Reimagining the concept of differentiation in languages classrooms

ABSTRACT

The aim of the research project was to consider whether theoretical underpinnings of the concept of differentiation would help a group of modern languages student teachers develop their understanding and practice of differentiation in the classroom. This was a small-scale inquiry with qualitative data collected from three sources: student teachers, mentors and the course tutor of a one-year initial teacher education programme. The focus of this article is on the student teacher data only, collected via their reflections and responses to specific set tasks. Key findings to date have revealed that: a Postgraduate Certificate in Education course structure based on a theoretical framework with a focus on student learning enabled student teachers to engage in a wide range of effective differentiation strategies; they adopted approaches to differentiation mainly involving different levels of ability; they focused on the individual needs of their learners and adopted an inclusive approach to differentiation. Recommendations include the use of a wide range of theoretical perspectives to support student teachers in making the links between theory and practice explicit; the use of directed reading of theoretical texts; and the adoption of a reimagined definition of differentiation.

KEYWORDS:

• Differentiation
• learning theory
• languages classrooms
• teacher education
• individual needs

Introduction

Differentiation is a complex and contested concept in school-based education (Hart 1996), one that has become something of a contemporary hot topic (Smale-Jacobse et al. 2019) due to wide-ranging definitions of the term and its interpretations. A range of literature emerged during the last two decades of the twentieth century, with Tomlinson (1999) being regarded as a leading figure in the field, but less has been written in the first two decades of the current century. In particular, very little has been written about differentiation in the field of modern languages (ML), perhaps due to this concept being a cross-curricular, and thus considered to be a more generic, school-based issue. Early works by Convery and Coyle (1999) and Jimenez Raya and Lamb (2003) have not been superseded. Literature searches have not located any empirical studies whatsoever on classroom differentiation in the ML research corpus.

According to Tomlinson et al. (2003), few teachers adjust their practice in response to diverse learner needs. The authors argue that a knowledge base supporting teachers in developing responsive classroom practice has yet to be established, and that there is still much to be learnt in terms of teacher development models which enable new entrants to the profession to become confident in their understanding and practice of differentiation. This view is echoed by Dixon et al (2014). Meanwhile, Crichton et al. (2021), in their research into theory-informed practice in teacher development, underscore the importance of a theoretical knowledge base in effective teacher decision-making and reflection but also highlight the gap between theory and practice in the perceptions of student teachers. This recalls McNamara and Moreton’s (1997) disappointment in observing little evidence of the impact of learning theories on classroom practice.

The purpose of this article is to report on a small-scale qualitative research study carried out by two Initial Teacher Education (ITE) tutors with participants on a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) ML course in the UK. Recognising the lack of literature in the field, we identified the need to investigate links between theories of learning and the concept of differentiation. We subsequently designed a study to investigate whether emphasising the theoretical underpinnings of differentiation could facilitate more effective use of differentiation strategies in the ML classroom by our student teachers. One of the outcomes of our study has been a reimagined definition of the concept of differentiation, which we present as part of our conclusion.

Differentiation

Definitions

Taylor (2017: 55) refers to the ‘contested nature’ of the term ‘differentiation’, and a review of the literature reveals no common consensus as to the exact meaning of the term, and its interpretations (Webster and Blatchford 2019). A good starting point may be to refer to the Confucian philosophies of teaching and learning, referenced by Li (2021: 35):

Vary the way you teach according to the person you teach; teach in a way that best suits the ability of the learner; teach in a way that makes the best use of the circumstance/context/material available.

Convery and Coyle (1999) and Lombardi (2017) consider differentiation to take place when pupils are provided with opportunities to achieve their potential working through a variety of relevant activities at their own pace. Tomlinson (1999) outlines the hallmarks of a differentiated classroom, explaining that differentiation of instruction can focus on modifying content (what is taught), process (how students learn) and product (how students demonstrate learning) according to students’ readiness, interests and learning profiles. Jiménez Raya and Lamb (2003) and de Bruin (2018) also stress the diversity of teaching groups and the need to accommodate teaching to a wide range of learner differences. Smale-Jacobse et al. (2019: 6), taking a wider perspective, regard differentiation as a philosophy of teaching and echo the notion of responding to learner differences, which may be ‘achievement/readiness or another relevant student characteristic (such as prior knowledge, learning preferences, and interest)’. The term ‘differentiated teaching’ is commonly used in the UK while ‘differentiated instruction’ is typically used by US researchers and writers; however, both terms refer to approaches to teaching diverse student groups and can thus be used interchangeably.

