommodate learners with different learning styles, as well as from divergent cultural and religious backgrounds, challenging the Jewish educational setting with a diversity never before encountered.
(2) Brain research
Brain research provides new understandings about learning processes, multiple intelligences, emotional intelligence and learning styles, which in turn promote student-centered models of learning. Brain research supports the notions that children learn best in an environment of emotional safety, when they are provided appropriate levels of challenge, and when they are given opportunities to construct meaning for themselves (Tomlinson 2001, 2003, and Tomilson and McTighe, 2006). Brain research suggests that educators should consider designing learning environments that are social and collaborative, that give students opportunities to relate to what they already know, and that are neither decontextualized nor rote (Wolfe and Brandt 1998). Recommendations from brain research include creating opportunities for students to choose or modify activities, and constructing environments that are enriched and stimulate all the senses, provide novel challenge and avoid negative pressure (Diamond M. and Hopson J. 1998). All of these are hallmarks of differentiated instruction.
(3) The knowledge explosion
The knowledge explosion, which has led to an expansion of the curriculum of Jewish schools, has had an effect on Jewish schooling in at least three ways: It has broadened the scope of the curriculum, it has led to changes in approaches to traditional subjects, and it has changed the knowledge base that the Jewish learner brings to the classroom.
Many decades ago when I was a student in a community supplementary school, the curriculum consisted of Hebrew, Bible and History. It was assumed (not always correctly) that children learned other subjects of prayer, holidays, life cycle, and Jewish values in the home. Today, these too have become integrated into the core curricula of many supplementary and day schools. In addition entirely new subjects have entered the curriculum such as Holocaust studies, Israel studies, and comparative religion.
The development of Jewish studies at universities has provided an additional reinterpretation of Jewish studies. For example, when I was a child, studying Bible in supplementary school meant, “Chumash with Rashi” (biblical text alongside classic writings by 11th century commentator French Rabbi Shlomo Yizchaki). Today, however, Bible study can include, among other angles, historical context, literary approaches, structuralist approaches, modern scholarship, classical and modern Midrash, feminist biblical interpretations, and the history of canonization. Similar changes affect other areas of Jewish study.
Other disciplines such as archeology, paleography, ancient languages, literary traditions, and ancient near eastern studies have also influenced the curriculum of general education, changing the knowledge base that Jewish students bring to their study of Judaism. For example, some students learn about Gilgamesh before they encounter Noah. Similarly, they may learn the Greek myth in which a father substitutes a ram caught in a thicket for his son who is about to be sacrificed before they encounter the sacrifice of Isaac. The expansion of the student’s knowledge about the world introduces new content into class discussions.
Moreover, the growth of knowledge in all fields makes it impossible for teachers and students to keep all information in their heads. Knowing how to find information, how to ask the right questions, and how to evaluate sources of knowledge become critical to learning and lead to a change in the teacher’s role from that of “the sage on the stage” to the “guide by the side.”
(4) Technological advances
Jewish youth today are “digital natives.” The pervasiveness of technology in their lives has qualitatively impacted the ways they learn and process information. Students as well as teachers now have direct access to sources of knowledge and are no longer dependent on teachers for information. This leads to changes in the activities of learners and the definition of what it means to learn (Bransford, Brown, and Concking, 1999). Effective use of interactive technology involves students in solving problems, making decisions and exploring intriguing questions (Kimble, 1999). Technology offers a tool for increased participation by students who often did not participate in traditional classrooms, and thus enables students to tap into multiple intelligences, such as visualizing concepts. Technology also gives students immediate corrective and non-judgmental feedback.
In technologically sound classrooms, the teacher is no longer always to be found at the front of the classroom providing information but may increasingly circulate around the room providing a more customized support for learning through questioning, suggesting, redirecting, and teaching mini-lessons. They guide student learning more by providing structure, clarifying concepts, asking essential questions and helping students frame their inquiries than by providing information.
Promoting differentiated instruction
Differentiated instruction exists on a continuum. At the minimum, it involves a teacher who, for example, changes the level of a question, adapting its complexity to the capacity of a student. At its most developed, it is a complex approach to teaching and learning that includes flexible grouping of students, clarity about learning goals, high sights for all learners, shared responsibility for learning by students and teachers, links between instruction and assessment, flexible use of time and space, and a recognition of the importance of personal growth. A fully developed differentiated instruction curriculum addresses the content of learning, the process by which learning takes place, the way students demonstrate that they have learned and the relationships among learners – including children and adults (Tomlinson, 2001, 2003, Tomlinson & Cunningham-Edison, 2003). To make differentiated instruction a reality in Jewish educational settings requires changes in how Jewish educators think about learners, view assessment and think about curriculum.
