Reflection Journal Entry #6

Description

            This weeks reading involved grouping students to best meet their ability levels, students that are labeled at-risk, and also technology in the classroom.  

Analysis

            Effective instruction does not involve a teacher standing up at the front of a class and lecturing for the class period.  Instead, it relies on a variety of methods to reach students with strengths in different areas.  For example, John Carroll created a model called QAIT, which stands for quality of instruction, appropriate levels of instruction, incentive, and time.  According to Slavin (2015), quality of instruction relates to “The degree to which presentation of information or skills helps students easily learn the material” (p. 216).  Traditional methods such as lecturing, questioning, and helping students with independent work can be made more enjoyable or engaging by adding elements such as group work and technology.  Appropriate levels of instruction deal with the fact that each student learns differently and comes into the class with a different level of knowledge.  Teachers must come up with different ways to get the information across to these different students, and that even includes reviewing material that should have been learned earlier but may not have been.  Incentive relies on “The degree to which the teacher makes sure that students are motivated to work on instructional tasks and to learn the material being presented” (Slavin, 2015, p. 216).  The teacher must make students interested in the material, inspiring them to recognize their stake in the process.  If students do not see a reason for learning the material and being able to apply the information taught, they are not going to be willing to put in the effort.  Carroll’s last element is time; frankly, successful lessons can take a little bit more time.  Although teachers have very much material to cover in a course, rushing through a unit does not help a student learn it any more quickly.

            To work through these four pieces of the model, different schools may have their teachers group their students in different ways.  The decision to group students can be controversial, as Slavin (2015) notes (p. 219).  Some schools put students on tracks, meaning that a student is placed on a certain career path and follows that all the way through school.  Another way of grouping the students is between-class ability grouping.  With this type, students are grouped separately for each subject that they take, depending on how they do in each class (Slavin, 2015, p. 219).  For example, a student may be placed in a high-achieving English class but a lower-achieving math class.  Through this method, a school is catering to students’ abilities (or perceived abilities).  This is, however, not seen as a very effective method from a researcher’s perspective.  For instance, students who are placed in a lower-achieving class have no higher-achieving students to look up to and learn from.  Another alternative to this approach would be within-class ability grouping.  Under this method, students are in classes with children of other ability levels but are broken up into groups within the class based on where they are on a certain lesson (Slavin, 2015, p. 219).  This way, teachers can differentiate instruction within the different groups in their class and change the groups as needed when students show different levels of comprehension on different assignments, using methods such as peer tutoring, teacher tutoring, and scaffolding.

            There is more to a student than the information that they have retained.  In fact, many times, factors outside of school affect students’ educations.  Students who face these issues are labeled as students at risk and typically do not have the best home lives, so they may act out.  There are three types of programs out there for students like this: compensatory education, early intervention programs, and special education.  Compensatory programs focus on students overcoming the problems that they have due to the fact that they are growing up in a low-income environment.  One very popular compensatory program is Title I, which is sometimes put into place after “the damage” has been done.  Early intervention, however, starts at a younger age and tries to reverse the damage done, prevent more, and help students succeed.  Then, of course, are special education programs, designed to help students with conditions such as intellectual and behavioral disorders.

            One way to get the attention of students is to incorporate technology.  Many of the children who are currently in school have never been without technology in the sense that more electronic devices such as laptops and smart phones have been available to them in their youth, as opposed to older generations.  To these students, instructional technology is almost like a pencil and paper.  Slavin (2015) notes that available options include hardware such as computers, interactive whiteboards, and projectors as well as software such as word processors, databases, and instructional games (pp. 231-234).  Of course, with so much available on the Internet, teachers can easily incorporate activities that require students to do their own research such as WebQuests and problem-solving programs (Slavin, 2015, p. 235).

Reflection

            When I was in high school, many schools in Middle Georgia relied on tracking; some schools placed students in tech-prep and college-prep classes, for example.  Schools have generally gotten rid of these tracking systems (in name, at least) because of the backlash to that type of labeling; after all, a student misplaced in a track could have their entire future changed from someone else’s decision.  As a way to work around formal tracking, it seems like between-class ability grouping has taken its place.  Gifted or advanced students get their own classes, average students are placed into the mainstream, and students with developmental disabilities may actually influence the placement of other students in inclusion classes.  My friend who teaches English in another high school actually created student schedules by hand with a panel of other teachers, strategically placing students who have a history of struggling in certain classes into special-education inclusion classes so that they can benefit from an environment with a co-teacher.

Given the nature of the classroom that I work in – a small-group math class of special education students – whole-group instruction in my classes is essentially between-class ability grouping.  All of my students have learning disabilities and struggle with math, so there is rarely ever a student whom they see as a role model that can learn from and work with.  I am the only one who truly enjoys math, and they think that I am crazy for it.  Some students understand a concept more quickly and easily than others, so even within my already-separated classes, I use within-class ability grouping sometimes so that, as I move from group to group, I can help students who are at about the same point.  Naturally, relying solely on ability grouping is not beneficial because students often learn better when a classmate puts it into their own words.  When I do notice that some of my students grasp something quickly, I may have them work in “high/low” groups, functioning as peer tutoring.  Inside and outside of this method, I consistently work with students individually and in groups, doing my best to facilitate the learning process and guide them to where they need to be.

Of course, my classroom is the result of special education programming, a way to reach at-risk students.  Further, the school where I teach is also a Title I school; more than half of our student body is considered low-income, so a very large portion of our students are at-risk due to their financial status.  We plan extra tutoring sessions to help them outside of regular class time, but with most of these students riding the bus, many are not able to stay.  That is their only way home.  For another one of my college classes, I actually did a bit of research into accommodating these students by looking into alternate or later transportation, as it particularly affects students of color.

I also try to incorporate technology as much as I can in the classroom.  After all, given my own age, I have been raised with technology to an extent, so some of it comes naturally to me.  It is tough, though, since the school only has so many Chromebook and laptop carts available.  I sometimes allow my students to use their own cell phones, but they can be too small and a huge distraction.  Still, I see that my students appear more engaged whenever a lesson that I have planned incorporates instructional technology, so I try my best to use the resources that I have available to me.

             

References

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (11th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.