Whole class teaching is not one size fits all

How can we use explicit instruction to cater for diverse learning needs?

Schools can be curious places. We nearly always teach students in fairly large classes. And yet there is often a considerable range of achievement and prior knowledge among our learners. In secondary settings we all know the common phrase that it can be seven years of difference between your highest and lowest achieving students.

How is this workable?

When we encounter such a range, it can appear that the only way to cater for this diversity is to create ability groups of some kind, and teach them separately. This kind of separated instruction can be enacted using:

1. Streaming (which is unpopular and rightfully critiqued in many circles); 

2. In-class small group differentiated teaching (which IS very popular especially in primary);

3. Streamed tasks for different groups of students (pre-determined by the teacher). 

Spoiler: I’m not a fan of any of these ‘solutions’ to the range of learners problem. 

However, a LOT of research and practitioner arguments+ are made about differentiated groups being the answer to cater for diversity. It is also unhelpfully argued that whole class teaching is antiquated and ineffective: That’s a one-size-fits-all approach. 

+NOTE: Watch out for the learning styles myth referenced in the resources aforementioned.

Unfortunately, researchers and writers often pit differentiation up against whole class teaching, which is wrongly characterised as out-of-date.

I think this is unfair, and that whole class teaching can in fact be responsive and cater for a range of learners when done well. I’m not saying all our fellow teachers are aware of just how responsive and adaptive whole class teaching can be, but that doesn’t mean we should relegate it to the ‘old hat’ stand. 

You may be skeptical … and might be asking this. If whole class teaching is talked about as counter-productive for differentiated instruction - why would I even try to teach to the whole class?

Responsive whole class teaching promotes excellence and equity

An individualised approach sounds ideal, but in reality, teachers rarely have enough opportunity to work with each child one-on-one in sufficient quantities. We haven’t the time! Similarly, small group instruction is also arguably an inefficient* use of a teacher's (and students’) time. 

When we spend time in rotations of small group instruction, it’s important to ask ourselves, ’What are other students doing during this period?’ Are they learning as much as they would be if I was working with them as a bigger group? As long as your instruction is responsive and adaptive to need, what matters most is the time students spend with you, the teacher — regardless of the size of the group.

Many schools have seen significant success with whole-class, fast-paced, and engaging instruction in a range of subjects (see the examples on the Think Forward Principals’ Forum and my upcoming book). Research supports this approach, showing that explicit and guided, not necessarily hyper-individualised, instruction has the greatest impact. 

Importantly, after this initial instruction, further support and intervention can be provided as per Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). We don’t have to get all students to the same finish line each lesson, as additional supports and interventions should be designed to continue the work of closing gaps between our learners. 

*Note: Some researchers critique the importance of efficiency in the classroom saying that this smacks of neoliberalism trying to squeeze the productivity out of teachers and students alike. For me, the importance of efficiency comes down to opportunity cost: If we spend 30 minutes teaching something that could take just 10 minutes, what is being cut to make way for that extra 20 minutes of unnecessary instructional time? 20 minutes a day adds up very, very fast. We should thoroughly investigate any ways that we can save time for more great teaching and learning.

Whole class teaching is the perfect initial instruction; it is not the endpoint. 

When teachers adapt their practice to enhance the entire class's learning experience, they can adjust based on student responses, providing extension or support as needed. Whole class explicit teaching is the ‘sweet spot’ of differentiation, efficiently targeting a single learning objective with extensive modelling, practice, and feedback, followed by targeted small group support and additional practice for those who need it.

Alex Quigley distinguishes between this kind of ‘micro-adaptations’ in the moment, and more ‘significant adaptions’ such as reasonable adjustments required for students with additional learning needs. This should not be forgotten as well. 

When should small groups be used? 

The key is that differentiation mostly occurs through varying levels of real-time support for individuals within the whole group. Effective teaching is like constructing a building: it starts with a strong foundation of whole class instruction. In the same lesson, this can be followed by responsively provided support and scaffolding, either individually or in small groups as needed. 

Importantly, the post-main lesson groups are formed based on how students go during the lesson (checking for understanding), and are not pre-determined. This might be a quick catch up with a few students who did not get the basics of the concept or skill from the lesson, and need an extra dose right then and there. It’s timely to do this follow-up after whole class instruction while other students begin the independent practice of the lesson.

This initial instruction (tier 1) is then followed by further waves of teaching and support at increasing levels of intensity and in smaller groups (tier 2 and 3; see Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support).

Thus, the starting point is the same for all (we only need to plan one quality lesson), but the endpoints can be varied, especially in the levels of support we provide to get them there.

What does it take to get whole class teaching working?

So if you are wanting to spend more time with your class at a whole group level, but do not want to just ‘teach to the middle’, how can you get explicit, guided instructional approaches at whole class level to work?

The advice I offer in the synthesis in the upcoming book is that teachers should use effective instructional techniques that reflect responsive and adaptive teaching (see Rosenshine’s principles, 2012):

• Review and maintain past learning;

• Understand and activate learners’ prior knowledge;

• Facilitate explicit modelling and explanation;

• Check for understanding (CFU) constantly;

• Guide students towards independent practice;

• Respond and adapt by changing speed, reteaching, and adding support or extension to the learners who need it (in real time).