There are some consistent themes running through the above definitions (modifications, individual differences, relevant content, potential, diversity), which indicate a certain level of agreement amongst writers and researchers. However, one definition which departs from the above ideas is offered by Bondie et al. (2019: 356) who reframe differentiation in terms of a continuous decision-making process:

… where teachers look and listen for academic diversity that will strengthen or impede effective and efficient learning, and then adjust instruction to increase Clarity, Access, Rigor, and Relevance (CARR) for all students within a learning community.

These authors argue for a reframed definition of differentiation, taking the focus away from the content/process/product notion to one where the decisions taken by the teacher are at the forefront. Here, focus is aimed at enabling teachers to be more effective and efficient in their decision-making and to spend more time interacting with their learners; for example, giving more ‘wait time’ and making sure all students, regardless of their level of achievement, receive enough praise and encouragement. This idea was foreseen by Hattie (2012: 112) in his plea for teachers to become ‘adaptive learning experts’ in order to see learning through the eyes of their students, and to ‘listen to student questions, and how students then answer their peers’ questions’. In many definitions of differentiation, writers situate individual learners as the main focal point for the teacher.

Given the complexity of the concept in its many iterations and definitions, how do teachers work out exactly what it means in order to be able to integrate differentiation into their classroom practice? That was the question underlying our qualitative research project, where we set out to explore – based on data from our student teachers – to what extent an emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings of the differentiation concept would be effective in supporting student teachers’ decision-making in this specific area.

The current situation in schools in England

Teachers in training in England have to follow a prescribed Initial Teacher Training (ITT) curriculum, known as the ITT Core Content Framework (CCF) (Department for Education 2019) implemented from 2021 onwards, which outlines core areas for teacher development, including a section entitled ‘Adaptive Teaching’. Student teachers are then assessed against the Teachers’ Standards (DfE 2011), and it is in Standard 5 (‘Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils’) that the concept of differentiation is located, whereby student teachers are expected to ‘know when and how to differentiate appropriately, using approaches which enable pupils to be taught effectively’ (11). It is interesting to note that the word ‘differentiation’ appears to have been dropped from the 2019 CCF policy document and has been replaced by the idea of ‘adaptation’. However, many of the ideas outlined in the Adaptive Teaching section (pp. 20–22) – for example, pupils learn at different rates, they need different types of support, they have different levels of prior knowledge, they can be flexibly grouped effectively and so on – have all been suggested previously by writers in the field of differentiation (Convery and Coyle 1999; McNamara and Moreton 1997; Tomlinson 2001). We argue, therefore, that the terms ‘differentiation’ and ‘adaptation’ have similar meanings and can be used interchangeably, but it is nonetheless important that whichever term is used, a clear definition is provided.

Possibly this change in terminology is aimed at moving away from earlier iterations of the National Curriculum and the non-statutory guidance (NSG) of 1992, which suggested that planning for differentiation could take place on three levels with ‘core’, ‘reinforcement’ and ‘extension’ objectives being specified. This led in some cases to teachers interpreting the ‘reinforcement’ objectives as suited to lower attainers and the ‘extension’ objectives for higher attainers. With the shift in emphasis in the CCF, student teachers must now, however, take on board the following:

Adaptive teaching is less likely to be valuable if it causes the teacher to artificially create distinct tasks for different groups of pupils or to set lower expectations for particular pupils. (CCF – Department for Education 2019: 20)

Student teachers are thus now discouraged from creating tasks for different groups of pupils, a strategy which has been a feature of much teaching in the UK in the recent past, and according to data produced in our study, is still common practice amongst many student teachers. This would suggest that the practice of creating different levels of challenge according to prior attainment is still prevalent amongst established teachers.

It is encouraging that the focus is now on adapting teaching, including providing targeted support for learners who require it, rather than creating different tasks and activities for different groups of learners within one class, which frequently could be time-consuming and resource-costly. This idea is echoed in the Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (2019: 17) which claims that:

… adapting teaching in a responsive way, for example by providing focused support to pupils who are not making progress, is likely to improve outcomes. However, this type of adaptive teaching should be clearly distinguished from forms of differentiation that cause teachers to artificially create distinct tasks for different groups of pupils or to set lower expectations for particular pupils.

Various writers (e.g. Convery and Coyle 1999; Tomlinson 2001) have identified different ways to differentiate; for example, by task, resource, outcome, support and ability. During our professional experience, we have observed many examples of differentiation by ability, largely by means of the provision of tasks on three different levels (lower, middle and higher) as mentioned earlier. Ofsted (2019), however, now makes it clear in the above quotation that this practice is no longer to be encouraged.

