{"id":101543,"date":"2025-07-22T16:04:20","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T16:04:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/differentiation-in-the-computing-classroom\/"},"modified":"2025-07-22T16:04:20","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T16:04:20","slug":"differentiation-in-the-computing-classroom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/differentiation-in-the-computing-classroom\/","title":{"rendered":"Differentiation in the Computing Classroom"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Differentiation in the computing classroom NO594721<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abstract \/ Executive Summary<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..3<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..4<\/p>\n

Review of Literature<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20265<\/p>\n

History of differentiation<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.5<\/p>\n

Contemporary stance on differentiation<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20265<\/p>\n

Government stance on differentiation <\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.6<\/p>\n

Models of differentiation and current ideas<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.6<\/p>\n

Barriers to differentiation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20268<\/p>\n

Conclusion of literature review<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20268<\/p>\n

Methodology <\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.8<\/p>\n

Research Methods<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..8<\/p>\n

Interviews<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..9<\/p>\n

Questionnaires<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.9<\/p>\n

Observations and reflections<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202610<\/p>\n

How will the results be analysed<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.10<\/p>\n

Presentation and Analysis of Findings<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.11<\/p>\n

What do teachers think about differentiation<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.11<\/p>\n

Is the current differentiation provision working?\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..12<\/p>\n

Objectives and outcomes\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202612<\/p>\n

Differentiating content, process and product\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..13<\/p>\n

Groupings\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.15<\/p>\n

How can differentiation be improved?\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202616<\/p>\n

Conclusion and Implications for Practice\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20261<\/a>6<\/p>\n

References<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..18<\/p>\n

Appendices\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20262<\/a>1<\/p>\n

1 Teachers opinion on differentiation questionnaire graph\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20262<\/a>1<\/p>\n

2 Teachers opinion group interview<\/a>\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n

3 Teachers strategy questionnaire graph\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

4 Student opinion questionnaire graph\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n

5 Student reflection bar charts\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.<\/p>\n

6 Teacher observations\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

7 Hard copies of questionnaires\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

7 Hard copy of interview\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

If you ask the question, what is differentiation? The answers can be likened to how long is a piece of string. The term conjures up a variety of ideas. The new Computer Science GCSE is a rigorous qualification that provides challenge and stretch to students, to really allow them to succeed and become the countries next wave of professionals. This aside the government have found that it isn\u2019t currently being taught to a consistently high standard. With many non-specialist teachers in computing and mixed ability classes, it is more important than ever that effective differentiation strategies are developed to ensure positive outcomes for each student. This study explores the government, my placement school and teacher\u2019s stance on differentiation, to reveal that teachers perceive the importance of differentiation, but that there is some confusion about how to implement it successfully. Student responses show that the current provision is only going part way to meeting the needs of all. After teachers analysed student responses they agreed to trial new strategies to meet the needs of their students. Therefore, this study proposes more CPD and more trialling and evaluation to ensure the governments ethos of \u2018excellence for everyone\u2019 is achieved (DfE, 2016).<\/p>\n

(Word count 199)<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

The government labelled the old ICT qualification \u2018harmful\u2019 and \u2018boring\u2019 and insisted on a \u2018high-quality computing qualification\u2019 to equip pupils to use \u2018computational thinking and creativity to understand and change the world (DfE, 2013). AQA\u2019s chief examiner Paul Varey explains students will now \u2018need to demonstrate practical skills to pass\u2019 it is no longer about \u201cjust knowing things, you have to do\u201d (Guardian, 2015). In support of this Rob Leeman a computer science specialist from the OCR examination board, agrees that the qualification is more \u2018rigorous and more challenging, with a bigger emphasis on problem solving\u2019 (Crest, 2016). If the government\u2019s goal of producing students with excellent computing skills is to be realised, then differentiation within the computing classroom is more important than ever before. The DfE requires all teachers to \u2018Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils\u2019 as set out in the teacher standards (DfE, 2011), and Although the House of Commons Science and Technology committee (2016) has credited the government for revamping the qualification to an excellent level, they have noted that \u2018there is still some way to go for it to become truly embedded in all schools, let alone delivered to a consistently high standard\u2019.<\/p>\n

The purpose of this study is to explore what differentiation means, ascertain what teachers think about differentiation in the computer science classroom, find out if teachers know what the current government policy is on inclusion in the classroom and ascertain how teachers approach differentiation to cater for individuals. Additionally, this study aims to find out what students find helpful and if differentiation is working. Furthermore, this study aims to highlight what could be done further to ensure lessons stretch, challenge and support learning for each child to reach their full potential.<\/p>\n

294 words<\/p>\n

Literature review<\/p>\n

Classroom practice has moved a long way from the \u2018I teach you learn model\u2019. Relatively new subjects such as computing, lend themselves to a more active style of teaching which \u2018engages students in the learning process\u2019 and requires students \u2018to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing\u2019 (Bonwell & Eison,1991). Teachers no longer assume that just because they have taught a concept that all students in the class have learnt what was intended (O\u2019Brien et.al, 2001).<\/p>\n

