Presentation Outline

1. Differentiated Instructions forHigh Ability Diverse Learners: A Case Study in a Secondary School in Singapore8THAsian Conference on Education, Kobe JapanDate: 21 OCT 2016Presented by: Ms Tan Yen ChuanSpecialistRaffles Girls’ SchoolSingapore

2. Presentation Outline • Introduction of Raffles Girls’ School (RGS) and Centre of Pedagogical Research and Learning (PeRL) • Research Purpose and Context • Definition of terms & Literature Review • Methodology • Key Findings • Enablers and Challengers • Recommendations & Policy implications • Knowledge Sharing

3. Raffles Girls’ School (Secondary)

4. Milestones • 137 years in education • 32 years in gifted education • 23 years of independence • 12 years of Raffles Programme

5. Raffles Programme • Modelled on exemplary gifted education principles and practices • Seamless curriculum from Years 1 to 6 (ages 13 to 18) to stretch and nurture gifted and talented learners • Develop the whole person: Person, Thinker, Leader, Pioneer • Develop students in 5 key domains • Cognitive • Character and Leadership • Community and Citizenship • Sports and Health • Arts and Aesthetics

6. Student Profile • RGS students come from more than 100 primary schools in Singapore • Top 5% of the primary school cohort • Age: 13 to 16 years old (RGS); 17 to 18 (RI) • Each student brings with her gifts and talents in different academic, sports, arts and other domains • Diverse multi-cultural pupil population

7. Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (PeRL) • Launched in August 2010 with the aim of engendering a culture of informed practice in the school • Hone the Reflective Practitioner to optimise student learning • Provides training and consultancy to educational institutions which arepractitioner-oriented and mindful of school context • Emphasises the Asian context

8. Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (PeRL) • PeRL’s aspiration • Generating an Asian Discourse • Collaboration with educational institutions in Asia Examples of Workshops 1. Teach Less Learn More 2. The Design of a Performance Task 3. Use of Critical Thinking Tools and Strategies 4. Workshop on Practitioner Inquiry 5. Thinking Like an Assessor: Design of Formative Assessment 6. Role of Formative Assessment in 21stC Education

9. Knowledge Sharing Share research at conferences Annual Open Classroom In house staff publication Good Practice Day Practitioner-oriented workshop Biennial Symposium

10. Centre for Pedagogical Research and Learning (PeRL) • PeRL’s aspiration • Generating an Asian Discourse • Collaboration with educational institutions in Asia Examples of Research 1. A case study on factors influencing teachers’ readiness in embarking on Practitioner Inquiry: Teachers’ motivations and challenges (2012-13) 2. Differentiated instructions for high ability diverse learners in a regular classroom: a case study in an independent school(2014-15) 3. Evaluating Teacher Practice in a Whole School Curriculum Framework: The Role of Professional Learning Communities (2015-16)

11. Differentiated Instructions (DI) forHigh Ability Diverse Learners: A Case Study in a Secondary School in Singapore Ms Tan Yen ChuanSpecialistRaffles Girls’ SchoolSingapore

12. Definition of terms • Differentiated instruction is the planned process of ensuring that the students’ readiness level, interests and preferred mode of learning is taken into consideration when deciding the learning content, learning process and the product. This is with the intent of maximizing the potential of each learner through meeting the needs of the varied learners (Tomlinson, 2004). • Principles of effective differentiation: Students and teachers are collaborators in learning. • Teachers in differentiated classes understand the need to help students take increasingresponsibility for their own growth. • Self-directed learning (SDL) is defined as “any increase in knowledge, skill, accomplishment, or personal development that an individual selects and brings about by his or her own efforts using any method in any circumstances at any time.” (Gibbons, 2002) DI is complementary to SDL

13. Raffles Girls’ School • Admits the top 5% of the cohort, through Primary School Leaving Exam: 1600 pupils • Offer Direct School Admission for specific domains • Offers curriculum based on Gifted Education principles • Has a diverse student population: multi-cultural

14. Characteristics of high-ability/gifted learners • Ability to learn at faster rates; • Ability to make connections &manipulate abstract ideas; • Capacity to find, solve &act on problems more readily • J.Van Tassel-Baska (1986) RGS provides curriculum differentiation for learners who are especially gifted in a particular discipline.

