Blog

Performance Task Blog Series # 2 – Why Should We Use Performance Tasks?

The case for the increased use of performance tasks rests on two foundational ideas:

1) Authentic tasks are needed to both develop and assess many of the most significant outcomes identified in the current sets of academic Standards as well as trans-disciplinary 21st Century Skills; and 2) Research on effective learning from cognitive psychology and neuroscience underscores the importance of providing students with multiple opportunities to apply their learning to relevant, real-world situations. In this blog post, I will explore the first foundational idea. In blog post #3, I will examine ways in which the use of authentic performance tasks contributes to deeper learning.

The New Standards Demand Performance

shutterstock_137811743While any performance by a learner might be considered a performance task (e.g., tying a shoe or drawing a picture), it is useful to distinguish between the application of specific and discrete skills (e.g., dribbling a basketball) from genuine performance in context (e.g., playing the game of basketball in which dribbling is one of many applied skills). Thus, when I use the term performance tasks, I am referring to more complex and authentic performances.

 

Here are seven general characteristics of performance tasks:

The most recent sets of academic standards in the U.S. – The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics , The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), The College, Career and Citizenship Standards for Social Studies (C3) and The National Core Arts Standards (NCAS) – call for educational outcomes that demand more than multiple-choice and short answer assessments as evidence of their attainment. Rather than simply specifying a “scope and sequence” of knowledge and skills, these new standards focus on the performances expected of students who are prepared for higher education and careers. For example, the CCSS in English Language Arts have been framed around a set of Anchor Standards that define the long-term proficiencies that students will need to be considered “college and career ready.” The writers of the E/LA Standards make this point unequivocally in their characterization of the performance capacities of the literate individual:

“They demonstrate independence. Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and evaluate complex texts across a range of types and disciplines, and they can construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information… Students adapt their communication in relation to audience, task, purpose, and discipline. Likewise, students are able independently to discern a speaker’s key points, request clarification, and ask relevant questions… Without prompting, they demonstrate command of standard English and acquire and use a wide-ranging vocabulary. More broadly, they become self-directed learners, effectively seeking out and using resources to assist them, including teachers, peers, and print and digital reference materials.” (CCSS for E/LA, p. 7)

The authors of the CCSS in Mathematics declare a shift away from a “mile wide, inch deep” listing of discrete skills and concepts toward a greater emphasis on developing the mathematical Practices of Problem Solving, Reasoning, Modeling, along with the mental habit of Perseverance. Similarly, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have highlighted eight Practices, including Asking Questions and Defining Problems and Analyzing and Interpreting Data. As noted in the opening pages, these Practice are intended to actively engaging learners in “doing” science, not just memorizing facts:

“As in all inquiry-based approaches to science teaching, our expectation is that students will themselves engage in the practices and not merely learn about them secondhand. Students cannot comprehend scientific practices, nor fully appreciate the nature of scientific knowledge itself, without directly experiencing those practices for themselves.


A graphic from the National Science Teachers Association depicts the commonalities among the practices in Science, Mathematics and English Language Arts. Note that all of these reflect genuine performances valued in the wider world


In the same vein, the recently released College, Career and Citizenship (C3) Standards for Social Studies highlight a set of fundamental performances that are central to an “arc of inquiry.” These include, Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries, Gathering and Evaluating Sources, and Taking Informed Action.

The pattern is clear: the current crop of academic Standards focus on developing transferable processes (e.g., problem solving, argumentation, research, and critical thinking), not simply presenting a body of factual knowledge for students to remember. A fundamental goal reflected in these Standards is the preparation of learners who can perform with their knowledge.

Needed Shifts in Assessment

The new emphases of the Common Core and Next Generation Standards call for a concomitant shift in assessments – both in large-scale and classroom levels. The widespread use of multiple-choice tests as predominant measures of learning in many subject areas must give way to an expanded use of performance assessments tasks that engage students in applying their learning in genuine contexts. McTighe and Wiggins (2013) echo this point in a recent article, “From Common Core Standards to Curriculum: Five Big Ideas” (available at https://jaymctighe.com/resources/articles/):

“This performance-based conception of Standards lies at the heart of what is needed to translate the Common Core into a robust curriculum and assessment system. The curriculum and related instruction must be designed backward from an analysis of standards-based assessments; i.e., worthy performance tasks anchored by rigorous rubrics and annotated work samples. We predict that the alternative – a curriculum mapped in a typical scope and sequence based on grade-level content specifications – will encourage a curriculum of disconnected “coverage” and make it more likely that people will simply retrofit the new language to the old way of doing business. Thus, our proposal reflects the essence of backward design: Conceptualize and construct the curriculum back from sophisticated tasks, reflecting the performances that the Common Core Standards demand of graduates. Indeed, the whole point of Anchor Standards in ELA and the Practices in Mathematics is to establish the genres of performance (e.g., argumentation in writing and speaking, and solving problems set in real-world contexts) that must recur across the grades in order to develop the capacities needed for success in higher education and the workplace.”