How effective is differentiation?

As we have seen, the concept of differentiation is complex and for this reason, empirical evidence in support of its effectiveness is relatively scarce (Coubergs et al. 2013) and somewhat conflicting. A small number of meta-analytic studies have been carried out to investigate the effect of differentiation on learner achievement, seeking generalisations across large numbers of diverse studies. Meta-analysis uses statistical results from a range of studies that address a similar research question and often seeks to establish an average effect size and estimate of the statistical significance of a relationship (Reynolds et al. 2014). The complexity of the concept can sometimes lead to difficulties in interpreting the evidence presented, as illustrated by the following examples.

Ofsted (2019: 17), in their overview of research into effective teaching, claim that in-class differentiation ‘has generally not been shown to have much impact on pupils’ attainment’. In support of this claim, they cite research by Scheerens and Bosker (1997) and Hattie (2009). Specifically, Ofsted claim that in the research by Scheerens and Bosker (1997), differentiation as a measure of school effectiveness ‘showed no or a very weak relationship with pupils’ outcomes’ (Ofsted 2019: 17). However, the study by Scheerens and Bosker (1997) requires closer scrutiny. They in fact report a correlation of 0.22 between differentiation and school effectiveness, which, according to Cohen’s (1988) interpretation, indicates that its effect would be classified as closer to ‘medium’ (0.30) than ‘small’ or ‘weak’ (0.10). These figures have to be considered in the context within which they were presented, namely a review of a range of factors influencing school effectiveness, including school organisational factors and more proximal classroom factors. Scheerens and Bosker’s (1997: 320) research concludes that ‘classroom conditions have more impact than school organizational conditions in improving outcomes’ and they call for more research on classroom-level instruction.

In further support of their claim Ofsted (2019: 17) state that Hattie (2009) ‘found the effect of differentiation to be among the weakest in his influential work on “Visible Learning”’. However, Hattie does not in fact list differentiation as a separate item in his list of over 800 meta-analyses of interventions that make a difference to student learning. He does not examine any meta-analyses of differentiation and makes no claim as to the effect of differentiation on student learning. He does, however, examine other interventions closely linked to, or implicit in, differentiation, such as formative assessment, feedback and peer support, and finds positive effects on learning. Furthermore, in his subsequent book for teachers, based on his ‘Visible Learning’ research and including over 100 new meta-analyses, Hattie (2012) writes in positive terms about differentiation, or ‘differential instruction’ as he terms it. He identifies that in most schools there will be a spread of capabilities in all classes, and that this heterogeneity can be advantageous. He (Hattie 2012: 109) urges teachers to see ‘the commonality in diversity, in having peers work together, especially when they bring different talents, errors, interests, and disposition to the situation,’ and he states that differentiation ‘relates more to the phases of learning … rather than merely providing different activities to different (groups of) students.’

More recently, in a systematic review of research evidence on differentiated instruction in secondary education carried out by Smale-Jacobse et al. (2019), the majority of the twelve empirical studies analysed revealed small to moderate positive effects for differentiation on student achievement. The studies were drawn from the following countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kenya, Nigeria, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and the USA, and involved different subject areas, the majority being in mathematics and science with none in English or other languages. The authors present a theoretical model of within-class differentiated instruction, including pedagogical adaptations; underpinning the whole is the need for ongoing formative assessment of learning needs.

According to a Victoria State Government (2017) document, differentiated teaching is one of the ten ‘High Impact Teaching Strategies’ or HITS identified from evidence-based research studies as being capable of reliably increasing student learning. This Australian document includes reference to a rare ML example from a secondary school in Melbourne, where language teachers, dissatisfied with their existing differentiation practices of providing either extension or revision tasks, embarked on a programme of using student data to establish precise learning objectives, matching teaching and learning strategies which included flexible groupings. Results of the programme revealed an increase in student engagement and achievement levels.

The complex nature of the concept of differentiation is again reflected in the mixed effect results demonstrated in these large-scale quantitative research studies. Although qualitative research studies of a generic nature can be found in the literature, for example, Brevik et al. (2018) and Karimi and Nazari (2021), there is also a need for smaller-scale qualitative studies in ML, such as that reported in this article, in order to contribute to redressing the current downward trend in take-up of ML post-16 and in higher education and to challenge the attitudinal misconceptions of ML as a ‘difficult’ subject only within the reach of certain learners.

