Differences in Differentiation: New Options in Leading Schools?
By Dr. Ryan Donlan
Department of Educational Leadership
Bayh College of Education
Indiana State University
I once sat in an audience of over
1000 listening to a four-hour lecture on differentiated instruction. Imagine that … the irony.
I’m a big believer in differentiated
instruction, having “lived it” as a teacher long before much of the current
literature was published. Great writing and
professional development on the subject, for me, simply put “science” to my
“art.” Shamelessly put – I was a
natural.
A few years ago as a school leader,
I was championing the need for differentiating instruction in a high school,
doing so through what I considered an ideal blend of Bill Daggett’s Quadrant D
Instruction (2004) and thematic instruction, to which I fashioned the term,
“D-Matic Instruction.” Though it
required much collaboration for teachers to pull-off, I marveled at how an
enthusiastic staff excelled at doing “what’s right by kids,” or at minimum,
“what made their boss happy.” Kids
really seemed to be doing well.
It was after much celebration of
what appeared to be student engagement, that a good friend and veteran staff
member came to me and asked, “Really, Ryan … do you believe we are doing kids
any favors here?”
Dan was an incredible teacher, one
of the best I have had the pleasure of working with in 20 years of K-12
education. An intellectually astute, incredibly
humorous, politically savvy social studies teacher (and self-proclaimed “Coach
of Everything Athletic”), who would oftentimes argue his version of “life’s
meaning,” treating the faculty lounge as his perennial, personal philosophy
class. He reveled in his own caricature
and was truly the world’s best sport when rebuffed by his colleagues for debating
the merits of the most recent election or haranguing about the plight of
American’s youth. Hence, I didn’t know
if he was serious or just posturing for another faculty lounge debate. He was serious.
Well, enough about Dan. His point?
Simply this: As educators, we can study the best research
about effective classroom instruction, taking into consideration student
learning styles, multiple intelligences, needs for differentiation, and even
using the most incredible of styles in delivering it to children … yet in doing
so, are we actually doing students a disservice, as we have not built within
them the efficacy to survive and thrive in didactic instructional environments?
Have we done students an injustice
because we have not allowed them to build within themselves the resilience to
successfully navigate a two-and-1/2 hour lecture? After all, didactic instruction is what they
may find, at times, in higher education.
And isn’t that our goal nowadays – to send most if not all students to
college?
This is not an indictment of
didactic instruction by any means. It’s
simply a healthy batch of questions to be asking.
Since those conversations with my
former colleague, I have begun thinking differently about the notion of differentiation,
something now that I consider more of a transactional differentiation -- a
style of differentiated interaction and communication, one that has a focus on
meeting the psychological needs of students through certain perceptual frames,
so that they build within them the energy to communicate – and even to learn –
in modes that are not their preferred (Kahler, 2008).
Kahler’s contemporary models of communication
derive (with corporate and educational applications) from his Process Therapy
Model® and share concepts similar to
that of Transactional Analysis (Berne, 1964; Harris, 1967). Kahler’s own clinical discoveries, resulted in his
being awarded the 1977 Eric Berne Memorial Scientific Award, honored by 10,000
of his peers in 52 countries (Kahler, 2008).
In a sense, the strategies I am posing for our thought and consideration are methods of differentiating so that one does not always have to
differentiate, if that makes any sense at all. They help students to learn from a didactic delivery style (or any style
that is not a match to their “preferred”), more so than they are now.
“Riddle me this” (as Dan would say,
with a style reminiscent of Frank Gorshin, 1966-68): If I have a teacher who
lectures all day long, yet has such great communication that students
feverishly devour the “didactisms” with rapt interest and an ability to apply
learning beyond the classroom, is this a bad thing? I would argue, “Not.”
Recent presentations of these perspectives,
along with a demonstrations of targeted methods of enhancing communication and
relationships to educators at Indiana State University and the Indiana
Association of School Principals State Conference, have received rave reviews
for not only the content of the sessions, but also for the potential relevance,
or at least interest, of such to practitioners who are being asked to do so
much, with such finite resources, and with such high standards of
accountability.
Something needs to “give” –
something needs to be unearthed – to make things more efficient for today's
Superheroes in education -- the hardworking faculty who are meeting society well-more-than-halfway in making a difference. A new method
of differentiation could be “just that.”
In meeting today’s demands and
tomorrow’s challenges as scholar practitioners, we must turn our minds around the commodities of efficacy and resiliency that
we must develop in our children so that they can survive and thrive as lifelong
learners under any conditions. At
present, are we producing strong, capable learners with current efforts to
differentiate, or as an unintentional result of our best efforts, are we
producing smart, yet resiliently deprived kids who have trouble reaching beyond
their optimal circumstances for learning?
I once sat in an audience of over
1000 listening to a four-hour lecture on differentiated instruction. Would our graduating students have the
resolve?
References
Berne, E. (1964) Games people play. New York, NY: Grove
Press.
Gorshin, F.
(Actor). (1968, 1967, 1966). Portrayal of the Riddler [In television series
episodes]. In W. Dizier (Executive Producer) Batman. New York, NY:
American Broadcasting Company.
Harris, T.
(1967). I’m OK- you’re OK. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Daggett, W. (2004,
June). American’s most successful high schools – What makes them work. Symposium conducted at the 2004 Model Schools
Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.
Kahler, T. (2008)
The Process Therapy Model: The six
personality types with adaptations. Little Rock, AR: Taibi Kahler
Associates, Inc.
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Ryan Donlan can be
reached at (812) 237-8624 or at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu for questions or comments regarding the content of
this post or anything educational that is one your mind. Please feel free to share.