Summary

The article, To Differentiate or Not to Differentiate? Using Internet-Based Technology in the

Classroom, describes the advantages and functions of the software tools used in classrooms that

currently embrace the hybrid or blended learning model. In particular, the Cleveland Metropolitan

School District (CMSD, the largest district in Ohio) is featured in the article as successfully using Compass

Learning (internet-based software) as an integral part of the everyday activities in Reading classes in the

district (Cobb, 2010).

The author asserts that Compass Learning has promoted such student success – especially for

minority students in poverty – simply because the program allows for differentiated instruction. This

type of instruction is unique and appealing to many students since it enables students to work at their

own pace and address their own specific weaknesses. Since instruction is more individualized as

compared to the traditional direct instruction style, students seem to take a greater interest in their own

progress. With differentiated instruction, students can work comfortably in strengthening weak skills,

and keep practicing until the program evaluates their progress as mastery of these skills. With

traditional direct instruction, all students work as a whole group on the same content at the same time,

so those who need to slow down the pace and practice more become frustrated and lag behind.

Cobb carefully compares direct to differentiated instruction in the article and notes that although

direct instruction can be done face-to-face in small groups, differentiated instruction is ‘a teaching

philosophy based on the premise that teachers should adapt instruction to student differences’ (p. 38).

Furthermore, Cobb argues that since urban school students come from varying cultural backgrounds and

have varying abilities and learning styles, it makes sense that differentiated instruction supported by

internet-based software is the best method of instruction for addressing today’s students’ wide variety

of needs. Specifically, differentiated instruction calls for teachers to group students according to their

needs (like pacing and skill deficiencies) and this allows teachers and aides to deliver instruction that is

tailored to these small group needs. Additionally, in addressing learning styles, students and teachers

are more able to collaborate with one another and accomplish targeted goals, especially by working in a

cooperative group setting.

In assuring the reader of the power and effectiveness of internet-based software within the

framework of differentiated instruction, Cobb asserts that increased overall student achievement can be

attributed to the software’s ability to automatically prescribe a specific learning path (thematic lessons)

to each student, based on the results of an assessment taken at the start of the program. In the case of

Compass Learning, this program recommends three forty-minute sessions each week for small groups of

two to five. For Reading lessons in Compass Learning, students encounter a pre-reading activity that

introduces new academic concepts, a digital presentation of the story, and then comprehension

exercises focusing on skills like sequencing, main idea, and predicting. While the reading program can

be used for skill development or as part of an intervention method, students are expected to discuss

responses in order to construct the most meaningful answers as a cooperative group. Teachers can

then deliver an assessment that is either an individual lesson diagnostic or a criterion-referenced test (in

preparation for the state assessments). If mastery is not obtained, the program will repeat lesson

objectives and instruct the student to complete additional activities until mastery is demonstrated. (70%

or higher, or as adjusted by the teacher)

In claiming that differentiated instruction supported by internet-based technology is a continued

success as an instructional method, Cobb states that ongoing professional development and frequent

evaluation (surveys were done in CMSD) are most necessary as effective practices. Cobb notes that

teachers who were trained to use computer assisted instruction – including cooperative learning

activities – were those who adjusted and improved their teaching strategies to more suitably meet their

students’ varying needs and learning styles. In turn, teachers who participated in the winter survey and

follow-up spring survey (on technology use) indicated an increase in comfort level with internet-based

software after having spent time in collaboration with colleagues during regular school day activities and

during professional development opportunities as well. These opportunities revealed noticeable

(though not significant) gains on the teacher surveys in the areas of using computer-assisted instructions

in lesson planning, creating ePortfolios, and in assisting students in creating digital video reflections.

Lastly, customized professional development offerings through Compass Learning trainers have taught

teachers how to effectively generate and interpret student reports so that appropriate lessons could be

assigned to individual students based on student data, objectives, and learning styles.

