ICT Infused DI in Volleyball
“Different Strokes for Different Folks”, a phrase that highlights how people’s needs and desires are as distinct and varied as the person next to them. However, in the case of the education system, there is a conundrum as distinct individuals are shepherded through a standardised curriculum to achieve desired educational outcomes, as well as for efficiency’s sake.
For successful teaching and learning to occur, the teacher will have to cater to the different needs of the students in the class; or risk losing them through a lack of motivation or interest in what is being taught because the challenge does not fit their current competency. To address this issue, differentiated instruction (DI) presents itself as a suitable teaching strategy to enhance the student’s learning experience. This article shares my experience implementing DI in one lesson with my class in 2022.
DI is a teaching approach that can trace its roots to several early educational theories: such as Maria Montessori’s Montessori Method of Education, and Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Theory. Both theories espouse individualised learning, where the teacher provides sufficient guidance and scaffolding to support the student’s learning needs rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach to instruction. DI is also characterized by the following traits:
Proactive approach to teaching and learning for both teachers and students.
Teachers need to have a good understanding of the readiness levels in class and plan lessons that provide a variety of routes to arrive at the learning objective.
Students develop agency by taking responsibility for their learning through self-directed learning by choosing which level is the most appropriate for their learning.
Differentiation can be achieved through differentiation of content, process and product.
Content: What students learn
Process: How students learn
Product: How students show what they have learned
Formative Assessment is an integral part of differentiated instruction.
Teachers gain a sense of how students are learning and make the necessary adjustments to the learning experience.
Research has shown that DI has a positive impact on student learning in the classroom. By recognising the inherent differences between individual students, and catering to their varied learning needs and interests; students have shown a marked increase in engagement levels not just with the lesson content, but also with each other. Through this, students become more motivated to learn, and the increase in effort also translates into better results.
If DI is the hardware, then Growth Mindset is the software to complement the student’s learning. Growth mindset is a belief that intellectual abilities are malleable and can be improved with learning through smart strategies, consistent practice, and hard. It can be largely characterised by the following traits:
Faces challenges head on without fear of failure.
Does not give up in the face of difficulties and obstacles.
Sees effort as an essential part of achieving mastery.
Sees criticism as an opportunity for learning.
Learns from and is inspired by the success of others.
The characteristics and benefits of DI lends itself nicely to a growth mindset. Through enhanced student agency and motivation levels, DI helps promote students' self-directed learning behaviour. DI also creates an environment where students are challenged at an appropriate level. This creates a safe environment that encourages students to take risks in the learning process, thereby building their mental resilience towards failure.
In the current VUCA world, valuable knowledge today can turn obsolete in a span of a few years. Hence there is a need for today’s students to learn how to be a self-directed learner that embraces continuous learning, and the mental fortitude to weather the challenges that accompany learning something new. Ngee Ann Secondary School has recognised the value of a Growth Mindset for our students and have embarked on a journey to instill this mindset in our students since 2020. Various sharing sessions have been conducted during our Professional Learning Communities (PLC) platforms to familiarise the staff with this concept and to ensure that we share a common vocabulary with the students.
Volleyball was my choice of module for differentiated instruction due to the nature of the physical activity. While the game seems simple conceptually, it has many nuances that make it a rather difficult to master.
For the player to be competent in the game, it demands that the player has a good level of spatial and temporal awareness in relation to the ball in flight. Next, the player must be in tune with his or her body, as the basic moves required to play the game (underhand serve, forearm dig, overhead set) requires good coordination of a series of body joints and fine balance between strength and control to achieve the desired effects. My basic objective for this lesson was for the students to be able to play a modified 3v3 volleyball game on a badminton court; for more advanced students, they will progress to learn how to play the full 6v6 game on a volleyball court.
My class can be categorised into three groups of individuals. Group 1 students are high- readiness learners, with either an athletic background or are keenly attuned to how their bodies work and move. Group 2 students are moderate readiness learners, displaying strong motivation and willingness to learn, but are less physically adept than group 1 students. Lastly, group 3 students are low-readiness learners who come off as disinterested in what was being taught and the least physically adept of the lot.
For discussion, my lesson on overhead set will be used as an example to illustrate how I employed differentiated instruction in my lessons. The class activities were tiered in ascending level of difficulty, the basic activities and their learning points are listed below.
