One of the questions I was asked during the tour stuck out: given our mixed grade classrooms in the elementary division, how do we ensure that children in the upper grade of each classroom are getting the challenge that they need, besides time as mentors and coaches for the younger students? This question resonated with my understanding of a historical narrative that parents of students in the youngest of a three-grade Montessori group tend to be very satisfied, b/c they can quite literally see the challenge available in the classroom; parents of students in the middle of a three-grade Montessori group tend to be somewhat satisfied, b/c they can still see the challenge available in the classroom; and parents of students in the oldest year of a three-grade Montessori group are sometimes dissatisfied with what they perceive as a lack of challenge.
My response to the question in the moment was that there are times when the ideas and work that are being presented are pitched to the more competent students, and that rather than assuming that the work is all directed at the "middle of the pack," or youngest, or least competent students, there will be times when some students are watching and seeing work that is within the zone of proximal development for the older or more capable students, and that a different version of that work is what is appropriately suited for them - and, that seeing another child take on work beyond what one can do is a strong motivator for learning the necessary knowledge and skills (though of course we have to be careful that kids don't "shut down" when they try something beyond their abilities). This answer was nicely complimented by one that Kyla O'Neill, K/1 teacher in Blackberry Creek, gave during the teacher panel at the end of the tour that it is the work of the teacher to carefully consider the development of each child and design experiences that are engaging for all students.
What I wish I had added then, and have been thinking about since, is that much of the time, the instruction and activities are designed to allow for inherent differentiation according to the understanding of the children. For example, the process of writing number sentences to document a student's thinking about a particular problem ("if each person has two arms and two legs, how many limbs does this group of 11 students have in total?" is one I witnessed in a K/1 class last week) can contain single digit addends representing each item to be counted (1+1+1+1...), single addends that represent groups of counted items (2 legs per person, and 2 arms per person, so 2+2+2+2... or, 4 limbs per person, so 4+4+4...), or many other various regroupings that "stack" ideas of addition (5 boys have 4 limbs each (4+4+4+4+4=20), and 6 girls have four limbs each (24), so 20+24=44). What you won't see is a teacher telling children "Here's the RIGHT way to solve the problem", because there is no one right way; having a developmental approach means taking the time to have each child express his/her understanding, and give them opportunities to see how other children express their understanding, and encourage them to experiment with those more complex strategies.
This is different from the use of structured differentiation in our classrooms - when teachers ask a child to approach a certain piece of work, perhaps in a certain way. Using the example above, a teacher might ask a specific child or children to use groupings to write a number sentence using only double-digit addends (such as 20+24), or not using the same addend twice (4+8+12+20), or even using multiplication (4 x 11), based on the teacher's assessment of the child's understanding of number sense and operations. In both cases, the child is being appropriately challenged at the developmental level, rather than by standardized markers of "product".
No comments:
Post a Comment