Sensory Sensitivity in the Classroom

Whether a child has a diagnosis or not, they may experience sensory difficulties in the classroom.  This impacts on their well-being, behaviour, and learning. 

Every classroom can have and use tools to support learners with sensory difficulties. 

I recently found this website explaining 6 simple ways teachers can help their learners.  Click on the image if you would like to read more.

What can you try in your classroom?

What have you already done that worked?

If something didn't work for you, why do you think that was?  Would it work in a different context? Different child, different day or slightly different approach?

What do your learners and their families/ whanau say about these approaches?

Teaching as Inquiry - The way we do things around here

Teaching as Inquiry
Teaching as Inquiry is explicitly embedded into the New Zealand Curriculum where effective pedagogy is seen as teachers inquiring into the effect of their teaching on their students (Ministry of Education, n.d.).  Teaching as Inquiry is a powerful approach as teachers are taking deliberate and considered actions in their classrooms to accelerate the achievement of their struggling learners.  Effective inquiry is seen by Fowler (2012) as when a teacher sees and assesses a problem, then tries some strategies with the expectation that some may work and others may not.  

 I would argue that Teaching as Inquiry is the most prevalent and topical intervention in New Zealand classrooms that is being used to accelerate learning for priority learners.  All Ministry of Education funded professional learning and development (PLD) for teachers requires accredited facilitators to provide evidence of their ability to support leaders and teachers in an effective, collaborative inquiry process (Ministry of Education, 2016).  This has been an explicit expectation for PLD with evidence within the Teacher Professional Learning and Development Best Evidence Synthesis (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2008) of sustained, substantive student outcomes where professional development provided teachers with a strong theoretical knowledge and the skills to inquire into the impact of their teaching on their learners.  Further in 2014, the professional development advisory group described a key feature of the new approach to PLD as “systematic, ongoing, evidence-formed inquiry” (p. 5).  The expectation is that facilitators will support teachers and leaders to develop theoretical understandings that enable them to use a self-regulated inquiry approach in their everyday practice (Timperley, n.d.).

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., and Halbert, J. (2014, April). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education, Seminar Series Paper No. 234.

It is important to note that inquiry is explicitly required for teacher certification in New Zealand.  Practising Teacher Criteria 12 states “use critical inquiry and problem-solving effectively in their professional practice” (Education Council, n.d.).   

ERO stated a concern in the 2012 report that a large proportion of teachers (37%) were using Teaching as Inquiry minimally or not at all which indicated a need for further support to understand the processes and benefits of teaching as inquiry.  This signifies a possible reason for the increased explicit focus within PLD.  In the 2012 report ERO described effective inquiry that made difference to student achievement as teachers who desired to make learning and teaching better, observed students closely, constantly monitored their responses and adjusted instruction immediately.  When Teaching as Inquiry is effectively implemented by teachers and supported by leaders it has the potential to make a significant difference for priority students (ERO, 2012).  This is explained further by Timperley, Kaser and Halbert (2014 p. 4) as “Innovation floats on a sea of inquiry and that curiosity is a driver for change. Creating the conditions in schools and learning settings where curiosity is encouraged, developed, and sustained is essential to opening up thinking, changing practice, and creating dramatically more innovative approaches to learning and teaching”.  

I wonder...

If 'teaching as inquiry' is a National Expectation, do we all share the same understandings about it?

What is the shared understanding of the role of teaching as inquiry in each school and across schools?

What is the shared understanding of the process of teaching as inquiry in each school and across schools?

 How are we measuring the impact of teaching as inquiry?

How should teaching as inquiry be recorded and shared?  Why?

Education Council. (n.d.). Practising Teacher Criteria. Retrieved from https://educationcouncil.org.nz/sites/default/files/Practising%20teacher%20criteria%20English.pdf

Education Review Office. (2012).  Evaluation at a Glance: Priority Learners in New Zealand Schools.  Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/publications/evaluation-at-a-glance-priority-learners-in-new-zealand-schools/

Fowler, M. (2012). Leading inquiry at a teacher level: It's all about mentorship. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (3), 2.