In recognition of these points, the two national assessment consortia, Smarter Balanced (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), have declared their intent to expand their repertoire to include performance tasks on the next generation of standardized tests. While it is encouraging to see changes in external testing, my contention is that the most natural home for the increased use of performance assessments is in the classroom. Since teachers do not face the same constraints as large-scale testing groups (e.g., standardized implementation, limited time, scoring costs, etc.), they can more readily employ performance tasks along with traditional assessment formats. Performance assessments such as writing an essay, solving a multi-step problem, debating an issue, and conducting research and creating an informative website ask students to demonstrate their learning through actual performance, not by simply selecting an answer from given alternatives.

By recommending an increased use of performance tasks in the classroom, I certainly do not mean to suggest that this is the only form of assessment that teachers should employ. Of course, teachers can and should also use traditional measures such as selected-response and short-answer quizzes and tests, skill checks, observations, and portfolios of student work when assessing their students. Here’s a useful analogy: Think of classroom assessment as photography. Any single assessment is like a snapshot in that it provides a picture of student learning at a moment in time. However, it would be inappropriate to use one picture (a single assessment) as the sole basis for drawing conclusions about how well a student has achieved desired learning outcomes. Instead, think of classroom assessment as akin to the assembly of a photo album containing a variety of pictures taken at different times with different lenses, backgrounds, and compositions. Such an album offers a richer, fairer and more complete picture of student achievement than any single snapshot can provide. My point is that our assessment photo album needs to include performance tasks that provide evidence of students’ ability to apply their learning in authentic contexts.

21st Century Skills

In an era in which students can “google” much of the world’s knowledge on a smart phone, an argument can be made that the outcomes of modern schooling should place a greater emphasis on shutterstock_235464301trans-disciplinary skills, such as critical thinking, collaboration, communicating using various technologies, and learning to learn. In the paper, “21st Century Skills Assessment,” the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2007) describes this need and the implication for assessments of students:

“While the current assessment landscape is replete with assessments that measure knowledge of core content areas such as language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, there is a comparative lack of assessments and analyses focused on 21st century skills. Current tests fall short in several key ways:

  • The tests are not designed to gauge how well students apply what they know to new situations or evaluate how students might use technologies to solve problems or communicate ideas.
  • While teachers and schools are being asked to modify their practice based on standardized test data, the tests are not designed to help teachers make decisions about how to target their daily instruction.

The Partnership proposes that needed assessments should “be largely performance-based and authentic, calling upon students to use 21st century skills” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007, p. 6). I agree!

The Current Assessment Landscape

Many current classroom- and school-level assessments focus on the most easily measured objectives. The pressures of high-stakes accountability tests have exacerbated this tendency as teachers devote valuable class time to “test prep” (at least in the tested subject areas) involving practice with multiple-choice and brief constructed-response items that mimic the format of standardized tests. While selected-response and short-answer assessments are fine for assessing discrete knowledge and skills, they are incapable of providing evidence of the skills deemed most critical for the 21st century.

Dr. Linda Darling Hammond, a professor at Stanford University and authority on international education and assessment practices, elaborates on this point (2013):

As educators, we know that today’s students will enter a workforce in which they will have to not only acquire information, but also analyze, synthesize, and apply it to address new problems, design solutions, collaborate effectively, and communicate persuasively. Few, if any, previous generations have been asked to become such nimble thinkers. Educators accept the responsibility to prepare our students for this new and complex world. We also know that in our current high-stakes context, what is tested increasingly defines what gets taught. Unfortunately, in the United States, the 21st century skills our students need have gotten short shrift because our current multiple-choice tests do not test or encourage students’ use of these skills.

Ironically, the widespread use of narrow, inauthentic assessments and test prep practices at the classroom level can unwittingly undermine the very competencies called for by the next generation academic Standards and 21st Century Skills. To be blunt, students will not be equipped to handle the sophisticated work expected in colleges and much of the workforce if teachers simply march through “coverage” of discrete knowledge and skills in grade-level standards and assess learning primarily through multiple-choice tests of de-contextualized items. Moreover, such teaching and assessment practices are unlikely to develop the transferable “big ideas” and fundamental processes of the disciplines. Moreover, they deprive students of relevant and engaging learning experiences.

In order to counter to these trends, we need to significantly increase the use of authentic performance tasks that require students to apply their learning in genuine contexts. We need to assess the performance outcomes that matter most, not simply those objectives that are easiest to test and grade. Indeed, meaningful and lasting learning will be enhanced when school curricula are constructed “backward” from a series of rich performance tasks that reflect the “end-in-mind” performances demanded for college and career readiness.


 

For a collection of authentic performance tasks and associated rubrics, see Defined STEMhttp://www.definedstem.com
For more information about the design and use of performance tasks, see Core Learning: Assessing What Matters Most by Jay McTighe: http://www.schoolimprovement.com

See original post at: http://www.performancetask.com/why-should-we-use-performance-tasks/

Performance Task Blog Series # 1 – What is a performance task?