History of differentiation<\/p>\n

Differentiation in the classroom as we know it today was shaped and influenced by the views and findings of many educational psychologists. A review of the literature suggests that students are more likely to achieve their full potential when teaching is \u2018responsive to their individual readiness levels (Vygotsky, 1978), \u2018motivating\u2019 and \u2018enjoyable\u2019 (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), matches their learning modality in the shape of \u2018thinking style\u2019 (Bloom, 1956, de Bono, & Sternberg, 2003) or the way in which children make sense of information by their type of \u2018intelligence\u2019 (Gardner 1983). Additionally, Maslow\u2019s hierarchy proposes that \u2018Students need to feel emotionally and physically safe and accepted within the classroom to progress\u2019 (McLeod, 2007). Furthermore, teachers need to ensure that every lesson begins at the student\u2019s current level of understanding to build on their current knowledge and support them to reach their full potential. Vygotsky (1978) calls this distance between current knowledge and potential knowledge the zone of proximal development. Despite the age of these theories many of them are still applicable in the computing classroom.<\/p>\n

Contemporary stance on differentiation<\/p>\n

There are many proposed definitions to differentiation in the classroom. Differentiation can be described as \u2018a set of strategies that will help teachers meet each child where they are when they enter class and move them forward as far as possible on their educational path. (Levy, 2008). These strategies are based on a student\u2019s \u2018ability, interest, and learning profile\u2019. Teachers need to gather information on a student\u2019s \u2018readiness\u2019, \u2018interests\u2019, and \u2018learning preferences\u2019 and apply this information to the \u2018learning environment\u2019, the method of \u2018instruction\u2019, and \u2018type of as assessment\u2019 for individual potential to be achieved (Tomlinson, 2003).<\/p>\n

Government stance on differentiation<\/p>\n

The government have interpreted the up to date literature on differentiation to produce the following National Curriculum statement: That \u2018Teachers should set high expectations for every pupil.\u00a0They should plan stretching work for pupils whose attainment is significantly above the expected standard\u2019 and \u2018have an even greater obligation to plan lessons for pupils who have low levels of prior attainment or come from disadvantaged backgrounds\u2019 (DfE, 2013). The current ethos is that of \u2018Educational Excellence Everywhere\u2019, where \u2018every child has access to high quality provision, achieving to the best of his or her ability regardless of location, prior attainment and background\u2019. The government makes it clear that \u2018outcomes matter more than methods, and that there is rarely one standardised solution, that will work in every classroom\u2019 (DfE, 2016).<\/p>\n

Models of differentiation and current ideas<\/p>\n

Many models of differentiation have been developed, there is no prescribed way to differentiate and it ultimately depends upon the needs of individual students.\u00a0 Tomlinson (2003) identifies three elements of the curriculum that can be differentiated; content \u2018what students need to learn\u2019, process \u2018the way in which content is taught\u2019 and product which entails how students \u2018demonstrate understanding\u2019. Additionally, the environment of the classroom should be considered. Heacox (2002) believes a \u2018supportive classroom environment is vital\u2019 to \u2018success in differentiating\u2019. The computing environment often involves feeling safe to \u2018make mistakes\u2019 which involves encouraging a growth mindset (Dweck, 2007), without worrying about \u2018suffering negative consequences\u2019 (Brookfield, 1995).<\/p>\n

Dweck\u2019s growth mindset is based on the belief that individuals \u2018can develop their intelligence over time\u2019 (Dweck, 2007). This philosophy is often seen in Chinese classrooms where teachers believe that students are capable of learning anything provided that the presentation is correct. This idea is known as mastery and is based on the premise that \u2018understanding is the result of high intention, sincere effort and intelligent execution, and that difficulty is pleasurable\u2019 (The Guardian, 2015). Recent research on mastery supports the pedagogical practice of keeping the class working together on the same topic, whilst at the same time addressing the need for all pupils to master the curriculum and for some to gain greater depth of proficiency and understanding. Challenge is provided by going deeper rather than accelerating into new content (NCTEM, 2015).<\/p>\n

Some teachers fear that differentiated instruction is unfair because of its allowance for different treatment for different students (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004).\u00a0 Mastery tries to avoid this by having high expectations of all, with discreet support and rich extension and is designed to be carried out regardless of the ability of the group. (NCTEM, 2015).<\/p>\n

Furthermore, grouping of students is an important differentiation strategy that raises much debate. Cohen et al (2004) found the children\u2019s levels of enthusiasm and motivation increased when working in mixed ability groups. By removing the groupings in non-core lessons the children could learn from each other and teach one another simultaneously. In contrast Paton (2012) argued that using mixed ability grouping in any area of the curriculum will have a negative impact on the higher achievers as lessons are not tailored to suit their needs and progress will not be made. The mastery approach to variation of abilities within a school is approached by a \u2018rising tide\u2019 principle (Guardian, 2015). The mastery approach is based on whole class interactive teaching so that all students can \u2018master concepts\u2019 before moving forward \u2018allowing no pupil to be left behind\u2019. If a struggling student is identified then early intervention is carried out allowing the student to catch up for the next lesson. (NCTEM, 2015). This is especially relevant to computing as new skills are built on the foundation of prior knowledge. This area of differentiation is currently being carried out in mathematics classrooms but many of the principles could be applied to computer science as the new qualification has a significant amount of mathematical content, especially at key stage 4 (OCR, 2015).<\/p>\n