Theories of learning

Choice of theoretical framework

The primary objective of the current study was to establish how far a practice-based approach to differentiation strategies could be supported by theoretical concepts. It was therefore important that we identified an appropriate theoretical framework as a focus for our student teachers. Pablico et al. (2017) emphasised that differentiation is part of a philosophy of teaching and learning that is based on well established theories and, in particular, Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural learning theory. This informed their research into differentiated instruction in high school science classrooms. Likewise, McNamara and Moreton (1997) presented their ‘Model for Differentiation’ based on insights into children’s learning, drawing on a range of theories, most notably those of Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1983).

Social constructivism

In order to focus on insights into children’s learning and how these might link to the concept of differentiation, a social constructivist theoretical framework was chosen for this study. Given the ML context of the current research, the importance placed by Vygotsky on social interaction and cultural context became a particular focus, with the work of the ‘classical’ theorists – Vygotsky (1978), Bruner (1978) and Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) – selected for two main reasons. Firstly, a review of the literature identified links being made by researchers, either explicitly or implicitly, between social constructivist theoretical concepts and differentiation practices, and we refer to some of these in the following sections. Secondly, during our long experience as PGCE tutors, observing and working with student teachers in classrooms, we have been struck by the overlap between social constructivist theoretical ideas and differentiation strategies.

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD is discussed by many researchers and framed as an important concept for understanding how students can be helped to move forwards in their learning. Vygotsky (1987) expressed the ZPD as ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (86). Tomlinson et al. (2003) find support for differentiation in this theoretical concept, stating that the teacher’s task is to ‘push the child into his or her zone of proximal development, coach for success with a task slightly more complex than the child can manage alone, and, thus, push forward the area of independence’ (126).

Smale-Jacobse et al. (2019) agree that the ideas behind differentiated instruction are linked to these theoretical principles and Lui, in her White Paper ‘Teaching in the Zone’ (2012) outlines a number of ways in which an understanding of ZPD theory can help teachers implement differentiation in the classroom. She highlights the role of the ‘more knowledgeable other’ (MKO), namely teachers, parents, peers or anyone interacting with the student, in advancing their learning. McNamara and Moreton (1997) also draw on Vygotsky’s ideas, presenting the notion of collaboration as a model for learning which allows children to work in their ZPD, and to move from the ‘known to the unknown’ (10). Whilst some authors explicitly link theories of learning and differentiation, others implicitly refer to students working just above their individual comfort levels (Lombardi 2017), or working at their point of need (de Bruin 2018). Hattie (2012) refers to teachers needing to be aware of where their students are, and then moving them ‘+1’ beyond that point. However, West et al. (2017) caution against misjudging the ZPD and stress the need for successful identification of each individual learner’s ZPD, since the concept is not static, but fluid and therefore student teachers need to understand the processes involved in shifting the ZPD boundaries for progression and deep learning to take place.

Scaffolding

Building on Vygotsky’s ZPD theory, Wood et al. (1976) elaborated a theory of support, based on what they refer to as ‘scaffolding’, whereby a learner is enabled to carry out a task which would normally be beyond his or her unassisted efforts. They identify several functions of the scaffolding process which they name as follows: recruitment (for example, giving hints on getting started), reduction in degrees of freedom (breaking down of tasks into manageable chunks), direction maintenance (use of cue cards), marking critical features (use of checklists), frustration control (encouragement, praise) and demonstration (modelling of tasks).

The concept of scaffolding has become so well-understood and applied in the field of education, that some authors, while making frequent use of the term, rarely refer to the source of the theory. According to Kame’enui et al. (2002), scaffolding is one of the principles of effective instruction that enables teachers to accommodate individual student needs. Rosenshine (2010) agrees, listing the provision of scaffolding for difficult tasks at number eight in his ten research-based principles of instruction. He gives examples of effective scaffolding techniques, such as giving prompts, thinking aloud and the identification of common errors, amongst others.

Thus, the theories of learning in this study are situated within a social constructivist framework, and in particular the concepts of ZPD and scaffolding were selected as being appropriate to support the student teachers’ understanding and implementation of differentiation in the ML classroom.

The study

Aim and objectives

As outlined earlier, the aim of this study was to investigate the concept of differentiation and how it can be practised in ML classrooms in England; in particular, whether engagement with the theoretical underpinnings supported student teachers’ understanding and implementation of the concept over the course of an academic year.