A performance task is any learning activity or assessment that asks students to perform to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and proficiency. Performance tasks yield a tangible product and/or performance that serve as evidence of learning. Unlike a selected-response item (e.g., multiple-choice or matching) that asks students to select from given alternatives, a performance task presents a situation that calls for learners to apply their learning in context.

Performance tasks are routinely used in certain disciplines, such as visual and performing arts, physical education, and career-technology where performance is the natural focus of instruction. However, such tasks can (and should) be used in every subject area and at all grade levels.

Characteristics of Performance Tasks

While any performance by a learner might be considered a performance task (e.g., tying a shoe or drawing a picture), it is useful to distinguish between the application of specific and discrete skills (e.g., dribbling a basketball) from genuine performance in context (e.g., playing the game of basketball in which dribbling is one of many applied skills). Thus, when I use the term performance tasks, I am referring to more complex and authentic performances.

Here are seven general characteristics of performance tasks:

  1. Performance tasks call for the application of knowledge and skills, not just recall or recognition.

In other words, the learner must actually use their learning to perform. These tasks typically yield a tangible product (e.g., graphic display, blog post) or performance (e.g., oral presentation, debate) that serve as evidence of their understanding and proficiency.

  1. Performance tasks are open-ended and typically do not yield a single, correct answer.

Unlike selected- or brief constructed- response items that seek a “right” answer, performance tasks are open-ended. Thus, there can be different responses to the task that still meet success criteria. These tasks are also open in terms of process; i.e., there is typically not a single way of accomplishing the task.

  1. Performance tasks establish novel and authentic contexts for performance.

These tasks present realistic conditions and constraints for students to navigate. For example, a mathematics task would present students with a never-before-seen problem that cannot be solved by simply “plugging in” numbers into a memorized algorithm. In an authentic task, students need to consider goals, audience, obstacles, and options to achieve a successful product or performance. Authentic tasks have a side benefit – they convey purpose and relevance to students, helping learners see a reason for putting forth effort in preparing for them.

  1. Performance tasks provide evidence of understanding via transfer.

Understanding is revealed when students can transfer their learning to new and “messy” situations. Note that not all performances require transfer. For example, playing a musical instrument by following the notes or conducting a step-by-step science lab require minimal transfer. In contrast, rich performance tasks are open-ended and call “higher-order thinking” and the thoughtful application of knowledge and skills in context, rather than a scripted or formulaic performance.

  1. Performance tasks are multi-faceted.

Unlike traditional test “items” that typically assess a single skill or fact, performance tasks are more complex. They involve multiple steps and thus can be used to assess several standards or outcomes.

  1. Performance tasks can integrate two or more subjects as well as 21st century skills.

In the wider world beyond the school, most issues and problems do not present themselves neatly within subject area “silos.” While performance tasks can certainly be content-specific (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies), they also provide a vehicle for integrating two or more subjects and/or weaving in 21st century skills and Habits of Mind. One natural way of integrating subjects is to include a reading, research, and/or communication component (e.g., writing, graphics, oral or technology presentation) to tasks in content areas like social studies, science, health, business, health/physical education. Such tasks encourage students to see meaningful learning as integrated, rather than something that occurs in isolated subjects and segments.

  1. Performances on open-ended tasks are evaluated with established criteria and rubrics.

Since these tasks do not yield a single answer, student products and performances should be judged against appropriate criteria aligned to the goals being assessed. Clearly defined and aligned criteria enable defensible, judgment-based evaluation. More detailed scoring rubrics, based on criteria, are used to profile varying levels of understanding and proficiency.


Let’s look at a few examples of performance tasks that reflect these characteristics:


Botanical Design (upper elementary)

shutterstock_5198467Your landscape architectural firm is competing for a grant to redesign a public space in your community and to improve its appearance and utility. The goal of the grant is to create a community area where people can gather to enjoy themselves and the native plants of the region. The grant also aspires to educate people as to the types of trees, shrubs, and flowers that are native to the region.
Your team will be responsible for selecting a public place in your area that you can improve for visitors and members of the community. You will have to research the area selected, create a scale drawing of the layout of the area you plan to redesign, propose a new design to include native plants of your region, and prepare educational materials that you will incorporate into the design.

Check out the full performance task at: http://dlrn.us?bdrhs


Evaluate the Claim (upper elementary/ middle school)

shutterstock_125480678The Pooper Scooper Kitty Litter Company claims that their litter is 40% more absorbent than other brands. You are a Consumer Advocates researcher who has been asked to evaluate their claim. Develop a plan for conducting the investigation. Your plan should be specific enough so that the lab investigators could follow it to evaluate the claim.

 

 

 

 


Moving to South America (middle school)

shutterstock_23385253Since they know that you have just completed a unit on South America, your aunt and uncle have asked you to help them decide where they should live when your aunt starts her new job as a consultant to a computer company operating throughout the region. They can choose to live anywhere in the continent.

Your task is to research potential home locations by examining relevant geographic, climatic, political, economic, historic, and cultural considerations. Then, write a letter to your aunt and uncle with your recommendation about a place for them to move. Be sure to explain your decision with reasons and evidence from your research.

