Updated: SPEA Newsletter 2024 Issue No. 1 (June/July)
Students differ based on their learning styles (Learner Preferences), approaches to learning (Student Interest), and development levels (Student Readiness) (Azcuy, 2019). And that makes a DI lesson way more complex than we can imagine.
As such, implementing Differentiated Instruction (DI) can be a complex process. A simpler way is to empower the students to assess their learning and help one another improve. This way, the learning can be tailored to the students’ different needs.
However, the caveat is that every student is motivated or knows how to help one another. Using collaborative learning for primary school children is even more challenging because they may not know how to help their friends.
I collaborated with Eugene, a senior teacher (PE) from Riverside Primary School this year. He believes students can be self-directed if the teacher breaks down the learning goal, scaffolds the learning, and routinises the lesson structure.
To help his students develop competencies for peer assessment and coaching. Eugene used the GRR instructional framework for his primary three students. The framework is split into three phases (“I do”, “We do together”, and “You do together”)
In the first phase (“I do”), Eugene uses a direct teaching style to explain the learning goals and expectations of the lessons. He also repeats his instructions or asks the students to recite the routines so that they can remember.
He uses the direct teaching approach to inform students of the routine of every lesson, such as where to sit and stand during practice and what to do during warm-up or when the whistle is blown.
For example, the lesson will start by checking if the students are ready. This means they are properly attired, their pockets emptied, and their belongings, such as water bottles, are placed together in a designated area.
Eugene tries to keep the routine simple and easy to remember so that the students can soon remember it and do it themselves.
The learning goal is broken into smaller steps so students find it easier to achieve the bite-sized learning goals. For example, he breaks the skills of passing into 4 different stages and constantly explains what each stage looks like to the students.
As his students may not fully understand verbal instructions, he always supplements his instructions with visual demonstrations. To check for understanding, he often asks them to tell him the learning goals or, sometimes, shows a wrong demonstration to check if they know the mistakes.
In the second phase (“We do together”), Eugene empowers the students (with guidance) to learn collaboratively. Simply put, he gives step-by-step instructions on how to work together in small groups.
For example, he would empower the group leaders to lead in warm-ups while giving them step-by-step instructions, sometimes with the help of task cards.
To develop the competencies of collaborative learning to meet the learning goals, Eugene gave the students verbal cues (what to say) as they observed their friend’s performance of the practice tasks.
For example, in a passing practice, if the throw is too soft, the receiver should say, “Throw further”. If the throw is too hard, the receiver should say, “Throw nearer”. And if the pass is good, the receiver should say, “Just nice”.
By practising giving verbal feedback to their partners, the students develop good communication skills, which can also help their friends improve. This is important because we noticed that students can get frustrated when they do not pass accurately, making the learning environment even more stressful for their partners.
After a few lessons of “I do” and “We do together,” the students were clear about the lesson structure and routine. They also developed the habit of giving feedback to their partners. Eugene would then try to move into GRR phase three (“You do together”).
In this phase, the students are empowered to set up the equipment independently and do their own attire checks and warm-ups. Constant positive affirmations are given to the students so that they would become more motivated to do it by themselves.
To meet the learning goal, the students work collaboratively by giving constant feedback to each other. If you remember, in GRR phase 1, Eugene broke down the learning goals into four stages. This allows the students to self-assess and decide whether to move up the stages or practise more in the current stage.
For example, if they can make 10 consecutive passes in stage 1, they move to stage 2, which requires some dribbling. As the stages became more challenging, the students gave constant feedback to each other so that they did not need the teacher’s advice on improving.
“The strengthening of behavior which results from reinforcement is appropriately called conditioning. In operant conditioning, we strengthen an operant in the sense of making a response more probable or, in actual fact, more frequent.”
— B.F. Skinner
When I was a beginning teacher, I tended to judge students as being “self-serving” when I saw them not taking the initiative to help others. Ideally, we would not need any DI strategy if our students take the initiative to help their friends, right?
As the students in Eugene’s class develop collaborative learning competencies, it is clear to us, as observers, that they are becoming more confident in helping one another. Most students in the class were seen as proactive individuals who would take the initiative to contribute to the learning of others.
Upon reflection, it is not true that some students are self-serving by nature. Maybe they are like the younger me, who did not know how to help or did not have the habit of checking if others needed help and giving them feedback.
Learning a skill like throwing can be difficult for many young children, especially if they only watch television or play with iPads at home.
Every student must be given constant feedback so that they can learn within the limited PE time. But how can PE teachers give each student customised feedback if each has varied learning needs and there are 40 of them?
Using the GRR instructional framework, Eugene has shown that it is possible to empower the students to assess and coach each other, even if they are only eight years ol
Contributed by
Mr Francis Tang, Lead Teacher, PESTA. He also shares his thoughts on PE matters regularly. Click here to find out more.
Back to content page. Click here for previous issues of the newsletter.
Keen to share any ideas or practices, comment on key issues or contribute to the newsletter. 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.
Stay connected with us at SPEA Instagram Page.
Azcuy, R. (2019, August 23). Supporting learner differences in the classroom. Teach & Kids Learn (TKL). https://www.teachnkidslearn.com/supporting-learner-differences/