Background to the study

This study took place in the UK city of Portsmouth and its surrounding area. According to the latest Government statistics for secondary schools (DfE 2020), 7 out of 10 Portsmouth secondary schools are performing below average at the end of Key Stage 4 (ages 14–16) and there is a higher rate of persistent absence (Whigham 2016) than the UK national average. Poverty and unemployment in the city are considered to have a severe negative impact on children’s life chances with nearly a quarter of all children in Portsmouth still defined as living in poverty, leading to failure to gain the qualifications they need to progress to further education (Sage 2020). On a national level, The British Council reports annually on its findings from extensive surveys into language teaching and learning in England and found that ‘in this year’s survey, the inequity in language learning across the social divide … is confirmed’ (Collen 2020: 12). Consequently, there is an under-representation of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in England studying ML at GCSE, A Level and at higher education (Collen 2020).

Introducing the concept of differentiation in the PGCE course

The content of the PGCE course was adjusted to give greater prominence to the theory and practice of differentiation through a series of focused seminars, tasks and reflection points throughout the year. The ten tasks and four reflection points formed the basis of data collection for this study and can be found on the ALL website.

First, a pre-course task was sent to the incoming student teacher cohort, inviting them to carry out an investigation into the backgrounds of children in Portsmouth and its region. A university session in week two of the course followed up on this study by focusing on individual pupil needs and discussing awareness of differentiation supported by reflection questions.

It was fundamental to the study that the student teachers, as developing reflective practitioners (Schön 1991), should use theory to underpin their understanding of the concept of differentiation. Thus, a subsequent session in the third week of the course introduced the cohort to a range of learning theories, and student teachers were set the task of observing evidence of practice reflecting these theories in their first school-based practice placement. Further sessions then considered the use of data in analysing pupils’ needs and evaluated different perspectives on differentiation, including the use of modelling and scaffolding. Later in the year, a supplementary session modelled more imaginative and interactive activities for differentiation, such as group work including a memorised, scaffolded role play based on choice; a jigsaw reading activity, a version of speed dating and flipped learning of tongue twisters. Fortnightly readings were set for student teachers to develop their theoretical understanding. They were supported in developing their planning with scaffolded proformas and examples of unit, lesson and activity plans with detailed, guided feedback. There were four reflection points – one at the beginning of the course and then one at the end of each term – when the student teachers were asked to write about how they had used pupil data to inform their lesson planning; how they had adapted the success criteria to include all pupils; how they had responded to individual students’ needs; what types of differentiation they had used; which theoretical ideas/concepts they had referred to when making decisions about which type of differentiation to use and how effective they had found them to be (examples to be found in weblink).

Findings and discussion of the student teacher journey

Understanding pupils’ backgrounds and individual needs

The pre-course task was designed to enable student teachers to develop a clear understanding of the diverse backgrounds of their future learners (de Bruin 2018) and to recognise the challenges that these pose (DfE 2011). By reading a selection of local reports, they began to consider children’s social class, socio-economic background and culture (Taylor 2017) and how these factors might impact on educational progress and life chances. This linked to Convery and Coyle’s (1999) suggestion that classroom work should be matched as closely as possible to pupils’ needs.

The student teachers’ responses to this task revealed that they thought they would see low aspirations and engagement among their pupils, along with behavioural problems and lack of parental support. At this beginning stage, their idealism stood out: ‘I will have high expectations and make my students attend school by creating an inclusive culture’ (Student 17); ‘I will build relationships with parents based on trust and support them with the tools to help their children’ (Student 14), sentiments echoed by de Bruin (2018). Student teacher data relating to future pupils’ positive attributes showed a belief that pupils would be more resilient and streetwise, connecting with the world around them and able to collaborate (Jimenez Raya and Lamb 2003; McNamara and Moreton 1997). This pre-course task worked well in raising awareness of the issues facing the children and their families within the locality’s schools. Building on this task, a taught session reviewed pupils’ possible individual needs by drawing on social constructivist theories of learning.

Later in the year, at the end of the first term, responses at Reflection point 2 revealed, firstly, that student teachers were already able to articulate how they prepared and planned for differentiation in their lessons. Secondly, they used their knowledge of individual pupils to adapt resources and work appropriately and thirdly, they understood the need for every learner to be able to access the curriculum and make progress. Student 20, for example, mentioned that: ‘every student has a unique learning profile, leading to differing achievement’; Student 8 noticed that ‘students are constantly changing’; Student 2 felt that ‘teachers should provide opportunities for students to shine’; Student 14 that ‘differentiation is key to engagement and progress’; and Student 5 that ‘there are benefits for all students when differentiating’. Data also revealed that the student teachers evaluated the use and quality of their differentiation strategies based on their pupils’ progress, and referred to the importance of continuing to observe and monitor progress. By focusing on all their learners, they adopted an inclusive approach to differentiation.