Potential barriers to differentiation<\/p>\n

Tomlinson discovered several barriers to success; \u2018fear of faddism\u2019, \u2018lack of time\u2019 and lack of \u2018skill\u2019 and \u2018knowledge\u2019 of differentiation (Tomlinson, 2003). Time is a recurrent theme throughout the literature. Corley worries that a significant amount of time and effort is required to \u2018organise questions; and to design appropriate activities for each learner.\u2019 Furthermore, students need to adapt to a new environment where the teacher shifts from being the \u2018dispenser of knowledge to a facilitator of learning\u2019 (Corley, 2005). This is especially apparent in a grammar school such as my placement school where teaching is traditionally didactic.<\/p>\n

Conclusion to literature review<\/p>\n

This literature review set out to explain differentiation, past, present and potential future. Whilst reviewing the literature it is clear that teachers are aware of differentiation but local and national policies don\u2019t prescribe how to explicitly carry out strategies. There is a wealth of theory to refer to, however it can be contradictory in places. The purpose of this study is to find out how computer science teachers really feel about differentiation, ascertain if the current provisions are working and establish what more can be done.<\/p>\n

1226 words<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/p>\n

Research methods<\/p>\n

The rationale for the methodology is to collect valid and reliable data to answer the key questions raised by the literature review. The methodology will provide an overview of the research approaches, the intended analysis of the results, selection of participants and potential limitations of the research (University of Southern California, 2017). The approach to this study is action based with the intention of improving teachers practice. The method involves a collection of quantitative and qualitative data collected via interviews, questionnaires and observations of key lessons.<\/a><\/p>\n

Interview<\/p>\n

Information will be gathered from a group interview with members of the computing team. The team is made up of one computer science specialist and four non-computer science specialists. The group of 5 teachers range in age and experience of both length of service and types of school. One of the staff members have master teacher status. The entire department was invited to the study to provide the broadest possible selection of participants.<\/p>\n

Structured interviews \u2018allow answers to be compared as they all ask the same questions, allowing easy analysis\u2019. When \u2018compared to questionnaires interviews provide greater depth\u2019 (Research Gate, 2014).<\/p>\n

Disadvantages include \u2018time constraints when compared to questionnaires\u2019 and \u2018set questions disallowing other lines of enquiry, which may make it harder to obtain true data on people\u2019s real opinions.\u2019 Additionally, interviews may also be \u2018prone to bias\u2019 as the respondents may fear being judged and give the answer they believe are the most acceptable. Furthermore, the analysis of an interview can be very \u2018time consuming as qualitative data is more difficult to transcribe and sift through\u2019 (University of Portsmouth, 2010).<\/p>\n

Questionnaires<\/p>\n

On completion of the interview staff will be given a short questionnaire.\u00a0 These techniques combined aim to provide a cross section of viewpoints on what teachers think about differentiation in the classroom and a selection of commonly used strategies. Results will be analysed by the investigator by presenting them in bar charts to clearly illustrate the view of computing teachers.<\/p>\n

Based on this primary analysis a second questionnaire will be designed to ascertain students preferred learning method, from the list provided by the staff investigation. The purpose of this is to find out if the current provision of differentiation is working. Questionnaires will be handed to all students in the GCSE, AS and A level classes, clarifying that the survey is conducted voluntarily and anonymously. A total of 24 in year 10, 7 in year 12 and 4 in year 13 will be asked, giving a sample size of 35. The chosen sample represents key stage 4 and 5 computing students. Key stage 3 students were omitted from this study as they are not currently studying computing.<\/p>\n

Questionnaire responses are collected in a \u2018standardised way\u2019 so this tool is \u2018more objective\u2019. Results can be collected quickly and from a large group. However, as they are \u2018standardised\u2019 it may not be possible to \u2018explain any points in the questions that participants might misinterpret\u2019. Additionally, open-ended questions can generate large amounts of data that can take a long time to process and analyse. For this reason, I have chosen multiple-choice questionnaires. Furthermore, students may not \u2018be willing to answer the questions\u2019 due to a \u2018lack of benefit\u2019 or from fear of being \u2018penalised\u2019 for their real opinion (Evaluation cookbook, 1999).<\/p>\n

Observations and reflections<\/p>\n

Select lessons will be observed to find out how valid the teacher responses are to the initial interview and questionnaire. Further key observations will be carried out involving teachers trialling new strategies in response to the student questionnaires. Finally, students will be provided with a reflection plenary to ascertain their thoughts and feelings on the trialled strategies.<\/p>\n

Observations can provide additional information that other evaluations do not offer. Interactions between the teacher and class gives light to the effectiveness of teaching methods. There is still however the disadvantage of bias that could invalidate the results just as with interviews stated above. The reliability of observations as an evaluative method may be influenced by the presence of the observer as both the teacher and the students may behave differently than in a non-observed situation resulting in distorted data (revise sociology, 2016).<\/p>\n

How the results will be analysed<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Once the data is collected the results will be analysed and interpreted. All data will be numbered and sequenced for easy reference.\u00a0 Common themes and opposing opinions will be highlighted from the interview. The data from the questionnaires will be turned into bar charts and legends will be added to make visualisation easier, so that the main findings can be verbalised. The student\u2019s reflections will be converted into pie charts to show a traffic lighting of their responses (How to write guide, 2017).<\/p>\n