Teaching at the whole class level does not mean everyone gets the same

That’s not to say that there isn’t room for ‘differentiation’ within your whole class heavy lessons. On the contrary, by the right amount of challenge and support, students can go further with their learning, rather than stopping at the end of the main task.

Provided with the base level knowledge and skills to achieve the lesson’s objectives, students can either consolidate their understanding (perhaps with some responsively formed groups, as above, while others actually challenge themselves further using their now explicit awareness of learning they may have only intuited before. 

Whole class teaching promotes a cohesive learning community in every classroom

What I really love about teaching at the whole class level rather than in individualised groups is that all students have the potential to connect with each other as fellow learners around a particular topic, task, or text. 

When we design different tasks and activities for different groups of students we inadvertently create a pecking order within our classrooms. Although we wouldn't use the terms ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ with our students, the young people we teach are very good at figuring out who is in which group. 

I much prefer an opportunity to work with all students in a responsive and interactive way, knowing I can provide additional support to help students who need me as the lesson progresses. This way all learners are enabled to participate in a shared learning experience that belongs to everyone.

Whole class teaching enables students to access content otherwise out of their reach 

Extending upon the point I raised above, when we move away from small differentiated groups by default there is more time to work closely with students on an in-depth task or text. By guiding the instruction more intentionally and providing many opportunities for active participation such as engagement norms and checking for understanding, we are able to bring to life aspects of the curriculum that would naturally be inaccessible for most learners without this teacher input. 

I want all my students to experience the transformative potential of challenging material in which ever subject I'm teaching, and I can't help them experience that if I delineate the curriculum into different levelled groups, and close off the opportunity to even try to some students.

The benefits of all students engaging in challenging texts with support are rightly promoted by Tim Shanahan among others. This is instead of using just levelled / ‘just right’ books.

What are my students missing when I put them into group rotations, or differentiated groups for most of the lesson?

The alternative of creating multiple groups and sorting your students into levels may still be tempting. However, you’ll never really get the sorting right…. Differences between learners are not static. Their learning trajectories are constantly changing.

I would argue that putting them into ability grouping most of the time essentially locks them into that level of achievement, whether they are in the right group or not.

Instead, if we choose whole class teaching methods that build foundational skills and knowledge by default, and enable all students to reach mastery, we can move towards much much more equitable situations.

Knowing that great teaching is adaptive and responsive to real-time needs, we can ensure that the teaching of all students is meaningful and scaffolded when needed. But that the whole point of scaffolding is to eventually remove it! 

To be clear - I can see some limited situations where creating pre-determined groups is beneficial to target particular skills that are lacking in several students. An example where this could be justified is significantly low literacy or mathematics in the middle-upper years. However, to make this work, such interventions should be part of multi-tiered systems of support using an effective, research-informed program at high intensity, and not just haphazard between-class streaming…

Is ‘adaptive teaching’ a more useful concept than differentiation?

Differentiation is a slippery term. It has been critiqued in Australia and abroad for being too vague and almost impossible to implement. 

‘Adaptive teaching’ is not a new approach in terms of the literature but it is one that has had recent uptake in the UK context in particular due to the use of this term in education framework documentation.

Adaptive teaching has also received vigorous discussion and debate about its utility as an alternative to commonplace differentiation in the edu-blogosphere. Some educational thought leaders like Tom Sherrington have defended the importance of the term differentiation given its currency with classroom practitioners. Nevertheless, Sherrington and others have offered similar advice as to how to make in-the-moment changes rather than wholesale individualised curricula for multiple groups or separate tasks in one lesson. 

The UK edu-zeitgeist has seen the rise and fall of a practice often referred to as  ‘All Most Some’ differentiation planning, where (at least) three versions of the lesson are delivered at different levels of challenge. While I see what the original appeal was for this approach, the workload problem of creating at least three times the amount of content for each lesson goes without saying. 

There is also the issue of teachers inadvertently locking in lower performing students to lower achieving trajectories (as explored above). Here are some quick rules of thumb from Alex Quigley on adaptive teaching, versus traditional differentiation, and how to avoid common pitfalls.

I sincerely believe that whole class teaching, with additional support or extension for those who need it in the moment, is a much for effective, efficient, and equitable approach. And I hope you will consider using more of it in your teaching. 

Want to learn more?

Some teasers about this topic: In various chapters in Harnessing the science of learning, I along with my contributing authors and school leaders, provide examples and explorations of:

• Moving from 20% of students understanding, to 80% of students during whole class teaching;

• Built-in differentiation;

• Adaptive and responsive practices during whole class teaching;

• Accessible entry points to instruction (low floor), and no limits on how learners can challenge themselves (no ceiling) — a combination cherished at Bentleigh West Primary School; and 

• Differentiation by support, rather than differentiation via curriculum

Further reading - there is heaps to look into …

• Liz Kane - Understanding whole class teaching

• Learning Spy - Differentiation really matters

• Teacher Head - Great differentiation 

• Fail Think Learn - Differentiation by support

• Corno on teaching adaptively 

• Understanding adaptive teaching

From my readers

Thank you to Do and Jo who both asked questions over the past few months about differentiation in whole class teaching. Hope this post helps!

Want to listen to this post instead?

Check out the new podcast version of this blog: Learning Sounds.