Techniques of differentiation

In a class of disadvantaged children, individual needs of students may include a wide range from gifted children to diagnosed or undiagnosed specific disabilities or learning difficulties including cultural, ethnical or poverty issues. Teachers participating in the investigation revealed that they experienced several problems in identifying and meeting individual needs of children:

It’s very difficult, it’s just not possible for me to always take individual requirements into consideration. I do try, though. [S2TG2]

Cs. Czachesz and Radó (2003) assert that differentiated pedagogical methods are rarely used in Hungarian schools due to the lack of appropriate personnel and financial resources. The usual procedure to facilitate teaching is to create homogeneous groups of

children – if available in the school – is usually based on abilities in order to create homogenous groups of children with similar abilities. The idea behind ability grouping is that in homogeneous groups it is easier for teachers to accommodate individual differences as similar students are easier to teach and manage. The following comments indicate that teaching homogenous groups of children has been regarded more efficient by language teachers:

It’s much easier to get on with them if they are separated for abilities.

[S2TG1]

To tell the truth, I prefer teaching in the specialized class, where the students with better abilities are grouped. [S1TG2]

Teaching used to be easier, somehow there didn’t use to be so many differences among children as today. [S4TG1]

However, organizing groups by ability level has been found not to contribute to raising overall performance levels of children according to the PISA results (OECD, 2009). The high performing students profit more from stimulative environment, however, homogenous grouping does not enhance achievement in low ability groups.

This view was also asserted by one teacher:

It’s very difficult to work with a group from which the better ones have been removed. There’s nobody the children can compare themselves to.

[S4TG2]

It indicates that in more homogeneous environment, low performing children lower aspirations and gradually become demotivated. Hall (1997) calls attention to further threats of ability grouping as in the group of low performing children, “there is less instructional time, less material covered, lower difficulty or material presented, lower

teacher interruptions of student responses and different advice about educational and occupational options” (p. 21). Moreover, ability grouping might be used to segregate children as Farkas et al. (2007) gives account of cases when the placement of Roma children in remedial or catch-up classes was not justified by their low performance.

The language classes of two special remedial groups were observed which consisted of extremely low-performing children with behaviour problems. In one group in School S1, the head teacher permitted classroom observation only in her presence. It prevented getting a real picture of the children as they behaviour seemingly changed when they realized that the head teacher would also participate in the language lesson.

The language teacher mumbled under her nose after the class: “This was a group of hopeless children. I hated coming here and I only hoped for surviving every lesson”

[S1TE1], which was not really supported by the classroom observation. The only significant difference was significantly slower pace and the lack of homework because

“they never do homework at home, so I stopped giving it” [S1TE1]. The teacher felt in a desperate situation without any help from the school and she did not have either intentions or methodological means to improve the group. The second catch-up group in school S4 consisted of low-ability children with one dyslexic boy. The children were apparently bored and demotivated. The whole class concentrated on practicing grammar structure with drills, the exercises seemed to be well above the level of the group, after the class the teacher explained that “we have to follow the course book, we’ll have to finish it by the end of the school year” [S4TE2].

Both teachers could be characterized to some degree by the metaphor teacher as martyr used by Oxford et al. (1998). Meighan and Siraj-Blatchford (2003) draw on the analogy of teacher as victim which

“stresses the possibility of constraint, of limited choices, of imposed

include the possible conclusions that teachers are helpless victims, that constraints do not change and that limited choices are equivalent to no choices” (p.28).

Havas, Kemény and Liskó (2002) reported that teaching disadvantaged children or Roma groups are sometimes regarded as low-status activity or even ‘punishment’ in some schools. This attitude was characteristic of the above mentioned two teachers.

Interestingly, none of the teachers expressed these views in the interviews, only during informal talks. It must be stressed that this type of serious disillusionment was not typical among the other teachers of foreign languages.

As the classroom observations showed, the process and the content of teaching was often not tailored to the needs of the children. A solution to this problem may be offered by using techniques of differentiated instruction which is defined as a flexible pedagogical system which accepts and responds to children’s individual differences in

“readiness, interests and culturally shaped ways of seeing and speaking of the world, and experiences in that world” (Tomlinson, 1999, p.1). In this framework, readiness refers to a child’s starting point for learning based on his or her developmental level, which can be determined by assessment tests and / or careful observations. Teachers’

comments indicate that they also share this view:

I know each and every child who I teach very well. [S4TE1]

It is essential that teachers should be aware of the specific needs of each child. The initial job for the teacher is to investigate each child's family circumstances and school history.