<\/a>782 words<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Results and Analysis:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Teachers opinions on differentiation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Four out of five teachers surveyed believed that differentiation was useful to help students achieve their potential(AP). It was difficult to find any positive data that correlated to this in the literature, however barriers to differentiation such as the \u2018time needed to assess learners needs, interests, and readiness levels\u2019 (Corley, 2005) were mentioned regularly. Although the teachers were positive about differentiation they didn\u2019t all agree on the style of differentiation used(AP). This may be due to differing ideas of what the purpose of differentiation is, as there is no \u2018one size fits all approach to differentiation\u2019 (Anstee, 2014). <\/a>Teacher A mentioned Personalised learning (AP), a Labour initiative from the early 2000\u2019s described as \u2018individual learning styles, motivations, and needs\u2019 (Milliband, 2004). <\/a>Teacher C confused this with individualised learning where the teacher had a plan for every student within the class (AP). Differentiation differs as \u2018it offers several avenues to learning, it does not assume a separate level for each learner\u2019 (Tomlinson, 2001).\u00a0 <\/a>Teacher D agreed with personalised learning where the content should be varied according to ability (differentiation by task). Teacher E disagreed, explaining they prefer to provide the same open ended task and differentiate by outcome providing support and extension where required (AP). Within the small department there were several opinions on approaches to differentiation, all recognised from the literature, showing the huge breadth of approaches differentiation has. The whole group commented on how they concentrated on differentiation for observation lessons, more than every day lessons, due to time constraints (AP). This mirrors what Corley (2005) found in the literature above.<\/p>\n

All teaching staff surveyed believed they knew what local and national policies are, however when questioned their elaborations were varied and sometimes contradictory which may affect the validity of this data(AP). Teacher A&C deliberated about personalised and individualised learning. Teacher E pointed out that neither of these were current policy. \u00a0Individualised learning, \u2018where pupils sit alone at a computer\u2019, \u2018often reinforced low aspirations\u2019 and has not been a government policy for many years, (Milliband, 2004). Teacher E discussed how personalised learning didn\u2019t work as they believed that you couldn\u2019t personalise a lesson for each student and expect them to obtain their target (AP). In support of this stance a secondary head commented on an Ofsted finding about lack of progress by students within his school. He stated that \u2018exorable pressure of the curriculum\u2019 and expectations of \u2018league tables\u2019 demand that \u2018mainstream teachers drive forward in a way that may not be conducive to good inclusive practice\u2019 (University of Cambridge, 2012). Teacher D stated that the outcome of differentiation was more important than the method (AP). They quoted the school policy of ensuring each student was seen as an individual, their curriculum personalised and lessons adapted according to individual need (KGGS, 2017) (AP). All teachers agreed with teacher D\u2019s interpretation. Despite deliberation among the department about the policies, they all affirmed that resulting success matters, in line with the government\u2019s current policy \u2018that outcomes matter more than methods, and that there is rarely one, standardised solution that will work in every classroom for the government to impose\u2019(DfE, 2016). The government aren\u2019t computing experts and therefore they leave differentiation choices to subject specialists.<\/p>\n

Is the current differentiation provision working?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Four out of five teachers stated that they differentiated in every lesson and three out of five stated that it came naturally and didn\u2019t require planning (AP?&?). This is supported by observations carried out by the investigator who observed the use of a writing frame, allowing a student to use a fiddle toy to help with their concentration and deploying a TA to support a student with a statement(APobs). These are all examples of different routes to achieve the same goal, the improvement of outcomes. This is in line with governments proposal to allow teachers and leaders to use their own\u2019 creativity, innovation, professional expertise and up-to-date evidence to drive up standards\u2019 (Dfe, 2016).<\/p>\n

Objectives and outcomes<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Within my placement school each department is allowed autonomy in line with the above policy. From observations, it can be confirmed that the government\u2019s stance is proving to be somewhat effective as differentiation is occurring within the computing department (AP). The analysis of the questionnaires supports this by showing three out of five teachers prefer to differentiate the process of learning at the beginning of the study, three out of five regularly used blooms taxonomy and two out of five success criteria so \u2018that the pupils know not only what they are intended to learn but also how they will demonstrate their achievement\u2019 (DCSF, 2009) (AP). Teacher D was observed using writing frames, linked to a success criteria. The frame included Bruner\u2019s idea of scaffolding as a form of sensitive interaction between teacher and student (TeachThought, 2017) (AP).\u00a0 This allowed students to acquire new skills in their zone of proximal development by identifying where their current knowledge was and working towards the next criteria with the support of the teacher (Vygotsky, 1978). This demonstrates that some teachers within the department had excellent pedagogical knowledge suited to teaching computing, in line with the governments above statement about professional expertise and that they were applying up-to-date research (APobs).<\/p>\n

The student responses didn\u2019t correlate with the teachers. When questioned 51% of students are used to starting at the same point as a class, typically the first learning objective (AP). Only 20% of students stated they like to start at a point that challenges them (AP). In contrast to the initial findings this is showing that the current use of learning objectives isn\u2019t encouraging students to start at a point that challenges them. Measurable objectives are essential to the \u2018ambitious new approach to teaching and learning computing\u2019 (OCR, 2016) and this highlights a possible target for improvement.<\/p>\n

On collection of the second teacher questionnaire all teachers are trialling the use of Blooms learning objectives and success criteria(AP). Although students weren\u2019t asked specifically about this in their reflection the majority did state that they enjoyed the new style of lesson (AP).<\/p>\n

