The meaning of “curriculum differentiation” in detracked math and science classrooms

• In Event: Differentiated Instruction and Complex Instruction: Intersections and Differences to Teaching and Learning in Heterogeneous Classrooms

Abstract

1. Objectives

This paper examines how math and science teachers teaching detracked high school classrooms used the term “curriculum differentiation” in describing their curricula.

2. Theoretical framework

This research is grounded in the interpretive framework, which examines how teachers experience reform located in a particular time and place (Erickson, 1986). This framework guided the methods chosen, focusing on a qualitative examination of teachers’ experiences in detracked classrooms.

3. 4. Methods + Data sources

Teacher Interviews. I interviewed nine math and science teachers teaching in detracked classrooms separately on videotape. I selected the teachers based on community nominations from university colleagues and teacher leaders in detracking reform. While I did not set out to select for teachers who used Complex Instruction in their classrooms, five of the nine teachers used Complex Instruction.

Classroom Observations. Videographers filmed 45 hours of classroom instruction in six teachers’ classrooms. Video clips as well as instructional materials used during class observations will be used during the presentation.

Analysis. Grounded theory, which relies on building theory from emerging patterns in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1994), continues to guide data analysis. I generated content logs for all videotapes. For this paper, these logs will be analyzed for teachers’ use of the term “differentiated curricula” until no new themes are generated. All of the data will then be coded with these themes. The coding categories will become more refined, as analyses of different sets of classroom footage and interviews across teachers will yield nuances. A rigorous search for disconfirming evidence will be conducted (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

5. Results

To date, two categories have emerged. When teachers who use the Complex Instruction framework invoke the term “curriculum differentiation,” they talk about the following:

1. Modifying lengths of assignments, not nature of tasks

For example, one teacher created an assignment with many complex problems that students solved in small groups. She presented each heterogeneous small group with one problem at a time and only handed out the next problem after doing a group quiz to ensure that all group members knew how to solve their current problem. Thus, at the end of the class period, groups had completed different numbers of problems.

2. Modifying amount of scaffolding to solve complex problem

For example, teachers assigned one complex problem to all students, but asked students to self-select the homework they would take home. One choice walked students step-by-step through the thought-process to solve the problem. The other did not provide detailed questions.

These examples illustrate some of the intersections between the two frameworks of Complex Instruction and Differentiated Instruction.

6. Significance

Teacher interviews led the researcher to identify a need to probe the relationship between the two frameworks. Analyzing how teachers who use complex instruction naturally spoke of “curriculum differentiation” provides the research community with an emic account. Practitioners have also expressed interest in further clarity of the current educational “buzz” words and how they relate. Further examination may lead to better implementation of both instructional models for students.

Author

• Maika Watanabe, San Francisco State University