Linking theory to the choice of differentiation

We encouraged student teachers to observe experienced teachers and identify in their practice the theories of learning presented to them in their university sessions. In December (Reflection Point 2), we asked the student teachers to reflect on their choice of theory when making decisions about which type of differentiation to use but were concerned when their responses revealed only a small number mentioning a specific theorist or concept. This chimes with Crichton et al.’s (2021) lament that their student teachers’ reflections focused mostly on practical considerations, overriding specific theoretical links to practice. The majority of our student teachers had adopted advice or strategies from their teacher mentors. This is in line with Blair’s (2021) research into the ‘intentionality’ with which student teachers regulate their own target setting. Blair found that mentors retained a profound influence on the conversations and opportunities for learning of beginning teachers throughout their training year (2021).

Lim and Tan (2001), meanwhile, note the difference between relational understanding i.e. knowing what to do and why, versus instrumental understanding i.e. knowing what to do without knowing why, and Rogers (2020) highlights how teaching decisions based on so-called ‘intuition’ – so ‘instrumental understanding’ in Lim and Tan’s terms – may not challenge teacher thinking and could even promote poor practice. The student teachers in Lim and Tan’s (2001) study demonstrated this more instrumental understanding and considered the acquisition of practical skills as more important than the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. Lim and Tan explain this as reflecting a lack of university-based training time leading to teacher trainers simplifying educational theories to focus on particular concepts of teaching and learning. Furthermore, Winkler (2001) suggests that when student teachers carry out their school-based placements, mentors might not reinforce theoretical frameworks because they may have forgotten their own theoretical training or have little time to engage with theory when faced with the immediate pressures of the classroom.

The final PGCE course assignment required student teachers to put in place their chosen strategies and interventions to enable all pupils to make better progress. The findings from these observed presentations revealed that by this point in the course, all student teachers were referring explicitly to theory in order to identify the needs of their pupils and to formulate their hypotheses. For example, Student 6 noted that ‘Vygotsky’s ZPD also influenced me to differentiate in various activities, as I had to consider what my students would be able to achieve in that zone’. Student teachers’ choice of in-class interventions and strategies for language learning were closely linked to theoretical concepts and analysed using a range of authors. They thus tailored learning to the needs of the individual pupil and focused on motivation and progress; they aligned theories to their choice of adapted activities to show how their pupils could make progress.

The student teachers nevertheless still tended to develop strategies based on consideration of ‘abilities’ or ‘levels’ but there was in evidence a much greater variety of types of differentiation being exploited such as modelling, giving choices, creating groups, using seating plans or peer support or mentoring, playing games and having routines. By the end of the course (Reflection Point 4), they concluded that: pupils can be encouraged to produce great work; it is important to continue to monitor and track pupils’ progress; and that classwork given needs to be different not more of the same. Enrichment activities which extend learning through new experiences and opportunities were found to be the most useful. However, these activities were only given to pupils once they had completed the basic lesson task and were not offered as an alternative form of classwork. The student teachers also reflected that their differentiation strategies needed further refinement and they needed to make use of more varied interventions. Lawes (2003) makes the point that beginning teachers with a strong sense of professional identity based on critical intellectual engagement will want to continue to develop theoretical knowledge. From the examples detailed above, it was evident by the end of the course that the student teachers were now explicitly linking their choice of differentiation strategies to theoretical concepts and named theorists.

Planning to incorporate differentiation

The student teachers were expected to include strategies for differentiation in their lesson planning, but the types of differentiation they selected tended to be targeted mostly at ‘supporting’ lower attaining pupils with only a quarter of the student teachers ‘challenging’ the higher attaining pupils. Bromley (2019) rightly contends that teachers need to have high expectations of all pupils and hence a change of mindset was needed to encourage the student teachers to adapt lessons where all pupils would be set challenges. It therefore became important to encourage student teachers to move away from just differentiating according to levels.

At the beginning of January, a session on reimagining the concept of differentiation was planned, using Convery and Coyle’s (1999) vision of a tree, showing the trunk as the ‘core’ learning and the branches as branching out, for ‘extension’ and ‘reinforcement’. This paved the way for student teachers to begin to consider how all pupils need to be challenged, with the ‘branches’ used to adapt learning to suit everyone. In order to increase the quality and variety of differentiation, student teachers were asked to discuss Convery and Coyle’s (1999) key points for best practice in delivering differentiation through working collaboratively in pairs and groups; developing the skills to become independent learners; receiving regular, positive feedback and being involved in personal target setting. Using the strategies and ideas shared in the session, student teachers set themselves a personal target to experiment with new ways to differentiate in the classroom.

