Okay, this may be rather simplistic and there may be some other students in the class with similar ability, but point made; for the majority of the class, the question will be either too easy or too hard. However, that is not to say that authentic <\/em>whole-class differentiation is not possible during I-R-F routines. My rationale is based on two essential pre-requisites:<\/p>\n Display (closed) questions generally cannot be differentiated on a conceptual level. For example, in History, when asking \u201cWhat were the five different stages<\/u> of the Black Death?\u201d the students will know either all, some or none of the stages. However, this does not represent a conceptual differentiation since the question is based purely on re-call or memory skills. Conversely, referential (open-ended) questions allow all students in the class to formulate a response in line with their ability; potentially, a range of answers is possible from basic and simplistic to complex and sophisticated. An example of this type of question might be, \u201cHow can we link the Treaty of Versailles to the cause of World War Two?\u201d <\/em>However, I should add that, in terms of cognitive development, there is a caveat to this.<\/p>\n Whilst referential questions may at least allow students the opportunity to function at the appropriate conceptual level, this alone will not instigate cognitive change <\/em>since students will simply produce what they are already capable of at that point (as in differentiation by \u2018outcome\u2019). So how do we \u2018move\u2019 students onto the next \u2018cerebral\u2019 level?<\/p>\n Not surprisingly, this issue immediately brings into play Vygotsky\u2019s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined by Adey and Shayer (1994, p.119) as \u201cthe extra intellectual power that is available to a child through social interaction with adults or peers.\u201d Traditionally, during I-R-F routines, this \u201cextra intellectual power\u201d mostly comes from the child passively observing other teacher-student interactions and answering the occasional question. Yet one must question how effective this random and chaotic process is in helping students to successfully negotiate their own specific \u2018zone\u2019.<\/p>\n An alternative is to use peer collaboration or \u2018Talking Partners\u2019 (Clarke, 2005, p.54) which allows students the opportunity to jointly construct and rehearse a mediated response to the teacher\u2019s question. As a student succinctly remarked, \u201cIf none of you know the answer, then you can just put together the knowledge you know and build an answer from that.\u201d<\/em> Thus the \u201cextra intellectual power\u201d can be arrived at through a customised process of co-construction<\/em>, where students can challenge their own and their partners\u2019 thinking in a private, \u2018risk-taking\u2019 environment away from the torment of whole-class scrutiny and accountability. Even if this process malfunctions, the teacher still has the last word!<\/p>\n Whilst there is still a place for the use of display questions, there needs to be a much greater degree of authentic differentiation during whole-class I-R-F to meet the conceptual needs of students. However, this will require an epistemological shift from the \u2018status quo\u2019 of teacher-dominated behaviourist practice towards a position more concomitant with social constructivism, where there is a much greater degree of student autonomy. With the unrelenting \u2018standards\u2019 agenda currently prevailing, this is probably unlikely, but one can hope.<\/p>\n Taken from BERA<\/a><\/p>\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n Adey, P. and Shayer, M., 1994. REALLY RAISING STANDARDS: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement: Routledge.<\/p>\n Clarke, S., 2005. Formative Assessment in Action: Weaving the elements together: Hodder Murray.<\/p>\n Kerry, T., 2002. Learning Objectives, Task Setting and Differentiation: London, Nelson Thornes.<\/p>\n Dr David Brand recently retired as an Assistant Head at a secondary school in the North-east of England, teaching Mathematics for over 31 years. He recently completed a Doctorate in Education at Newcastle University. His doctoral research centred on whole-class I-R-F (Initiation-Response-Feedback) and how to improve teachers\u2019 \u2018Interactional Questioning Competence\u2019 (IQC), with a particular focus on developing a greater degree of student autonomy during such routines.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The practice of \u2018differentiation\u2019 in a whole-class setting is an established concept and regarded as being an essential feature of effective pedagogy. As Kerry (2002, p.82) points out: \u201cThis skill operates in a context of challenge and support for the … Continue reading \n
\n
\n![\"Brand-photo-235x235\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/files\/2016\/06\/Brand-photo-235x235-150x150.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n