Cobb offers a short summary emphasizing that Compass Learning clearly supports teachers and

students in achieving their goals. By offering key assessments that are based on the ability of students,

Compass Learning allows for teachers and the program to modify student progress as often as needed.

With these features in mind, Cobb reminds readers that combining differentiated instruction with

curriculum development, professional development and available resources will create a strong,

effective student-centered program that is aligned with research-based instructional methods.

Reaction

Even though I thought that this article was not very well-organized and a bit repetitious, I specifically

chose it for its wealth of information on the Compass Learning software, a program that is popular and

seemingly effective in a few schools in which I substitute regularly. These schools also use the hybrid

learning model in one or more content areas, so Compass Learning is essential to the success or failure

of the program. Many classroom teachers I have spoken to while substituting see the value in the

software, but they and I also find that the program has a few problems. For example, some concepts

include unclear presentation methods and some solutions are over-explained (and tend to lose the

interest of the student). On the other hand, both classroom teachers and I agree with Cobb in claiming

that the program truly encourages students of all ability levels to take ownership of their progress and

communicate problems or concerns to their classroom teacher in a timely manner so adjustments can

be made to individualized prescribed lessons.

It is also important to mention that in her book, Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice,

Gredler defines metacognition as “learner knowledge about his or her cognitive functioning in general”

(Gredler, 2009, p. 227) and “the use of strategies to guide, monitor, and redirect one’s thinking and

learning” (Gredler, p. 446). I found Gredler’s discussion most valuable and applicable here since she

emphasizes that children grow and develop into problem-solvers and self-evaluators. Therefore it

makes sense to assume that they need to be guided and taught how to be effective with these skills.

Although the hybrid model allows for individual differences and addresses differentiated instruction

when combined with computer-assisted instruction, nothing can ever replace the teacher’s expertise in

clarifying – to the class as a whole – the methods, procedures, rich examples, and general explanations

that sincerely help all students of any ability level to develop into a skilled problem solver who is also

capable of making sound self-evaluations (in an effort to improve).

If we simply rename the classroom teacher as class facilitator and rename the computer as the

teacher, then we run the risk of not giving our students what they truly desire and deserve: skilled,

caring teachers who are there to assist in their students’ growth towards confidant, independent

learning. Therefore, it is important to use the computer and its software as a tool, so the teachers can

also do their job well, too.

Relevance to Career

The largest impact that differentiated, computer-assisted instruction has on the education field and

the teaching career is in the way material is presented and then later assessed. Since students now can

learn in a way that addresses their particular learning style, more effective, personalized methods need

to be utilized. While making the learning process more suitable, it makes the teaching process more

challenging as we educators strive to adapt to varying needs.

As far as assessing is concerned, educators should no longer expect to grade the traditional three

tests and three quizzes per quarter (along with a project, a grade for participation, and a grade for

homework). It now makes sense that student growth needs to be assessed, and since computer-

assisted instruction makes frequent assessing and revising of individualized programs possible, then

maybe a student’s grade could reflect how he or she is doing in comparison to where he or she was

academically (instead of the grade reflecting how the student is performing in comparison to his or her

classmates). If the trend is towards differentiating instruction, then grades also should be individual as

well, so an ‘A’ could possibly be interpreted as exceptional growth (in comparing the student’s own

progress against what it was at the beginning of the quarter). Lastly, along with innovative methods of

learning and assessing, the teacher’s role seemingly evolves as well since whole group, traditional

instruction is changing to meet the requirements of differentiated instruction. A career in teaching now

includes the incorporating of more individualized methods to meet varying needs and learning styles of

the culturally diverse classroom. With this in mind, those aspiring to become teachers should expect

rigorous training in ways to differentiate instruction to effectively reach, guide, and inspire each and

every one of their students.

References

Cobb, A. (2010). To differentiate or not to differentiate? Using internet-based technology in the

classroom. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45.

Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.