We then turned our attention to enabling the student teachers to apply and adapt the strategies linked to the theoretical concepts through their lesson planning in order to improve their classroom practice. An article by Lui (2012) introduced the concept of working within the ZPD (Vygotsky 1987) and provided a checklist for planning a unit of work with the intention of delivering a lesson featuring differentiated activities. The checklist directed the student teachers to reflect on skills, knowledge and tasks, and to note any adjustments they made to instructions and feedback through observing and monitoring their own pupils. With each process, the student teachers were shown worked examples and given individual feedback in order to adjust their work. The tutor was in effect ‘modelling’ and ‘scaffolding’ in accordance with the tutoring role suggested by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976: 97) who comment: ‘effectiveness depends upon the … . [t]utor and tutee modifying their behaviour over time to fit the perceived requirements and/or suggestions of the other’. Similarly, Graham and Macaro (2007) advocate providing stepped feedback for student teachers’ development. Hence the student teachers were gradually encouraged to apply the strategies for differentiation in a controlled approach and to evaluate the impact on their pupils’ learning.

Implementing differentiation strategies

The PGCE course structure based on a theoretical framework with a focus on pupil learning was designed to enable student teachers to engage in a wide range of effective differentiation strategies. Student teacher reflection at the end of the first term showed awareness of the importance of differentiation and the various ways to differentiate. They were able to articulate how their choices were beginning to have an impact on their pupils’ learning. Following Reflection Point 2 in December, 17 student teachers felt that their pupils were more engaged, confident and focused and 18 wrote that all their students were now able to access learning. At this early stage, 7 student teachers identified their need to continue to diversify the learning and include their pupils more in the lesson by tailoring the teaching to the way the pupil learns best.

At the end of the course (Reflection Point 4), the student teachers were asked to reflect back on how their knowledge and understanding of different theoretical concepts had influenced their choice of differentiation strategies during their PGCE year and the impact that these choices had on their pupils’ learning, in order to encourage a powerful teacher development mentality (Jones 2014). The student teachers described their approaches as evolving and maturing. For example, according to Student 19: ‘reading key articles about differentiation has been crucial in considering where the learners are at in terms of their development and what scaffolding is required to help them move on in their learning’ while Student 26 reflected that: ‘Piaget, Vygotsky and Bloom have influenced how I go about differentiation in the classroom, taking into account the level I judge the students to be at for a particular task’. Lesson observations by the tutor and the final activities produced by the student teachers showed that they were now able to differentiate in a variety of ways. These included:

• differentiating their questioning, using closed questioning for some and more open-ended questions for others, asking them to expand on their answers;

• differentiating by outcome, where e.g. each pupil might write their own summary based on their understanding of a text;

• differentiating by challenge, with, for example, all pupils producing different sentences by adding vocabulary and aiming to make them as complex as possible; differentiating with teacher support, observing, supporting and prompting pupils who might be struggling;

• differentiating with resources, by e.g. using colour coding to indicate gender of nouns, parts of the sentence or verb endings, or providing a ‘word mat’ or ‘help box’ giving key vocabulary;

• differentiating by grouping through tasks such as jigsaw readings, carousel work, flipped learning and role plays where once the core conversation has been memorised, pupils could progress at their own rate by adding, changing, manipulating or creating new structures;

• differentiating by choice, of activity, topic or vocabulary where pupils start a task wherever they feel most comfortable;

• differentiating by modelling, where the teacher might, e.g. model a task or provide one or two examples of possible responses.

The student teachers were typically using at least three strategies for each lesson and although there was still evidence of targeting different levels of ability, they were also able to consider aspects of differentiation which would allow all their learners to make progress.

The findings outlined above are encouraging in that they demonstrate how the participants benefitted from a focus on learning theory which enabled them to articulate their understandings of differentiation in three significant areas: in their classroom practice, in their reflections and in their written course assignments. By the end of the course, the student teachers had an increased understanding of how pupils learn and how this could lead to improved progress, but they also understood that this required specific and explicit preparation. Evidence of the outcomes of this greater focus on the theoretical underpinning of differentiation in pupil learning were not specifically measured in this research study. Beginning teachers, perfectly understandably, want fail-safe strategies to develop their teaching, whereas the mature professionals we hoped they would become need deeper understanding of learning to decide which strategies are appropriate in a given set of circumstances. We were aiming, therefore, within the framework of this study, to provide the student teachers with the building blocks for making those informed professional decisions.

