Article Review: Diversity and Disciplinary Literacy
A. Summary of the Article
In observance of this week’s learning strategies, we take a dive into the effects of differentiating instruction and how to effectively implement differentiation through different resources. As an educator, my top priority for me to identify the type of students that are in front of me and successfully plan an instructional lesson that is conducive to all of my learners. In reading Tamirat Ginja and Xiaoduan Chen’s article, they conduct a study to investigate the perspectives and experiences of educators toward differentiated instruction. They administer random, but purposeful, sampling on 67 teacher educators from three different higher institutions. In this mixed research design, Ginja and Chen’s main purpose was to “investigate educators’ perspectives and their experiences toward differentiated instruction employing an explanatory sequential mixed research design” (Ginja & Chen, 2020, p. 781). Their study resulted in determining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction and if the design employs explanatory results. Their results were in support of their theory and indicated that teacher educators’ differentiated instruction planning is an essential resource in providing a diverse classroom. In our own readings and research assigned this week, we find that differentiation within the classroom offers diverse learning options, designated to explore different learning profiles, interests, curriculum content, and readiness levels (Tomlinson, 1995).
In conducting their study, Ginja and Chen, first, discuss the background information of instruction and scholarly evidence to support their theory. In the introduction, they discuss different scholars’ point-of-views on differentiated instruction in the learning process, and their findings. Although every scholar introduced in the article did not support Ginja and Chen’s theory, the included research helped in determining what to and what not to include in their own research. Their objective was to bring awareness to the opposing educators that believed that differentiated instruction is time consuming, noneffective, and overwhelming. “The objective of the study is to investigate teacher educators’ perspective of differentiated instruction and their experiences in how they are differentiating instruction in their classes” (Ginja & Chen, 2020, p. 783). The article discusses that in order to effectively do this, the teacher had to pay attention to his or her students’ individual learning readiness.
The method that was used by the two scholars began with research design and is considered an explanatory sequential mix methods design. They combined qualitative and quantitative research from this method during data and analysis collections. The participants were 67 diverse educators: 22 from Hossana College of Teacher Education, 22 from Dilla College of Teacher Education, and 23 from Hawassa University. The educators were given a questionnaire survey that Ginja and Chen adapted from instruments developed by Santangelo and Tomlinson in 2012 and reflected the Tomlinson’s DI model. The data was imputed by the two researchers in a SPSS computer program. The program that qualitatively analyzed their data consisted of descriptive statistics that included: frequencies, percentages, standard deviations, and means (Ginja & Chen, 2020, pages 786-787).
B. Conclusions and Implications
Ginja and Chen’s results in their study were consistent in support of our readings this week. For instance, in Carol Tomlinson’s article, she discusses the characteristics of differentiated classrooms and what they are and are not. In particularly, Tomlinson states that instruction is principle driven and focuses on concepts, is an ongoing assessment for student readiness and growth, requires consistent flexible grouping, and promotes students as active explorers (Tomlinson, 1995). Similarly, in observing Ginja and Chen’s results, their qualitative data revealed that some respondents’ meaning of differentiated instruction included their own philosophy of teaching, and provided examples of differentiated instruction similarly to Tomlinson’s beliefs. Although the participants identified characteristics of differentiated instruction, they lacked the training to properly utilize differentiated instruction techniques. “This point of view is consistent with Blozowich (2001) who concluded that teachers implementing differentiated instruction require continues professional development” (Ginja & Chen, 2020, p. 795). This shows relevance to our purposes, because it cultivates the notion the need for constant learning through professional development to properly implement diversity and disciplinary literacy within the classrooms. Correspondingly, courses equip teachers with the tools to provide inclusiveness in each classroom.
This data that was collected is useful, because it demonstrates the different point-of-view of different teachers within the classroom. The diverse participants who had their PhD were not as susceptible to adapting to new learning strategies such as differentiation which includes diversity and disciplinary literacy. Although this was considered a small-scaled study, the feedback from the different participants directly correlated to what I saw in my school setting on a daily. Being one of the youngest teachers and over a department is challenging when veterans feel more entitled and unteachable. Unfortunately, we see our students suffer the most due to lack of built relationships, adaptation, literacy, and need for change. The results in Ginja and Chen’s study can be applied to the classroom, by having teachers complete the questionnaire, and use the results to cultivate the classrooms.
One of the most influential results from Ginja and Chen’s study is a teacher’s instructional plan must be influenced by each students’ interest, readiness, and learning profile. When this first method has been enthusiastically mastered, it increases diverse and disciplinary literacy. For instance, the results of the study leads to implications in the classroom such as: building relationships between learns and educators through more class discussions, narrow achievement gaps through focused group learning, and increased motivation of learners through differentiation strategies (Ginja & Chen, 2020, pgs. 793-794). In addition, their study demonstrated cultural competence, a method that can be implicated within the classroom. In order to implicate this method, there has to be a level of shared responsibility between the learners and educator through unequivocal respect. In addition, though this implication may seem small, arranging one’s classroom is a great implication that was a result of the study. It promotes student collaboration and cooperation which leads to higher diversity and disciplinary literacy (Ginja & Chen, 2020, p. 784).
C. Overall Assessment
Overall, Ginja and Chen’s study on the significance of differentiated instruction in learning process from surveys completed by actual educators is necessary for the education industry. They include background information on the topic, which as we see later in the study, it was necessary as some educators did not know how to implement nor what the terminology meant. The study included pros and cons of implementing differentiation instruction supported by scholarly researchers and models created and implemented in the last decade. The study was clear, precise, and included diverse participants. The participants were of different races, areas, cultures, environments, teaching experience, and education levels. Ginja and Chen did a wonderful job at using their participants as examples to show the very diversity we see in the classroom settings. The questionnaire survey that was used was modeled by a survey that had already shown great results and change within instructional planning and classroom settings. Also, the study provided clear data through qualitative and quantitative data with explanations that related back to the mentioned researchers and scholars.
I agree with their major points as I have actually used a similar questionnaire survey on my department for collective data to discuss with the administration. It is unfortunate that they were not able to adequately prove their theory. This leads me to one of their weaknesses; too broad participants. Although their strength included having diverse participants, I do believe they would have more diverse data to make a concrete decision. For instance, if the participants had been limited to one school, amongst multiple departments, with the same background diversity in mind, their data would not have overlapped as much. Also, they included only educators from education programs from different universities. There are different departments with different objectives, beliefs, background education, and so on that would have been influential in their collected data. Aside from this suggestion, Ginja and Chen did provide a well-written, organized, fairly easy read, informative study that is impactful to education. Their findings and data can be beneficial to many educators. It is a topic that should be explored more within schools and departments, especially with diverse classroom settings.
References
Ginja, T. G., & Chen, X. (2020). Teacher Educators' Perspectives and Experiences towards Differentiated Instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 781-798. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/teacher-educators-perspectives-experiences/docview/2488218418/se-2
Tomlinson, Carol A (1995). Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learners in the Mixed-Ability Middle School Classroom. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. https://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/536.html