 


Accident Scene Investigation (high school)

shutterstock_144637628You are a law enforcement officer who has been hired by the District Attorney’s Office to set-up an accident scene investigation unit. Your first assignment is to work with a reporter from the local newspaper to develop a series of information pieces to inform the community about the role and benefits of applying forensic science to accident investigations.

Your team will share this information with the public through the various media resources owned and operated by the newspaper.

Check out the full performance task at: http://dlrn.us?qfl3p


In sum, performance tasks like these can be used to engage students in meaningful learning. Since rich performance tasks establish authentic contexts that reflect genuine applications of knowledge, students are often motivated and engaged by such “real world” challenges.

When used as assessments, performance tasks enable teachers to gauge student understanding and proficiency with complex processes (e.g., research, problem solving, and writing), not just measure discrete knowledge. They are well suited to integrating subject areas and linking content knowledge with the 21st Century Skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and technology use. Moreover, performance-based assessment can also elicit Habits of Mind, such as precision and perseverance.


 

For a collection of authentic performance tasks and associated rubrics, see Defined STEMhttp://www.definedstem.com
For more information about the design and use of performance tasks, see Core Learning: Assessing What Matters Most by Jay McTighe: http://www.schoolimprovement.com

See original post at: http://www.performancetask.com/what-is-a-performance-task/

A Response to “Differentiation Doesn’t Work”

In the January 7, 2015 Commentary in Education Week, James R. Delisle opined that “Differentiation Doesn’t Work.” Given that I co-authored a book with “differentiated” in the title (Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design, ASCD 2005), I felt compelled to reply. However, given that my colleague, Grant Wiggins, offers such a penetratingly effective critique of Delisle’s piece in a recent blog post (both the original article and Grant’s rejoinder are included below), I decided to veer down a satirical path for my reply. However, before launching into parody, I’ll make a few serious points.

It may come as a surprise to Mr. Delisle to know that we agree on the following:

• More than 1/3 of my 44 years as a professional educator was spent directly working in support of programs for “gifted” students. I worked as a G/T resource teacher, a program administrator (coordinating programs in 83 schools, K-12), director of a statewide, summer residential enrichment program, and state G/T specialist at the DOE in Maryland. Accordingly, I share Mr. Delisle’s advocacy for the importance of providing appropriately challenging experiences for highly able learners in “least restrictive” environments. Contrary to the opinions of some, I do not believe that precocious learners will simply “make it on their own.” They need and deserve proper programming to realize their enormous potential.

• I have witnessed the dissolution or reduction of programs for “special needs” students (both the gifted and the learning challenged) justified under the umbrella of “differentiation.” Over the years, some schools and districts have offered (often superficial) training in differentiated instruction only to declare that every teacher now has the tools to address the needs of all learners within their classrooms. Thus, they contend, there is no longer a need to employ specialists or offer special programming. While mindful of the reality of tight educational budgets, I do not condone the use of differentiation as a rationalization for such cost-saving measures.

• While I believe that effective teachers always differentiate to some extent (as do effective athletic coaches, extra-curricular sponsors and parents), I agree with Delisle that it is unrealistic to expect an individual teacher to be able to fully address the wide variety of backgrounds, skill levels, interests, talents, personalities and learning preferences of the large numbers students found in many of today’s classrooms. The growing percentage of students of poverty, from non-English speaking homes, and/or on medications exacerbates the teacher’s burden. Sadly, I have witnessed some extraordinarily conscientious educators harbor guilt feelings and “burn out” from the demands of trying to be all things to all students.

• Finally, I agree with his observation that differentiation is hard. Of course, trying to address the needs of individuals is more demanding than “one size, fits all” teaching. As a former swimming coach, my job would have been decidedly easier if all of the swimmers who joined the team came with the same skill level and swam the same event. Unfortunately, I had league record-holders sharing the lanes with first-time competitive swimmers. Annoyingly, I had to plan differentiated workouts for the sprinters and the distance swimmers, not to mention that I was coaching four competitive strokes, each requiring different techniques. Differentiation is just what the coaching of most sports requires!

Despite these points of agreement, I cannot abide Delise’s laughably simplistic assertion that “differentiation doesn’t work.” Should the fact that something is challenging mean that is isn’t effective? (By that logic, we should conclude that piano playing, dieting and parenting don’t work!) Should the fact that differentiation is hard disqualify it as an important part of a teacher’s instructional repertoire?
Should the fact the teachers may be given insufficient professional development and support around a demanding practice like differentiation invalidate that practice?
I think not.

Like some members of Congress, Delise is quick to criticize, but fails to effectively support his argument. (See Grant’s critique on this point.) Moreover, his only solution seems to be homogenous grouping, a simplistic solution to complex and systemic challenges. (Again, see Grant’s essential questions on the challenges.)

Now it’s time for my “commentary” on his Commentary, guided stylistically by the noted educational authority, Dave Barry.