Ministry of Education. (2016) Facilitator Accreditation.  Education Services. Retrieved from http://services.education.govt.nz/pld/information-for-providers/accreditation/

 Ministry of Education. (n.d.) Teaching as Inquiry.  Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Teaching-as-inquiry
 

Timperley, H. (n.d.). Teacher professional learning and development. Retrieved from http://unesco.atlasproject.eu/unesco/file/d901c26b-5266-44e9-b09c-f2a2fe3815fc/c8c7fe00-c770-11e1-9b21-0800200c9a66/179161e.pdf

Timperley H, Kaser L and Halbert J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education, Seminar Series Paper No. 234. 

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development.

21st Century Learning

I have been exploring the concept of 21st Century Learning and what this means for teachers, students, schools and communities in New Zealand.

The concepts of being connected and collaborating in learning activities hold exciting potential for New Zealand classrooms.  Generational definitions of being connected may differ.  What my seventeen year old son considers being connected and how to connect and learn challenges my own understanding and experience.

Digital technologies offer exciting possibilities for students to learn at the times, places and contexts of their choosing

Future - focused learning in connected communities

A report by the 21st Century Learning Reference Group  2014

How can we support our teachers to provide these learning opportunities and conditions for our learners?

Differentiation and Ability Grouping

I have been thinking about ability grouping and meeting the needs of diverse learners.

Teachers who decide to ability group students explain that it allows them to more readily meet the diverse needs of their learners (Rubie-Davies, 2014).  The concept of diversity is continually growing and changing which is reflected in school demographics and societal challenges.  While diversity may once have meant cultural diversity, teachers are faced with complex classrooms full of students with more than ethnic diversity.  (Ladson-Billings 2011).  Several researchers consider it costly both in money and effort for teachers to constantly match instructional support to learner needs (Pressley, Gaskins, Solic, & Collins, 2006).  This view is supported by the perception that the role of a teacher has increased, intensified and expanded (Valli & Buese, 2007).  Challenging this argument is the perceived cost of not meeting the needs of all students, resulting in educational inequality and subsequent negative social impact (Lleras & Rangel, 2009).  When faced with increasingly diverse learner needs and the complex demands of the role of the teacher, it is understandable for teachers to rely heavily on ability grouping.  In New Zealand, ability grouping in literacy is commonly seen as effective practice.  This view has been identified by Rubie-Davies (2014) as “… entrenched, ubiquitous, and unchallenged practice in New Zealand” (p. 122).

Advocates for ability grouping strongly assert that all learners benefit academically from small group instruction and identify peer learning, tailored instruction, cooperative incentive structures and the development of social and communication skills as benefits (Abrami, Lou, Chambers, Poulsen, & Spence, 2000).   Challenging this belief is the finding that although teachers are working to match the instruction to the level of learner ability, students are often reporting that the level of work remains unchallenging (Hallam, 2003).  Teachers are reported to use ability grouping to meet the needs of their learners yet this often leads to inequitable learning opportunities (Rubie-Davies, 2014).  

It is vital for New Zealand teachers to consider our whole literacy programmes and ensure there are opportunities for our learners to work with different learners and share their diversity.  A balanced reading and writing programme will offer multiple opportunities for learners to interact with content in multiple ways.  If fixed ability grouping is the only way our students interact with literacy learning, then the unintended negative consequences raised in research will likely become their reality.  Yet if we consider differentiation as a fluid model that changes dependent on content and context, students are more likely to experience success.   Flexible grouping described in Rubie-Davies, (2014) shows how teachers with high expectations ability grouped for instruction but not for learning activities. This worked to counter negative social impacts of ability grouping.  There is currently a change in pedagogy in New Zealand schools who are exploring innovative learning environments, where fluid grouping strategies are becoming the norm as many teachers share the responsibility for many learners.

So big questions for me are:

Why do we group our students?

When do we group our students?

What types of grouping do we use?

What are the benefits of grouping our students?

What are the disadvantages or challenges of grouping our students?

How often do our groups change? 

What is the experience of grouping for our students? Do we collect this student voice and respond to it?

 

Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Why should we group students within-class for learning?  Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.

Hallam, S. (2003). Mixed up? The pros and cons of ability grouping. Education Journal, 64, 24-26.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions. Studying diversity in teacher education, 385-398.

Lleras, C., & Rangel, C. (2009). Ability grouping practices in elementary school and African American/Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 279-304.

Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of benchmark school: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282.

Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Becoming a high expectation teacher: Raising the bar. Routledge.

  Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.