Differentiating content, process and product<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Four out of five teachers stated that they present lessons in a variety of ways with three out of five preferring to differentiate the process as mentioned above (AP ?&?). Three out of five teachers strongly agreed and two out of five agreed that they use tiered tasks (AP ?&?), additionally two out of five strongly agreed that they regularly use open ended tasks and two out of five agreed (AP). These occurrences are somewhat backed up by observations. During an observation of teacher B the investigator witnessed the use of a tiered task using a programming hierarchy based on blooms taxonomy(AP). The skills required ranged from basic such as copying to coding and debugging. It was only when students were fully confident and able at the lower skills that they were able to apply creativity to create programming solutions. This strategy is supported by the literature as the tool \u2018encourages higher-order thoughts in students by building up from lower-level cognitive skills\u2019 (UCF Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, 2017). Teacher D countered this by explaining curriculum time constraints prevented the regular use of such tasks, this is in line with the literature mentioned earlier (AP) (Corely, 2004).<\/p>\n

On questioning students confirmed they prefer open ended tasks with 57% stating it was a learning strategy they enjoyed(AP). Students confirmed they enjoy a variety of approaches to learning as when questioned 51% prefer making revision notes, 29% tutorials 14% listening to explanations to aide their practical work with only 6% preferring to read and research (AP). This is in line with the research as, mixed activities help with student engagement which is important as \u2018Engagement in the classroom leads to achievement and contributes to students\u2019 social and cognitive development (Finn, 1993).<\/p>\n

On collection of the second teacher questionnaire all teachers are trialling a variety of strategies in their computing lessons(AP).\u00a0 This was confirmed as most students indicated the new lessons were presented in a different way(AP), in a way they wouldn\u2019t have chosen for themselves and out of their comfort zone(AP).\u00a0 The majority of students would not have chosen to learn in this way or would not identify this process as a learning strength(AP).\u00a0 This aside the majority of students engaged with and enjoyed this lesson (AP). There are mixed opinions in the literature to support and refute these findings.\u00a0 On one hand \u2018responding to learning styles; and teaching to the student\u2019s zone of proximal development\u2019 provides \u2018the foundation of differentiation\u2019 and is based on \u2018solid\u2019 and \u2018validated\u2019 research (Allan & Tomlinson, 2000; Ellis & Worthington, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978). Further support is provided by Baumgartner, Lipowski, and Rush (2003) who found that a \u2018students\u2019 choice of learning tasks\u2019 helped improve their \u2018decoding, phonemic, and comprehension skills\u2019. However, Riener and Willingham (2010), classify differentiation by learning styles as a \u2018myth\u2019; They contend that there is \u2018no credible evidence that learning styles exist\u2019 and that \u2018real harm may be done\u2019 by \u2018implementing instructional methods that we know do not work\u2019. They acknowledge that \u2018learners have preferences\u2019 but when put to the test empirically under controlled conditions, these preferences have no effect in terms of the amount of material learned or the pace of learning\u2019.<\/p>\n

Groupings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

None of teachers agreed with regularly grouping students in mixed ability groups (AP).\u00a0 The rationale for this was not due to disadvantaging the most able as was mentioned by Paton (2012) in the literature review. Teacher A\u2019s rationale was based on the fact that Computer Science is an option subject and uptake is usually only one or two classes then the students are already of mixed ability(AP).\u00a0 The students\u2019 opinions don\u2019t correlate that of the teachers as 29% prefer it when teachers put them into mixed skilled groups (AP), 29% prefer to work in friendship groups 23% enjoy working in pairs, and only 20% don\u2019t like working in groups. Baumgartner, Lipowski, and Rush (2003) found that \u2018flexible grouping\u2019 as preferred in the above findings may improve \u2018student attitudes\u2019.\u00a0 Slavin (1987) found that \u2018flexible within class grouping\u2019 created \u2018substantial achievement gains for able learners and nontrivial gains for average and struggling learners when instruction is tailored to students\u2019 readiness levels. In support Tieso (2005) found that \u2018creating purposeful flexible grouping, may significantly improve students\u2019 mathematics achievement, especially for gifted students\u2019.\u00a0 This especially relevant due to the amount of mathematics in the new Computing qualifications (OCR, 2015).<\/p>\n

On collection of the second teacher questionnaire three out of five agreed to trial mixed ability groupings(AP).\u00a0 On reflection, most students believed they made good or better progress during the new groupings within lessons and would like to learn like this again(AP).\u00a0 Kulik & Kulik (1992) and Slavin (1987) noted that grouping practices alone will have small to moderate effects on achievement if they are not complemented with appropriate differentiation.<\/p>\n

How can differentiation be improved<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

All teachers were keen to invest time in CPD with four out of five teachers strongly agreeing and one out of five agreeing (AP).\u00a0 The research shows that \u2018In the UK the quality and nature of continuing training available is very uneven\u2019 (OECD, 2017) and \u2018schools in England may spend as little as 0.5% of their budgets on CPD\u2019, according to the\u00a0Teacher Development Trust<\/a> (2010).\u00a0 In contrast, \u2018in the world\u2019s best school systems like Ontario, Canada, over 10% of school budgets and teacher time is spent on CPD learning\u2019. Further research shows<\/a>\u00a0that \u2018barely 1% of CPD training is improving classroom practice effectively in English schools\u2019 (Teachers Development Trust, 2010). For CPD to be effective schools need to ensure the provision is specifically aimed at differentiation in computing.<\/p>\n