Exercise Doesn’t Work
by Dr. L.A. Zee

At the dawn of this new year, I set a resolution to lose weight by starting an exercise program. In theory, exercise sounds great – it promises to help one trim excess poundage, enhance physical health, reduce stress and gain mental clarity. However, after a dis-spiriting, 5-minute, mid-morning workout, it became obvious to me that exercise doesn’t work. Here’s my experience: I began my training regimen on January 2 at my local Silver’s Gym. Not being intimidated by the hard bodies preening before the full-wall mirrors, nor seduced by the pulsating electro beats emanating from the Bose boxes positioned around the perimeter of the torture chamber, I launched into a killer set of 10 sit ups. Whew – exercise is hard, I realized. Feeling light headed and sensing my heart racing, I did the prudent thing and immediately dispatched my aching bod to the closest watering hole to throw down a few “carbohydrate infusions” and ingest some needed comfort food – nachos and melted cheddar with bacon bits, to be precise. The next day, although my stomach ached from my exercise exertion, I had not lost a single gram. In fact, my scale notched upwards of three kilos. Then it hit me like an obsessive shopper zeroing in on a sought-after black-Friday sale item: exercise doesn’t work!

Given my eye-opening experience with the sweaty arts, I decided to direct my considerable research acumen to investigate and expose the farce that the exercise/health care industrial complex has perpetrated on a gullible public.
I began by Googling “exercise” and “does not work” and found a few rambling blog rants that reinforced my experience. Then, I surfed my way to a local on-line Craig’s List to search the classifieds under “exercise” and “gym membership.” You won’t believe what I found: more than two columns of ads posted by despondent flabbys desperate to dump their shiny new dumbbells and unused Planet Fitness memberships for which they had signed an 8-year commitment in a spasm of New Year’s resolve in 2009. What more evidence does one need to conclude that exercise doesn’t work?

Not being averse to serious scholarship (as long as I can Google it in my naugahyde barcalounger while slurping fine hops), I searched and found literally thousands of books, articles, doctoral dissertations and related research studies on the benefits of exercise. Given this extraordinary volume of published material, only staffers at a rural DMV office, Wall Mart greeters and regular viewers of MSNBC could miss the obvious: If exercise really worked, why on earth would we need all of this information?

Any serious practitioner of intellectual inquiry seeks verification and I pursued just that by initiating a conversation with my neighbor, Smoker Pike (behind his back, we call him “Smoky”). Between puffs on his oversized Cuban, I asked my friend whether he thinks exercise works. He told me that he never exercises – and he is in fact rather thin, given the years of battling Type 2 diabetes and incessant hacking. So, there you have it.

But inspired by the evidence I was finding, I could not rest in my quest to prove my point. Indeed, any researcher worth his sodium intake aspires to the gold standard. So rather than accept the findings of others, and at considerable sacrifice to my sitcom regimen, I launched my own original study to definitively answer the question: Does exercise work? With one arm tied behind my back, I trudged to my local Friendly’s restaurant to randomly sample the first 16 people who made eye contact and posed to them an open-ended question about exercise (“Don’t you hate it?”). A resounding 83 percent agreed that exercise was hard. Moreover, a shocking 77 percent of those that tried it confessed they didn’t always stick with it. So, don’t just take it from me – these numbers ain’t lying.

In sum, the inescapable conclusion of my selfless inquiry is unambiguous: Exercise doesn’t work. Why then, despite this overwhelming evidence, would anyone even consider this unnatural and ineffective practice known as exercise? Here’s my theory: The medical establishment has conspired with their sleazy cousins, the exercise equipment manufacturers and the health club industry, to systematically pull a damp and sweat-stained hoodie over the eyes of a gullible throng of corpulent sad sacks and hard-body wannabees. Indeed, with the cunning of a desert fox and through the guileless manipulation techniques of a Madison Avenue ad agency, they have perpetuated a farce and played a cruel, yet calculating, joke on the soft underbelly of our nation’s citizenry by suggesting that exercise has merit. What a sad commentary on the intellectual flaccidness of the population that they are so easily duped. Shameful, I say.

Here is the original Commentary.

Published Online: January 6, 2015
Published in Print: January 7, 2015, as Differentiation Doesn’t Work
COMMENTARY
Differentiation Doesn’t Work
By James R. Delisle