15. Teaching & Learning Focus • RGS adopts the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) by Joyce VanTassel-Baska(1986, 1995, 2012) • The ICM is intended for gifted learners and has 3 dimensions:

16. The Singapore Model • Gifted/ High Ability pupils follow the regular curriculum and take the same examinations as those in the mainstream, but with • additional subjects • greater depth • exposure to varied learning experiences such as project work

17. Raffles Girls’ School (RGS) ~ Core Competency of a Teacher • Differentiated Instruction (DI) is a RGS Core Competency that complements Self-Directed Learning (SDL). • Students are at different levels of readiness for SDL • Requires differentiated support e.g.timely interventions, coaching, & formative feedback (Wilka and Cohen, 2014). • Data-driven differentiated instruction remains at the heart of a self-directed approach (Freeland, 2014).

18. Research Purpose • Two years have passed since DI was the school focus in 2013 - a timely review • To understand how teachers plan & implement differentiated instruction (DI) to address the needsof high ability diverse learners in the classroom • To understand the enablers andtheir challenges faced by teachers when implementing DI.

19. ACROSS STUDIES • Teachers do not differentiate much or appropriately without interventions (but think they do). • hold misunderstandings about what differentiation is... • often feel that they are differentiating when they are not. • High stakes testing is an inhibitor to changing teacher behavior to focus on individual needs and differentiate Two Decades of Research on Differentiation: What Do We Now Know? • Catherine M. Brighton, Ph.D. & Tonya R. Moon, Ph.DA Cliff • Notes Summary of Some of Our ResearchNRC/GT @ UVA

20. RGS School Context (with ref to Gifted Education curriculum review) • Curriculum differentiation: Raffles Academy (RA) • Cater to students with special talents and passions with the aim to develop their distinct ability. • Students chosen for the Academy will be pulled from their regular classes for up to a maximum of two subject areas for Secondary 3 and 4. • Given opportunity to accelerate and advance their learning • Only involves a small population of the especially gifted, per subject. • Only offered in upper level & capped at 2 (due to the demanding nature of the advanced classes).

21. RGS School Context (with ref to Gifted Education curriculum review) • Implication: • Many learners who would be capable of engaging in advanced course materials & assignments but are learning the standard curriculum. • A need to intensify the efforts to address the individual needs of advanced learners, non-advanced learners and underachievers in the regular classroom • through differentiated instruction so that they will feel appropriately challenged and be engaged in their learning.

22. Teachers’ belief system and understanding/ proficiency matters • Teachers who have undergone more staff development show no increase in the use of differentiation strategies for gifted learners (Westberg & Daoust, 2003). • Teachers might have different understanding on the use of the new strategy (Gene E Hall & Hord, 2006). • Teachers might refer their teaching strategy as DI, but whatactually happens in the classroom might be very different.

23. Teachers’ belief system and understanding/ proficiency matters • Many teachers tend to “teach to the middle” (Haager & Klingner, 2005) • Pressure to complete curriculum • Expectations to ensure students to perform well in standardized test

24. Research Question • General question: • How do teachers use differentiated instruction to address the needs of diverse high ability learners in a classroom?” • Guiding questions: • How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom? • What are the enablers and challenges that teachers perceived in using differentiated instruction?

25. Significance • Input to design staff development programs • address concerns & challenges • Support teachers in developing competency in Differentiated Instruction (DI) • Input for designing standard-based practice for DI • DI matrix

26. Tomlinson’s model

27. Methodology • Case study • Qualitative (intensive description & analysis) • Lesson observations (COS-R, DCOS, Assessing Classroom Differentiation Form) • Pre and post lesson observations interviews • Unit plans and lesson plans • Other school documents (school policy, GE curriculum review, DI induction materials etc.) • Triangulation of data to provide an in-depth understanding on how teachers use differentiated instruction in a classroom.

28. Data collection Method • Each Department: 3-4 teachers (min 2 yrs experience, NIE trained, undergone DI induction). • Departments: English, Mathematics, Science, Humanities, Languages • Total sampling size: 18 (reached saturation point)

29. Guiding Research Questions • How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom? • What are the enablers & challenges that teachers perceived in using DI?

30. How do teachers plan and implement differentiated instruction in a classroom?

31. What works?

32. Key Findings (+) There is evidence of good DI practices (aligned to principles of differentiation), e.g.: • Data-driven: Conscious use of diagnostic & ongoing assessments. • Use of flexible grouping based on the understanding of students.

33. Example 1: Data-driven (+) • M9 recognises that DI is Data-driven: • “the strength is I’m able to collect relevant data to ascertain where my students are” .. So that I can cater lesson according to their needs”. • Ongoing assessment: “we have to test them along the way to see where they are” • Continuous Learning: “communicate with the senior teachers in my department …I get to hear from them”. • Examples of other teachers using diagnostics tests: • M3 used the VIEW profiling to differentiate according to students learning profiles. • M5 constructed a knowledge map to assess prior knowledge. • M8 used a short quiz at the start of the unit.