This study has highlighted how students feel but not why. Further studies to ascertain why they opted for certain options or providing them with the opportunity to provide answers away from the unstructured questionnaire may provide greater insight.<\/p>\n

Teachers in the computing department have already started to trial new strategies within their classrooms. Further trials with evaluation and reflection on their own lessons, from observers, from students, and analysing data could help establish consistent good practice.<\/p>\n

(2020 words)<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Analysis of the data aimed to answer the key questions raised by the literature review. The study partly addressed the questions raised but that there are some improvements that would make this study more valid and reliable.<\/p>\n

The teachers in this study believe that differentiation is a positive necessity to ensure all students meet their potential. There was some confusion about what the government and school expects in terms of strategies. There appeared to be a lack of confidence in how to apply differentiation. All teachers believed that further CPD would benefit them and their students.<\/p>\n

From analysing the student questionnaire on what helped them to learn. It is apparent that the existing provision is only going part way to ensure each student reaches their potential. Once teachers had analysed these questionnaires for themselves they were able to identify what they could do to improve their differentiation provision. When the students were questioned a second time it was clear that the provision was improving as there was a majority positive response to each of the questions asked.<\/p>\n

The government are keen to allow schools to be autonomous when implementing their own differentiation policies. Although some evidence of the raising of standards using \u2018creativity, innovation and professional expertise\u2019 was observed, the current picture was not consistent. The government are keen to avoid \u2018the situation where, over the next five years, the strong get stronger and the weak fall even further behind\u2019. The study recommends bespoke computing subject knowledge and differentiation training to improve confidence.<\/p>\n

(254 words)<\/p>\n

Total word count (4790)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

References<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Allan, S. D., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms<\/em>. Alexandria, VA: ASCD<\/p>\n

Anstee, P., 2014. Differentiation Pocketbook<\/em>. Management Pocketbooks<\/p>\n

Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M. B., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction<\/em> (Master\u2019s research). Available from Education Resources Information Center<\/p>\n

Bonwell, C. and Eison, J., 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom AEHE-ERIC higher education report No. 1.<\/p>\n

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2004. A guide to teaching practice<\/em>. Psychology Press<\/p>\n

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J. and Katch, L.E., 2004. Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific studies of reading<\/em>, 8<\/em>(4), pp.305-336.<\/p>\n

Corley, M. (2005). Differentiated instruction: Adjusting to the needs of all learners. Focus on Basics: Connecting Research and Practice, 7(C), 13-16.<\/p>\n

Crest. 2016. GCSE Reform: A New Dawn of Computer Science. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.crest-approved.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/CREST-GCSE-Reform-June-2016.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row<\/p>\n

Department for Children Schools Families. 2009. Personalised Learning \u2013 A Practical Guide<\/em>. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.essex.gov.uk\/Business-Partners\/Partners\/Schools\/One-to-one-tuition\/Documents\/Personalised%20Learning%20a%20practical%20guide.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 20 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Department for education, 2011. Teachers\u2019 standards \u2013 GOV.UK. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/teachers-standards<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Department for education, 2013.National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study \u2013 GOV.UK. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/nationalcurriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study\/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Department for education, 2013. National curriculum in England: mathematics programmes of study \u2013 GOV.UK. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/national-curriculumin-england-mathematics-programmes-of-study<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Department for education, 2016. Educational excellence everywhere \u2013 GOV.UK. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/educational-excellence-everywhere<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Dweck, C. S. (2008). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65, 34-39.<\/p>\n

Ellis, E. S., & Worthington, L. A. (1994). Research synthesis on effective teaching principles and the design of quality tools for educators<\/em>. University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.<\/p>\n

Evaluation cookbook, (1999). Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.icbl.hw.ac.uk\/ltdi\/cookbook\/info_questionnaires\/<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017]<\/p>\n

Finn, J.D., 1993. School Engagement & Students at Risk.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: \"\"Basic Books<\/img><\/p>\n

Heacox,\u00a0 D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and<\/p>\n

teach all learners. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.<\/p>\n

Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work NY: John Wiley.<\/p>\n

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2016. Digital skills crisis. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm201617\/cmselect\/cmsctech\/270\/270.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

How to Write Guide: A Strategy for Writing Up Research Results<\/em>. 2017. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/abacus.bates.edu\/~ganderso\/biology\/resources\/writing\/HTWstrategy.html<\/a>. [Accessed 21 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Kesteven & Grantham Girls\u2019 School . [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.kestevengrantham.lincs.sch.uk\/policies\/<\/a>. [Accessed 20 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. american Educational research Journal, 19, 414\u2013428.<\/p>\n

Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.<\/p>\n

Miliband, D. (2004) Personalised Learning: Building a New Relationship with Schools<\/em> North of England Education Conference, Belfast. London: Department for Education and Skills.http:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/20130401151715\/http:\/\/www.education.gov.uk\/publications\/eOrderingDownload\/personalised-learning.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

National Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics. 2015. Teaching for Mastery. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.ncetm.org.uk\/public\/files\/23305594\/Mastery_Assessment_Y1_Low_Res.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

O\u2019Brien, T. and Guiney, D., 2001. Differentiation in teaching and learning: Principles and practice<\/em>. London: Continuum.<\/p>\n