Let’s review the educational cure-alls of past decades: back to basics, the open classroom, whole language, constructivism, and E.D. Hirsch’s excruciatingly detailed accounts of what every 1st or 3rd grader should know, to name a few. It seems America’s teachers and students are guinea pigs in the perennial quest for universal excellence. Sadly, though, the elusive panacea that will solve all of education’s woes has remained, well, elusive.
But wait! The solution has arrived, and it’s been around long enough to prove its worth. What is this magical elixir? Differentiation!
Starting with the gifted-education community in the late 1960s, differentiation didn’t get its mojo going until regular educators jumped onto the bandwagon in the 1980s. By my count, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (now known simply as ASCD) has released more than 600 publications on differentiation, and countless publishers have followed suit with manuals and software that will turn every classroom into a differentiated one.
There’s only one problem: Differentiation is a failure, a farce, and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students.
“By having dismantled many of the provisions we used to offer kids on the edges of learning, … we have sacrificed the learning of virtually every student.”
In theory, differentiation sounds great, as it takes several important factors of student learning into account:
• It seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn.
• It allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods.
• It encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process.
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The problem is this: Although fine in theory, differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back.
Case in point: In a winter 2011 Education Next article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Michael Petrilli wrote about a University of Virginia study of differentiated instruction: “Teachers were provided with extensive professional development and ongoing coaching. Three years later the researchers wanted to know if the program had an impact on student learning. But they were stumped. ‘We couldn’t answer the question … because no one was actually differentiating,’ ” the researcher, Holly Hertberg-Davis, told Petrilli.
And, Ms. Hertberg-Davis herself wrote in a 2009 article in Gifted Child Quarterly: “It does not seem that we are yet at a place where differentiation within the regular classroom is a particularly effective method of challenging our most able learners.”
Too, Mike Schmoker, in a 2010 Commentary for Education Week titled “When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities,” relates that his experiences of observing educators trying to differentiate caused him to draw this conclusion: “In every case, differentiated instruction seemed to complicate teachers’ work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials, … and it dumbed down instruction.”
As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 report by the Fordham Institute, 83 percent of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was “somewhat” or “very” difficult to implement.
It seems that, when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they’re supposed to be doing it. Either way, the verdict is clear: Differentiation is a promise unfulfilled, a boondoggle of massive proportions.
The biggest reason differentiation doesn’t work, and never will, is the way students are deployed in most of our nation’s classrooms. Toss together several students who struggle to learn, along with a smattering of gifted kids, while adding a few English-language learners and a bunch of academically average students and expect a single teacher to differentiate for each of them. That is a recipe for academic disaster if ever I saw one. Such an admixture of students with varying abilities in one classroom causes even the most experienced and conscientious teachers to flinch, as they know the task of reaching each child is an impossible one.
It seems to me that the only educators who assert that differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it themselves: university professors, curriculum coordinators, and school principals. It’s the in-the-trenches educators who know the stark reality: Differentiation is a cheap way out for school districts to pay lip service to those who demand that each child be educated to his or her fullest potential.
Do we expect an oncologist to be able to treat glaucoma? Do we expect a criminal prosecutor to be able to decipher patent law? Do we expect a concert pianist to be able to play the clarinet equally well? No, no, no. However, when the education of our nation’s young people is at stake, we toss together into one classroom every possible learning strength and disability and expect a single teacher to be able to work academic miracles with every kid … as long as said teacher is willing to differentiate, of course.
The sad truth is this: By having dismantled many of the provisions we used to offer to kids on the edges of learning (classes for gifted kids, classes for kids who struggle to learn, and classes for those whose behaviors are disruptive to the learning process of others), we have sacrificed the learning of virtually every student. In the same Fordham Institute report cited earlier, 71 percent of teachers reported that they would like to see our nation rely more heavily on homogeneous grouping of advanced students, while a resounding 77 percent of teachers said that, when advanced students are paired with lower-achieving students for group assignments, it’s the smart kids who do the bulk of the work.

A second reason that differentiation has been a failure is that we’re not exactly sure what it is we are differentiating: Is it the curriculum or the instructional methods used to deliver it? Or both? The terms “differentiated instruction” and “differentiated curriculum” are used interchangeably, yet they are not synonyms. Teachers want and need clear guidance on what it is they are supposed to do to reach differentiated Nirvana, yet the messages they receive from the “experts” are far from consistent. No wonder confusion reigns and teachers feel defeated in trying to implement the grand goals of differentiation.
Differentiation might have a chance to work if we are willing, as a nation, to return to the days when students of similar abilities were placed in classes with other students whose learning needs paralleled their own. Until that time, differentiation will continue to be what it has become: a losing proposition for both students and teachers, and yet one more panacea that did not pan out.

James R. Delisle is an educational consultant and the president of Growing Good Kids Inc., which works with gifted youths and has its headquarters in North Myrtle Beach, S.C., and Washington. He is the author of Dumbing Down America: The War on Our Nation’s Brightest Young Minds (And What We Can Do to Fight Back) (Prufrock Press, 2014). A former university professor, he now teaches part time at Scholars Academy High School in Conway, S.C.
Vol. 34, Issue 15, Pages 28, 36

Read Grant Wiggins’ blog post rebuttal below:

On differentiation: a reply to a rant and a posing of questions
Posted by Grant Wiggins at https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/on-differentiation-a-reply-to-a-rant-and-a-posing-of-questions/
James DeLisle recently wrote a Commentary in Education Week in which he trashed differentiation of learning. In this post, I respond to his utterly invalid arguments. In the next post I speak to the larger issue of teacher vs. school obligation in dealing with heterogeneous classes, and what heterogeneity should and should not demand of teachers. Ed Week has not responded to my submission, so I am publishing this on my own.
To the Editor:
Why in the world did you publish James DeLisle’s one-sided self-serving rant on differentiated instruction (“Differentiation Doesn’t Work,” by James R. Delisle, Education Week)?
First of all, he covers exactly the same ground in the back and forth in Education Week a few years ago between Mike Schmoker (Ed Week Commentary, September 20, 2010) and Carol Ann Tomlinson (Letter November 12, 2010) – and does so far less coherently and persuasively than Schmoker originally did. Secondly – and more egregiously – he provides an utterly cherry-picked referencing of the (few) sources he cites. Additionally, he conflates DI with individualized instruction and learning styles.
DeLisle rants about DI as a fad, and the lack of evidence to support DI. However, what evidence does he cite? Some “observations” by Mike Schmoker (from the aforementioned Ed Week Commentary), and survey data on teacher views about implementing DI from which DeLisle illogically concludes:
As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 report by the Fordham Institute, 83 percent of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was “somewhat” or “very” difficult to implement.
And this is a summary of the first half of his piece (before he talks about the need for homogeneous grouping):
In theory, differentiation sounds great, as it takes several important factors of student learning into account:
It seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn.
It allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods.
It encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process.
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The problem is this: Although fine in theory, differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back…
It seems that, when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they’re supposed to be doing it. Either way, the verdict is clear: Differentiation is a promise unfulfilled, a boondoggle of massive proportions.
Huh?? How is the difficulty of implementing a practice indicative of its ineffectiveness when implemented?? By that argument, problem-based learning, socratic seminar, science labs, the use of learning stations and other difficult pedagogies are all “boondoggles.” Also: the bullets he identifies apply just as much to techniques such as formative assessment and authentic assessment, not just differentiation – yet he doesn’t say formative and authentic assessment are boondoggles.
Reference to the teacher surveys is also very ironic: The data comes from a thoughtful and even-handed piece on differentiation by Mike Petrilli of the same Fordham Institute that did the survey. (What DeLisle also conveniently fails to mention is that Fordham is often critical of practices that might threaten the needs of the most able students.) However, to his credit, Mike Petrilli actually visits his local school to find out how DI is doing. His conclusion? It works:
Since Mr. G.’s arrival five years ago, the percentage of African American 5th graders passing the state reading test is way up, from 55 to 91 percent. For Hispanic children, it’s up from 46 to 74 percent. It’s true that scores statewide have also risen, but not nearly to the same degree.
And there’s no evidence that white students have done any worse over this time. In fact, they are performing better than ever. Before Mr. G. arrived, 33 percent of white 5th graders reached the advanced level on the state math test; in 2009, twice as many did. In fact, Piney Branch white students outscore the white kids at virtually every other Montgomery County school.
What’s his secret? Was he grouping students “homogeneously,” so all the high-achieving kids learned together, and the slower kids got extra help?
“There’s no such thing as a homogenous group,” Mr. G. shot back. “One kid is a homogeneous group. As soon as you bring another student in, you have differences. The question is: how do you capitalize on the differences?”
Well, that sounds OK in theory. But come on, Mr. G., how are you going to make sure my kid doesn’t get slowed down? “My job as a principal is to let my parents know that your child will get the services they need,” he answered patiently. “We are going to make sure that every child is getting pushed to a maximum level. That’s my commitment.”
And that’s when I was introduced to the incredibly nuanced and elaborate efforts that Piney Branch makes to differentiate instruction, challenge every child, and avoid any appearance of segregated classrooms … It sounds like some sort of elaborate Kabuki dance to me, but it appears to succeed on several counts. All kids spend most of the day getting challenged at their level, and no one ever sits in a classroom that’s entirely segregated by race or class.

He concludes his piece by saying:
So with a well-trained and dedicated staff, and lots of support, “differentiated instruction” can be brought to life…
Piney Branch and Ms. M. might be able to pull it off. But how many Piney Branches and Ms. M.’s are there?
Technology may someday alleviate the need for such com- promises. With the advent of powerful online learning tools, such as those on display in New York City’s School of One, students might be able to receive instruction that’s truly individualized to their own needs—differentiation on steroids.
Perhaps. But until that time, our schools will have to wrestle with the age-old tension between “excellence” and “equity.” And that tension will be resolved one homogeneous or heterogeneous classroom at a time.
(I’ll return to this excellence vs. equity challenge in my follow-up post. It’s code for “maintaining high standards and challenging our most able and motivated students” vs. “dumbing down everything.”)

Here, by contrast, is DeLisle’s only reference to Petrilli’s article:
Case in point: In a winter 2011 Education Next article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Michael Petrilli wrote about a University of Virginia study of differentiated instruction: “Teachers were provided with extensive professional development and ongoing coaching. Three years later the researchers wanted to know if the program had an impact on student learning. But they were stumped. ‘We couldn’t answer the question … because no one was actually differentiating,’ ” the researcher, Holly Hertberg-Davis, told Petrilli….
In fact, DeLisle conveniently fails to use the paragraph right before the above one where Petrilli says:
I asked Holly Hertberg-Davis, who studied under Tomlinson and is now her colleague at UVA, if differentiated instruction was too good to be true. Can teachers actually pull it off? “My belief is that some teachers can but not all teachers can,” she answered.

