When Should Core Curriculum Be Supplemented?

No curriculum will meet all of your current students learning needs. And what you found successful last year may not be successful this year. The core curriculum for any subject should be reaching 80% of your students. Changes should be made to increase student retention of intended outcomes, when less than 80% of your students are not retaining intended outcomes of core curriculum. There are usually different variables of an instructional lesson that may have a negative or positive effect on the core curriculum.

One tricky part of education and the effectiveness of instructional lessons is the background knowledge that both the teacher and the student bring to the lesson. Each person has had a different set of experiences and exposures before entering the classroom. Teachers can glean from their 13 years of formal-required education. Educators also bring their collegiate educational experiences, and their natural temperament and abilities into the planning and delivering of instructional lessons. In addition, teachers should be seeking ways to improve how to best meet the needs of their current students. This is why professional development is so vital to the process. Professional development may be gained through many different platforms, such as: (a) observation of instructional lessons, (b) self-study, (c) collaboration/discussions with colleagues or community members, (d) college classes or seminars, and or (e) trial and error. Most educators will seek to improve their craft on their own.

In relation to the K-12 students, each are unique individuals that usually require different types of instruction to really grasp and gain ownership of a taught skill. To meet 80% of your current students’ instructional needs in the classroom does not require that each student have a personal instructional plan. But this does mean that written and published instructional lessons may need some differentiation to meet the learning needs of your current students. If you know that most students learn better by taking notes, then taking notes of important details should be added to a lesson. If you know that most of your students need a few more mini lessons to digest and own a skill, then this change should be made. Written and published instructional lessons usually follow a systemic pattern, like teaching students letter names and sounds before asking them to decode CVC words. If students do not own letter-sound correspondences before teaching them how to decode words, most students will struggle and the decoding lesson will usually take many months to grasp. Some skills may be introduced and practiced as new skills are being taught, which may make the art and science of each instructional lesson a challenge. Educator professional development and background knowledge usually increase the ease of developing each instructional lesson to best meet the needs of students in your classroom.

A note of importance, usually only 5% of students on average will be able to grasp, hold onto, and use a new skill after the first lesson. If you do not have the definition of an average classroom, then students taking ownership after the first lesson will be different. Student ability changes with each subject, meaning that some students may be able to learn new skills in reading easier than they can in science. Data gathered today may not look the same tomorrow. Calculating the 80% should include multiple points of gathered data.

 

 

Differentiation vs Scaffolding

The attributes of differentiation and scaffolding have some similarities. There are also some distinctions between the two types of instruction. Each are valuable instructional strategies to assist educators in meeting the needs of all students present. Differentiated and scaffolding are described in the following paragraphs.

Differentiated instruction is defined as adjusting lessons to meet student learning needs by using regular assessment data to develop lessons and instructional groups (Tomlinson, 2022). Educators alter grade-level instruction to better meet student learning-style and learning-level. Students of the same classroom may receive different instructional lessons on the same subject. Tomlinson (2022) suggests four key areas of instruction that educators may adjust to better meet the instructional needs of students present. The first is the intended content to be absorbed by the students. The depth and width of the subject may be altered to match student learning level. The second is how the information is presented to students, such as lectures, exploration station or project format to better ensure absorption and future usage of the presented information. The third area is the intended outcome of the lesson. What will be the product of the lesson? How will the lesson conclude, such as a quiz, reflection or written document? In some cases, the students might be held accountable for writing a five-paragraph essay, while others receiving the same lesson may be only held accountable for writing 1 or 2 paragraphs. The fourth suggested area that might be adjusted is the learning environment, such as student or community-centered. What types of classroom management techniques are used? This might include student desks or group tables. Some environments might include a reading nook or allow students to roam freely.

Differentiated instruction is typically presented to students in a small group format. Small group instruction allows educators to use different types of instruction for a particular group of students. These students may be at a different academic level than their aged peers. These students may need instruction of a grade-level concept not yet user friendly for them. These students may have “holes” in their academic portfolio for various reasons. Scaffolding strategies may also be present in the small group instruction.

Scaffolding is “a supportive instructional structure that teachers use to provide the appropriate mechanisms for a student to complete a task that is beyond their unassisted abilities” (Ray, 2017, p. 14). van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen describe scaffolding as a process that includes contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Contingency is the support that teachers initially give to students, such as modeling. Fading may be described as half-in, half-out or the “murky” zone. The teacher is pulling away given support or scaffolding to give full control of task completion back to the student. Transfer of responsibility is the intended outcome. At this stage of the scaffolding process, students “own” the knowledge/skill to complete the task independently and are often able to assist others in completing the task.

The teacher role in scaffolding might include collaboration or discussion with a student to “brainstorm” solutions of an issue or complete a task. A second teacher role might be constantly asking the student questions about the task to help them develop “files” of information about the task. This assists students in building knowledge to increase student ability to explain concepts. A third teacher role is to constantly model and explain tasks in the ideal format of student’s current maturation level. The ideal format is just beyond what the student can accomplish on their own, often referred to as student zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1929;1934/2002).

The scaffolding instructional strategy is usually used to focus more on an individual student’s learning needs during an instructional lesson or completion of a particular task than to a group of students. This strategy is often used unconsciously by the instructor to increase student engagement and completion of a task, such as a teacher might read a question for a student or have a conversation about what the question is asking. Teachers may give students a copy of the formula for area or the multiplication table that can be removed from the student when they can use the information provided fluidly.

Differentiation and scaffolding instructional strategies may be used simultaneously to better meet the individual instructional needs of student(s).

References

Ray, J. (2017). Tiered 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Tomlinson, Carol A. (2022). What is differentiated instruction? Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Education Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

Vygotsky, L. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434.  Vygotsky Reader, Blackwell. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/cultural_development.htm

Vygotsky, L. (1934/2002). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 

 

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)