OCR. 2015. Computer Science<\/em>. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.ocr.org.uk\/Images\/225975-specification-accredited-gcse-computer-science-j276.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 21 May 2017].<\/p>\n

OCR. 2016.Computing specification<\/em>.[ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.ocr.org.uk\/Images\/72936-specification.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 26 May 2017].<\/p>\n

OECD Library. 2017. Initial Teacher Education and Continuing Training Policies in a Comparative Perspective \u2013 Papers. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.oecd-ilibrary.org\/education\/initial-teacher-education-and-continuing-training-policies-in-a-comparative-perspective_5kmbphh7s47h-en<\/a>. [Accessed 23 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Paton G (2012)\u00a0 Ofsted: Mixed-Ability Classes \u2018a curse\u2019 on Bright Pupils. <\/em>Available at http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/education\/educationnews\/9553764\/Ofsted-mixed-ability-classes-a-curse-on-brightpupils.html<\/a> [Accessed 8th <\/sup>May2015].<\/p>\n

ReviseSociology. 2016. Participant Observation in Social Research | ReviseSociology. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/revisesociology.com\/2016\/03\/31\/participant-observation-strengths-limitations\/<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42<\/em>(5)<\/p>\n

Research Gate. 2014. Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/profile\/Hamza_Alshenqeeti\/publication\/269869369_Interviewing_as_a_Data_Collection_Method_A_Critical_Review\/links\/55d6ea6508aed6a199a4fd34\/Interviewing-as-a-Data-Collection-Method-A-Critical-Review.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Research Guides at <\/a>University of Southern California. (2017) The Methodology \u2013 Organising Your Social Sciences Research Paper \u2013 Research Guides at University of Southern California. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/libguides.usc.edu\/writingguide\/methodology<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Sternberg, R. , & Williams, W. (2002). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.<\/p>\n

TeachThought. 2017. Jerome Bruner On The Scaffolding Of Learning<\/em>. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/www.teachthought.com\/learning\/learning-theories-jerome-bruner-scaffolding-learning\/<\/a>. [Accessed 21 May 2017].<\/p>\n

The Guardian, 2015. Gove determined to reform GCSEs from 2015 after baccalaureate retreat | Politics | The Guardian. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/education\/2013\/feb\/07\/gove-gcse-reforms-from-2015<\/a>. [Accessed 14 May 2017]<\/p>\n

Teacher Development Trust. 2010. What makes effective CPD? \u2013 Teacher Development Trust. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/tdtrust.org\/what-makes-effective-cpd-2<\/a>. [Accessed 23 May 2017].<\/p>\n

The Guardian. 2015. Differentiation is out. Mastery is the new classroom buzzword | Teacher Network | The Guardian<\/em>. [ONLINE] Available at: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/teacher-network\/2015\/oct\/01\/mastery-differentiation-new-classroom-buzzword<\/a>. [Accessed 21 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29<\/em>(1), 60\u201389.<\/p>\n

Tomlinson, C.A., 2001. How to diferentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms<\/em>. ASCD.<\/p>\n

Tomlinson, C. A. & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Diferentiation in practice: U resource guide for<\/p>\n

differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum<\/p>\n

Development.<\/p>\n

UCF Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. 2017. Bloom\u2019s Taxonomy \u2013 UCF Faculty<\/p>\n

Center for Teaching and Learning. [ONLINE] Available at:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.fctl.ucf.edu\/teachingandlearningresources\/coursedesign\/bloomstaxonomy\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Accessed 21 May 2017].<\/p>\n

University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. 2012. The Cost of Inclusion. [ONLINE]<\/p>\n

Available at:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.educ.cam.ac.uk\/people\/staff\/galton\/Costs_of_Inclusion_Final.pdf<\/a>. [Accessed<\/p>\n

20 May 2017].<\/p>\n

University of Portsmouth, 2010. Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Types of Interview<\/p>\n

Structure. [ONLINE] Available at: http:\/\/compass.port.ac.uk\/UoP\/file\/d8a7aedc-be56-461b <\/a><\/p>\n

85e8ae38ccf49670\/1\/Interviews_IMSLRN.zip\/page_03.htm<\/a>.\u00a0 [Accessed 14 May 2017].<\/p>\n

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard<\/p>\n

Walpole, S. , & McKenna, M. G. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: Strategies for primary grades.<\/p>\n

NewYork: The Guilford Press.<\/p>\n

Appendix<\/p>\n

1a)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

1b)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

1c)<\/p>\n

<\/a>\"\"<\/p>\n

1d)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

1e)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

3a)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response to this question was mixed with 2\/5 teachers strongly agreeing that they use Blooms taxonomy for their learning objectives. After reviewing the student questionnaires (below) all teachers appear to be trialling the above strategies with 3\/5 agreeing.<\/p>\n

3b)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response to this question was mixed with 2\/5 being uncertain whether they use success criteria in their lessons.<\/p>\n

This highlights another possible target for improvement and after reviewing the student questionnaires it appears that all of the department are trialling this approach with 4\/5 strongly agreeing to trial the approach.<\/p>\n

3c)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response to this question was unanimous. On collection of the second set of questionnaires, after teachers had reviewed the student questionnaires (below) it appears that use of this approach was increasing with 3\/5 teachers agreeing to trial this approach.<\/p>\n

3d)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response was positive to this strategy with 3\/5 teachers strongly agreeing that they use tiered tasks in their lessons. On collection of the second set of questionnaires after teachers had reviewed the student questionnaires it appears 5\/5 teachers strongly agreed to use open ended tasks.<\/p>\n