The student–teacher participants were thus guided in their choice of strategies by being introduced to a wide range of theoretical perspectives and carrying out directed reading of key texts. By the end of the course, they described using different activities for higher and lower attaining pupils; using specific visuals and colour; using strategies to suit individuals; and modelling and breaking down tasks to scaffold learning. They were now directly naming authors and their theories to support these choices. Their theoretical understanding thus appeared to have a direct positive impact on their teaching, and in this sense, their engagement with theory was experienced as rewarding.

They also evaluated the quality of differentiation by looking at their pupils’ progress and appreciated the closer relationships developed with their learners by getting to know them better. This was reflected in the use of differentiated strategies for individuals which led to better access to the curriculum, increased motivation, behaviour, engagement, confidence, participation, self-efficacy, independence and openness to learning a language. They cited as important elements of learning about differentiation: discovering the knowledge, research and theory behind it; knowing their students and the region properly and understanding the developmental stage their students were in; observing and monitoring their students and evaluating the strategies used. We felt that this was indicative that the student teachers were now experiencing Schön’s (1991) reflection on action, reflecting on their practice over time, enabling them to question teaching and learning experiences and consider how to develop them.

This study was carried out over one academic year (36 weeks – the duration of a UK PGCE course) and thus the scope of activity was limited to what could practically be planned and delivered by one tutor within the framework of the PGCE course. Although the overall structure of the study was planned in advance, the two researchers remained alert to the responses and needs of the participants, and therefore new activities and strategies were incorporated during the study such as the use of Lui’s (2012) checklist for lesson planning and introducing a university training session on how to differentiate more creatively. Obviously, when planning took place in the summer of 2019, we were unaware of the forthcoming CoVid19 pandemic and the restrictions it would bring. Effective teaching for differentiation posed significant challenges during the periods of lockdown, when student teachers commenced their teaching practice placements; they were unable to meet their classes face to face and had to learn quickly how to adapt their teaching to an online environment. In spite of these acknowledged difficulties, student teachers were able to identify some benefits, for example, in the use of online ‘breakout rooms’ or the opportunity to target individual pupils when responding online. We have not addressed these aspects of the student teachers’ experience in this particular study.

Conclusion

Our literature review identified a paucity of qualitative research carried out into differentiation practices in the field of languages education, and hence we hope that this study will contribute to debates surrounding the contested concept of differentiation. We believe that some significant conclusions can be drawn from our research regarding the importance of having a theoretical framework to underpin the use of differentiation strategies.

It is hoped that languages teachers will benefit from this study in terms of expanding their understanding and use of more creative and motivating differentiation strategies, moving beyond the ‘three levels’ approach, now discouraged by Ofsted (2019). If teachers continue to explore the theory underpinning learning, they should be able to contribute to a shared language for expressing their planning and curriculum delivery choices and communicate these confidently to school leaders, parents, governors and other stake holders. In the words of Li (2021: 35): ‘As professional practitioners, we are doing theory and testing theory all the time’.

Over the years of our teacher education experience, we have noticed that student teachers have found the concept of differentiation difficult to implement in their classroom practice. We would thus like to contribute, in conclusion to this study, our own extended definition, or reimagining of differentiation which has emerged during the course of this study, with the intention of bringing some clarity to the concept for teachers to use in their everyday practice. Our definition below, in seeking to expand on previous definitions and to encompass the complexities of the concept, encapsulates the current themes and ideas from the literature, including government policy documents, and importantly the findings of this research:

• Differentiation is an approach to learning and teaching where the needs of all learners are recognised, planned for, and valued. Teachers take time to get to know their learners through scrutiny of class data; through observation within and out of lessons; and through ongoing discussion with individuals.

• Differentiation is a ‘mode of thinking’ which, once espoused, becomes embedded in a teacher’s repertoire.

• Through strategic planning of lessons around ‘core’ learning objectives and the design and adaptation of ‘branching’ activities catering for individual differences and preferences, teachers can ensure that all students are working within the ZPD and challenged to go just beyond what they can already do unaided (Vygotsky 1978). With the provision of positive, constructive feedback, all learners will then experience opportunities to make progress and achieve their full potential.

• In a differentiated classroom, learning can be adapted through individual student questioning, monitoring, support and group work rather than by differentiating separate tasks into levels. Students are enabled to make choices about their own learning needs whilst being challenged to work at an appropriate pace.

We hope that this learner-centred definition will be widely used to ensure that all learners have the opportunity to make progress from wherever their starting point might be; to be presented with a variety of enjoyable and creative tasks and to find enjoyment and motivation in their learning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).