One of the teachers emphasized that knowing the children’s socioeconomic background is also important when teaching disadvantaged children in order to be able to accommodate their needs:

There is a really true relationship between me and the children I am aware of their family circumstances. I know when they are sleepy, they haven’t had enough sleep because dad was beating mom at night, for instance. And then I can take it into consideration. [S1TE2]

Tomlinson (2001) suggests that teachers may vary the process, product, or content of assignments in order to meet the needs of students learning at various levels of familiarity and competence. Teachers participating in the investigation reported modifying mainly the materials and mechanisms of learning:

I try to give them tasks that suit their abilities. [S4TG1]

I wait until he’s finished with the exercise, the better ones, who know the solution to the exercise, get tasks for individual practice in the meantime.

[S2TE1]

Two teachers also modified assessment techniques to improve student achievement:

When writing a test, I give them easer tasks. Similar concepts, but easier sentences, easier phrasing. [S2TG1]

I still try to ask them for the easier, or better-known words, they others help them out or complete their answers. I’m trying to consider their abilities. [S5TG1]

Using flexible grouping patterns may be an important opportunity for the teacher to relate to children’s specific needs and to check progress. Some comments in the interview referred to using different grouping techniques:

I try to make them sit in a way that allows them to correct their mistakes if they have any problems, so that they can help one another. [S4TE2]

It is generally recognized that individual learners have different learning styles,

teacher to consider individual needs and to devote more time to the students' oral production. Teachers stated to be devoted to using group, pair and individual work, which was confirmed by classroom observations. One of the teachers complained about the extra burden group work causes:

I group them into groups of four, but it’s very demanding for me. Some children can’t even write. Others can already put together whole sentences. This is a big problem. [S4TG2]

Classroom observations revealed that group or pair work were rarely used by language teachers of disadvantaged children. They preferred frontal teaching:

I try to give them tasks that suit their abilities, although, I admit that we often do frontal work in the classroom. [S5TG1]

One of the youngest teachers, a beginner teacher of English gave an account of her experience of attempting to introduce differentiated instruction, the theory of which she had learnt during her studies. However, implementing these techniques into practice caused serious difficulties and resulted in leaving differentiation and turning back to excessive frontal teaching:

I’ve already experimented with differentiation, but that made them quarrel, almost fight. I tried quantitative and qualitative differentiation.

The group work didn’t work because they started fighting about who they wanted to work together with. Quantitative differentiation works better although we don’t often have time to do it. I can’t give students who finish fast a new exercise, because then how would we check? So it is much easier if we do it frontally. [S3TE1]

This example also shows that children are not accustomed to group work, it is hardly ever used in other classes.

The classroom setting prevented effective and quick grouping in several cases.

One group had every lesson in the language laboratory where only frontal teaching or individual work was possible. In other classrooms, it was impossible to move the desks or the rooms were too small.

In other language groups, successful and well-organized use of pair-work and group-work could be observed. One of the language teachers (S1TE2) reported that she observed effective use of grouping techniques during her teaching practice and other colleagues in this school use group-work frequently which contributes to the acceptance of this method among children.

These findings refer to the fact that teachers are aware that their teaching techniques and approach should be modified in order to respond to different learning needs of children, especially in mixed-ability groups. Westwood (2008) stresses that “it is actually incredibly difficult to implement and sustain an ambitious differentiated program over time. It places exceptional pressure on teachers to attempt this, and many do not succeed” (p. 75).

In conclusion, Figure 6 displays the most important aspects of teachers’

methodological background which influence the language learning process of disadvantaged children.

Figure 6. Overview of Category 2: Methodological considerations of language teachers

Teachers’ answers suggest that teachers of disadvantaged children would need training courses specifically designed for disadvantaged children. These courses could help them how to choose appropriate classroom activities in order to promote children’s language learning. On the whole, the findings of the teachers’ and children’s interviews, as well as the classroom observations, indicated that a great part of classroom activities followed the patterns of the grammar-translation method. The methodological repertoire of teachers may have been also influenced by the fact that four teachers under investigation had gained their first degree and had worked for a long time as teachers of Russian, which was mainly taught by grammar-translation method. Activities regarded as appropriate for young learners were also used effectively in language classes such as multi-sensory methods and language games, which were the favourite activities of children. The development of learning strategies and using techniques of differentiation were also found important in case of disadvantaged children.