3e)<\/p>\n

\"\" This question provided a mixed response. With 4\/5 teacher strongly agreeing or agreeing that they regularly use open ended tasks. Upon receipt of the second set of questionnaires the uptake of open ended tasks appears to have improved with 3\/5 strongly agreeing to it.<\/p>\n

3f)<\/p>\n

\"\"The original response to this question was strong with 3\/5 teachers strongly agreeing that they present their lessons in a variety of ways. After receipt of the second set of questionnaires the uptake of this strategy appears to be even stronger with 4\/5 teachers strongly agreeing.<\/p>\n

3g) \"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response to this question was mixed with 2\/5 agreeing and 2\/5 disagreeing that they allow students to present their work in a variety of ways. Upon collection of the second set of questionnaires it appears all teachers are trialling this strategy with 3\/5 teachers agreeing.<\/p>\n

3h)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The initial response to this question was mixed with 4\/5 teachers strongly agreeing or agreeing that they adapt their classroom to provide a positive learning environment. On collection of the second set of questionnaires all teachers appear to be trialling this strategy with 3\/5 teachers agreeing.<\/p>\n

2i)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

All teachers were keen to invest time in CPD with 4\/5 teachers strongly agreeing.\u00a0 This show that the staff care and want to be more knowledgeable about differentiation for the good of their students.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

4a)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Although this question doesn\u2019t ask specifically about learning objectives it shows that students are used to starting at the same point as a class, typically the first learning objective. Some teachers indicated that they are using learning objectives of increased difficulty using Bloom taxonomy.\u00a0 This response by students supports this as 7 students stated they like to start at a point that challenges them although the majority like to start at the same point as everyone else.<\/p>\n

4b)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of students highlighted that they prefer open ended project tasks that are tiered using a success criteria. Some teachers highlighted that they are already using success criteria and open ended tasks and this is supported by the above.<\/p>\n

4c)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of students indicated that they feel they learn more if they work in a group of either friends of a mixed ability group picked by the teacher. This was highlighted even though the teachers unanimously stated that they do not put students into mixed ability groups.<\/p>\n

4d)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The response to this question is mixed showing that students enjoy the lessons when teachers allow them to approach a task in different ways. This supports the teachers questionnaire where some teachers stated they like to use a variety of ways to get students engaged. This aside the majority of student prefer to learn by being lectured and making and highlighting notes. I believe this is a grammer school trend (source) due to\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

4e)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The response to this question was also mixed showing that students like the fact that some teachers allow them to show their learning in a variety of ways as stated in the teaching questionnaire. This aside the majority of students preferred to show their progress in an end of topic test showing the current culture of testing ?? (source)<\/p>\n

4f)<\/p>\n

\"\"
\nSome teachers indicated that they like to provide alternative environments within one classroom. The above showed that students appreciate this and enjoy a variety of environments with the majority enjoying an active classroom with music.<\/p>\n

5a)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of the students enjoyed the lessons where teachers were trialling new strategies. In hindsight, I believe I should have also conducted this survey before the change to allow me to compare my results to a baseline.<\/p>\n

5b)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of the students indicate that the lesson was presented in a different way than usual. This supports the teachers\u2019 responses that they are trialling new strategies and that the proportion on no and maybe supports that some teachers were already carrying out a variety of differentiation before this study.<\/p>\n

5c)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of students would not have chosen to learn in this way or would not identify this process as a learning strength. This aside the majority of students engaged with and enjoyed this lesson (as shown above) This finding is supported by the theory that preferred learning styles are a myth (source) as the students enjoyed learning in a way that was not their usual choice.<\/p>\n

5d)\"\"<\/p>\n

The majority of students stated that this was out of their comfort zone, supporting the teachers\u2019 statements that they vary the way the present the lesson and also how they ask students to present their learning. Carol Dweck theorised that having high expectations of students creates a growth mindset \u2026. (source).<\/p>\n

5e)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

5f)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The large majority of students would like to learn like this again, this shows that a variation in strategies keeps the students engaged. However not all students agreed further research needs to be carried out to find out why some students would not like to learn like this again so that the teacher can ensure they are differentiating for all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Differentiation in the computing classroom NO594721 Contents Abstract \/ Executive Summary\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..3 Introduction\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..4 Review of Literature\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20265 History of differentiation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.5 Contemporary stance on differentiation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20265 Government stance on differentiation \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.6 Models of differentiation and current ideas\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.6 Barriers to differentiation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20268 Conclusion of literature review\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20268 Methodology \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.8 Research Methods\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..8 Interviews\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..9 Questionnaires\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.9 Observations and reflections\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202610 How will the results be analysed\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.10 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5847],"tags":[13869,13872,13882,13883,13880,13881,13870,13871],"class_list":["post-101543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-full-dissertations","tag-best-rated-professor-essay-writing-services-online","tag-custom-written-essay-hub-for-fast-assignments","tag-help-with-writing-discussion-post-responses","tag-i-need-help-to-ace-my-homework-in-5-hours","tag-pay-someone-to-write-my-essay-in-hours","tag-phd-thesis-writing-and-editing-service-australia","tag-usa-academic-writing-help-for-college-students","tag-write-harbor-research-paper-assistance-for-graduates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}