Level 1: Wall bounce: Bounce ball against the ball with hands in set position
For low readiness students to familiarise themselves with the correct hand shape used to execute an overhead set
Recognising the importance of wrist flick in getting the ball to move
Level 2: Toss, catch, push: Self toss a ball, get under the ball and catch it before pushing it up into the air with the correct hand shape for an overhead set.
For low readiness students to recognise that an overhead set requires the player to be under the ball
A self-tossed ball allows the student to better anticipate the landing point of the ball.
Catching the ball first before pushing it out allows the student to focus on developing temporal awareness of the ball’s flight.
Level 3: Toss and push: Self toss a ball, get under the ball, and execute an overhead set.
Baseline lesson objective, all students were required to submit a video that highlights the essential movement cues of their performance.
Level 4: Setting into target: Perform an overhead set into a netball rim from a variety of distance between 1 - 3m away.
Challenging high readiness students to experiment with angles of elbow extension and enhance joint coordination so ball have enough lift to enter the netball rim.
Build up students’ precision in overhead set.
Level 5: Self rally followed by setting into target.
Challenge high readiness students to establish good control of their body and precision with the ball.
These activities were designed with Newell’s Model of Constraints in mind. By recognising the various possible constraints students face, the difficulty of each activity can be adjusted by modifying different conditions.
The students were allowed to freely choose their starting point, with the only requirement being that they progress up the ladder once they have become adept at their current level. By adopting the inclusion style of learning from Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles, the students are now responsible for pacing their learning. The teacher now takes on the role of a facilitator, while the students now take on a more active role in determining their pace of learning.
To foster a safe learning environment for all students and to encourage peer learning, the students were allowed to group themselves up. This ensures that they are grouped with the people that they are most comfortable with. For the quality of learning to not be impeded by the gap in skill levels between individuals in some groups, students are encouraged to move around and experiment with different activities. By doing so, higher readiness students are also inadvertently tasked to coach their peers who may be of lower readiness, hence developing mentoring and effective communication skills in the students.
The module was closed with an intra-class tournament, where students of similar ability levels play together. My basic objective for the module was achieved when all students were able to perform the three basic skills taught in a game scenario. However, I was pleasantly surprised when students originally belonging to the lower readiness group could participate actively in a game with peers of higher readiness. This display of confidence to hold their own and not be intimidated by their peers who are more skilled than them can perhaps be attributed to the conduct of the lesson. Differentiated instruction has been shown to boost student motivation and confidence levels in the academic classroom, and I believe it should not be any different for physical education.
I believe that flexible grouping also helps to build confidence in lower readiness students. As they get accustomed to performing in front of their peers of higher ability levels during practice, their “stage fright” would diminish with time. Similarly, by grouping higher readiness students with peers of lower ability levels, they would gradually develop an understanding of the challenges facing their peers and become more patient and empathetic towards their efforts in class.
My experience with differentiated instruction can be summarised in the following table.
In conclusion, DI is an invaluable tool in a PE teacher’s toolkit as its underlying principles are easy to understand and to put into practice. When combined with other instructional strategies, it can revitalise the PE classroom by encouraging active learning to happen and more importantly, help ignite the interest and willingness to try in some of our less physically adept students.
Contributed by:
Mr Kang Guan Wei, kang_guan_wei@moe.edu.sg
PE Dept, Ngee Ann Secondary School
What's next?
Back to content page - 2023 SPEA Newsletter Issue No.1 (June/July)
Click here for previous issues of the newsletter.
Keen to share any ideas or practices, comment on key issues or contribute to the news letter? Click here for more details.
Be part of the community. Join SPEA as a member. Enjoy members' benefits! We like to thank our partners for their generosity and continual support.
References
1.Bodrova, E. V. (2003). Vygotsky and Montessori: One Dream, Two Visions. Montessori Life, 15(1), 30–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234745030_Vygotsky_and_Montessori_One_Dream_Two_Visions
2. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms, Third Edition. ASCD.
Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The Application of
3. Differentiated Instruction in Postsecondary Environments: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 307–323. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/ijtlhe366.pdf
4. Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2020). Developing Growth Mindsets: Principles and Practices for Maximizing Students’ Potential.
5. Roko, P. (2013). Studying the effects of differentiated instruction in the science classroom. [Master’s thesis, Montana State University]. Scholarworks. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2825/RojoP0813.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y