His selective use of quotes thus misrepresents the article and its point; the claim that DI is a “boondoggle” has no warrant whatsoever from the data DeLisle provides. Nor does his nasty sweeping conclusion: “Differentiation is a failure, a farce, and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students.”
Yes, DI is difficult – even Carol Tomlinson admits that. Excellent teaching leading to significant learning of all students is very challenging. So is calculus, but I suspect Mr. DeLisle is not prepared to say that calculus teaching is a boondoggle and farce because it is often done poorly or not at all in some high schools. To conclude that DI is a cruel hoax is both shoddy reasoning and disingenuous in light of his own explicit commitment to working on behalf of gifted learners (as found in his credentials and writings.)

I encourage readers to check out the following sources to determine for themselves if Mr. DeLisle’s view (and the argument upon which it is based) has merit:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/09/29/05schmoker.h30.html – the original post 5 years ago by Mike Schmoker.
Tomlinson’s response: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/17/12letter-b1.h30.html
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/is-differentiated-instruction-a-hollow-promise – the Petrilli article
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx – a summary of DI
https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/differentiating-instruction – a teaching Channel video look at DI
http://hepg.org/hel-home/issues/27_3/helarticle/differentiated-instruction-reexamined_499 – A Harvard Newsletter article on DI and learning styles research
http://www.diffcentral.com/model.html – Carol Tomlinson’s resources on DI on the UVA site
http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2012/02/schmokers-blind-spot.html – a commentary on the Schmoker-Tomlinson exchange in Education Week
http://edge.ascd.org/blogpost/is-differentiated-instruction-a-useless-fad – Jeff Bryant weighs in on the Schmoker-Tomlinson exchange
http://www.caroltomlinson.com/handouts/NELMS%20Keynote.pdf – A handout from a recent Tomlinson workshop that nicely summarizes DI and the research, including a helpful quote from John Hattie.
http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html – Dan Willingham responds to criticism of his view that learning styles do not exist. Note the last paragraph which DeLisle conveniently does not mention:
So you think all kids should be treated the same way?
Not at all. Teachers use their experience to differentiate instruction: for example, knowing that saying “good job” will motivate one child, but embarrass another. One way that science might be useful to teachers is to provide them with categories of kids. I could give them a short survey, for example, and then tell you whether a kid is introverted, extroverted, or in between. I might tell you “lots of data shows that introverts are likely to be embarrassed when praised in front of others.” I’m fabricating the details, obviously, but you get the idea. I’m claiming that there are three types or categories of kids, I’m claiming that these categories are meaningful for the classroom, and I’m claiming that I can successfully categorize kids based on this short survey.
The styles theories are that sort of idea: they really seek to categorize kids. Once you know that some people are visualizers and some are verbalizers, you can use that information to inform instruction, in addition to using your experience and judgment. My point is that scientists can’t help teachers in this way. We haven’t developed categories that have proven meaningful.
You don’t have to believe in learning styles theories to appreciate differences among kids, to hold an egalitarian attitude in the midst of such differences, and to try to foster such attitudes in students.
Looking ahead to the next post;
While I felt a tart response was necessary to DeLisle’s one-sided and poorly researched piece, readers should not conclude that criticism of DI is unwarranted or that it is necessarily the best solution to the challenge of great diversity in our classrooms and schools.
We can all surely appreciate that the issue is complex, that differentiation arose as the need to reach all learners became a universal obligation for teachers in the late 20th century. It is not unfair, in fact, to say that differentiation places the greatest burden concerning student diversity on individual teachers, while the larger system questions related to staffing, curriculum, and supervision are downplayed in most schools – whether doing DI or not. (Carol Tomlinson addresses them succinctly here.)
DeLisle sees only one solution, however – homogeneous grouping:
Differentiation might have a chance to work if we are willing, as a nation, to return to the days when students of similar abilities were placed in classes with other students whose learning needs paralleled their own. Until that time, differentiation will continue to be what it has become: a losing proposition for both students and teachers, and yet one more panacea that did not pan out.
But that response is knee-jerk. A far more complex inquiry and discussion is called for, without jumping to “the” solution. A full diagnosis of the root causes is surely needed first before we jump to a simplistic prescription.
Let’s start with some essential questions, to help us dig deeper and without prejudice into the key issues:
• Does it still make sense to make the default option of classes the grouping of students by their birth year?
• How mixed does a class need to become before it is impossible to teach it effectively?
• Is homogeneous grouping perhaps acceptable now in a post-tracking world where all students must meet the same standards and where educators are accountable for the performance of all?
• What are the benefits and harms of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping, and are there other solutions to the challenge of student diversity?
• Are any sub-groups of student more helped or more harmed than others when classrooms are highly heterogeneous or highly homogeneous?
• What is the optimal staffing of individual classrooms? Should co-teaching be more of the norm, for example?
• What aspects of differentiation are the teachers’ problem? What aspects are structural and leadership-related?
I will pursue some of these questions in my follow-up post; I encourage readers to provide their answers (and any other questions that you think should be here).