34. Example 2: Flexible grouping(+) • M9 differentiates lesson to suit ability level through flexible grouping: • Ability was diagnosed based on previous assessment results. • Students were grouped by ability: High, Middle, Low • 3 sets of questions with differing levels of complex variables are used.

35. Key Findings (+) • There is understanding that DI should be a planned process to anticipate& respond to different needs of students. • There is evidence of DI elements infused into unit lesson plans through the UbD (Understanding by Design) framework

36. Key Findings (+) • Teachers tend to differentiate by readiness and students’ interest. • 4 common modus operandi below. Students’ Readiness 61% Students’ Interests 35% L.S 4% Diff Process : 69% Diff Content: 31% Diff Content: 67% Diff Product: 33% … because I’m quite exam-focused, so I would go by readiness” (M18)

37. Areas for Improvement

38. Key Findings (-) • Teachers tend to focus on advanced learners & underachievers with regards to readiness level. • Most teachers diagnosed readiness based on academic results but less of socio-emotional needs and prior knowledge. • Needs of the middle group (the majority) might not be sufficiently addressed. • This may seem logical and practical, but knowledge of the needs of students in the middle group is lacking and they ceased to be recognized as individual learners. • “Maybe there are the middle ability groups which have been lumped into the 2 ends of spectrum” (M8).

39. Micro differentiation is Not enough (-)

40. Micro differentiation is Not enough (-) • Differentiation is not just about offering choice. • Teacher provided two case studies on a topic. Students are free to select the case study – “it was a good idea to give them something differentiated by content, differentiated by interest” (M5). • M15 used content differentiation by providing enriched content for students who may be interested, but “I’m quite sure that none of them went to have a look”. • Differentiation is about understanding and responding to students’ needs • “Usually we do this (advanced content) because there are higher ability students .. We just want to keep them occupied, in a way make their learning time a bit more fruitful” (M7). • Teacher only asks a few complex qns to higher ability students during class discussion (M1).

41. Micro differentiation is Not enough (-) • Differentiation is not simply adding more or less work. • High ability students to do 10 more than others (M11) • We “give extra questions for the higher able” (M7) • Simply adjusting the quantity of an assignment will generally be less effective than adjusting the nature of the assignment to match student needs as well (Tomlinson, 2001)

42. 2. What are the enablers & challenges that teachers perceived in using DI?

43. Enablers towards using DI in the classroom Belief system and teachers’ understanding

44. Key Findings • Understanding the rationale of DI and having compelling reasons for using DI is an enabler • e.g. teachers’ quotes: • “address learning needs” • “all students are different” • “keeps students more engaged, especially higher ability ones” • “Can be more targeted remediation”

45. Challenges

46. Key Findings • Teachers should be given more mentoring & more exemplars on the application of DI in their discipline. • Request for subject specific DI exemplars/ real life successful examples by several teachers • “If I can have some mentor to actually teach, really to evaluate. to say ‘is this really DI’” (m3) .

47. Key Findings • Teachers need time toconsolidatewhat they have learnt. • “you all conduct quite a lot of workshops, like the DI workshop... I mean for the general knowledge, I know. I’m looking to have, more interested to have that kind of workshop and cater to the subject, for example. Also maybe can provide that kind of sound literature paper, or maybe videos, teachers can just look at their own subject area. Because sometimes we know the general thing, but we don’t know how to apply to teaching. Then if we can have more examples from the local area then will be much better. “(m12)

48. Challenges • Unfamiliarity with DI vocabulary. • Lack of confidence in using DI as there are not enough subject specific examples. • Whether DI will help to achieve curriculum objectives (different for different levels) • “Is what I’m doing a DI?”(m10) • “Whether what I do is considered DI“(m3) • they give you a definition (what is DI ) and you know the definition. But how do you operationalize the definition. That’s where the problem is. (m5) • Extra planning is required. • “We get jaded because so little time to think about things sometimes. We fall back on the same strategy.” (M5)

49. Challenges • Over-reliance on SA scores as a form of diagnosis • “our first PPA was in Term 2. So without the first PPA, it is not easy to determine whether the student is high ability or not” (M11) • Ability can be mis-diagnosed. • Use of past test scores may not be reliable when they measure a different set of skills and knowledge from the unit that is being taught. • “I made wrong judgment about ability. I may feel a certain topic is not difficult, when I give it to that group of students, they actually feel that it is quite difficult. So there can be wrong judgment” (M16)

50. Recommendations