- Getting to know learners
Many Jewish educators believe that differentiated instruction is a strategy to address the needs of only two kinds of learners -- the “weak” students who are perceived as unable to keep up, and the “gifted” students who are perceived as bored in class. Implicit in this belief is an image of a normative learner, an image conditioned by centuries of exposure to the ideal of the Torah scholar, rejecting concepts of multiple intelligences and learning styles. Differentiation is often seen as a tool to initially hook learners - with the goal of eventually making them more conventional, more manageable, or more normalized. In fact, differentiation requires teachers to know their students as full individuals, to see the child’s full range of strengths, interests, learning preferences, and problem areas, and to talk to parents. Differentiated instruction is dependent on knowing the full range of student interests, attitudes and motivation.
- The relationship between assessment and teaching
Differentiation also requires that teachers base planning and instruction on accurate data about the student’s current knowledge, attitudes and readiness. Yet Jewish educators lack formal assessment tools to ascertain student prior knowledge or growth in knowledge through instruction and even fewer tools to assess intelligences, learning styles, attitudes and motivation. Current attempts at differentiation in Jewish schools are most often based on generalized impressions of students’ ability levels and do not take into account the range of student qualities that can enhance learning. Formal assessment is inconsistent and lacks validation or reliability.
- Reconceptualizing the Curriculum
The state of Jewish curriculum deeply affects the capacity to differentiate instruction. There is a paucity of curricular materials that deal with the same topic on many reading levels and call on many intelligences. Attempts to articulate curriculum standards are thus far limited. Similarly, attempts to differentiate levels and modalities of essential concepts are just beginning. The Chai curriculum of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ 2006), and the work done at the Melton Center of the Conservative Movement on standards for teaching Bible and 4Mat (JTS, 2006 and Dolgin, McCarthy and Wagner (2003), and the work of the Lookstein Center (Peerless, 2006) on the heterogeneous classroom are good examples. But it is not clear that these approaches are truly integrated into local school settings in a deep way.
Work on Jewish educational curriculum is as vigorous as ever, with some schools making commitments to differentiated instruction. Yet, the written curricular documents developed by individual schools often consist of list of texts or topics rather than identifying the essential concepts all children are to learn from a topic or its subset, or offering teachers tools for arranging activities by level of complexity. Many teachers are given one textbook on one reading level or one edition of a traditional text from which to teach. Often, there is also insufficient access to computer technology to enable teachers to create materials on multiple levels, and little training on how to modify materials for different reading levels and ways of processing material.
The challenge
Differentiated instruction, if it is to succeed, cannot be furthered by the publication of isolated differentiated units of instruction but rather must be built upon many scaffolds. Schools must be organized in ways that enable teachers to know children. Curriculum development must take place on a communal level, within specified regional and ideological communities, that achieves several goals. Standards must be based on the articulation of essential concepts that all Jewish learners must know. Materials for curricular units must be made available for many ability levels, tap into many intelligences, and use conventional and technologically sophisticated media. Assessment must be taken seriously and instruments that are reliable and valid must be crafted. Finally, staff development for school directors and teachers must focus on translating the way we normatively teach into new practices.
REFERENCES
Bransford, John D. and others, Eds. (1999). Learning From Speculation To Science How People Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Diamond, Marian and Hopson, Janet. (1998). Magic Trees Of The Mind: How To Nurture Your Child’s Intelligence, Creativity, And Healthy Emotions From Birth Through Adolescence. New York: Dutton.
Dolgin, Cynthia, McCarthy Bernice and Wagner Marcey. (2003) “Applying 4Mat to Jewish Curriculum and Instruction.” In Nachama Skolnik Moskowitz, Ed. The Ultimate Jewish Teacher’s Handbook. ARE Publishing.
Driscoll, Marcy P. “How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with It.)(2002). Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse NY. ED470032. www.eric.ed.gov
Jewish Theological Seminary, William Davidson School (2006) “Benchmarks and Standards. http://www.jtsa.edu/davidson/melton/standards/
Kimble, Carol. (1999). Impact of Technology on Learning: Making Sense of the Research.” Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.mcrel.org/PDFConversion/PolicyBriefs/PB_ImpactTechnology.html
Peerless, Stanley (2006).“Heterogeneous Instruction Site. The Lookstein Center. https://www.lookstein.org/heterogeneous/hetero_intro.htm
Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, Carol Ann and Cunningham, Caroline Edison. (2003). Differentiation in Practice; A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum – Grades K-5 and Grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Tomilson, Carol Ann and McTighe Jay. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction, Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Union for Reform Judaism. (2006) The Chai Curriculum: Learning for Jewish Life. http://urj.org/chai/index.cfm
Wolfe, Pat. & Brandt, Ron . (1998). What do we know from Brain Research? Educational Leadership 56(3): 8-13, November.
Lifsa Schachter is Professor of Jewish Education and Director of Professional Development at the Siegal College of Judaic Studies. Previously she served as the Director of the College’s Center for Jewish Education and as Dean of the College.