Heterogeniteit in het onderwijs

Aantekeningen bij de literatuur

Ben Wilbrink


Tweeling-pagina: altijd verschillende opvattingen in het onderwijs



Niet uitgaan van verschillen in intellectuele capaciteiten, or whatever, maar uitgaan van de feitelijke mogelijkheden om alle leerlingen iets nieuws te leren, vandaag. En morgen ook weer. Zoals beoogd door Hirsch in zijn Core Knowledge schools; door Ericsson met doeltreffende oefening en deliberate practice; JUMP Math van John Mighton; Carl Wieman's onderwijsaanpak; Oost-Aziatisch onderwijs (dat uitgaat van inspanning, niet van talent, dus precies omgekeerd aan het Westerse culturele schoolparadigma).



Annique Smeding , Céline Darnon, Carine Souchal, Marie-Christine Toczek-Capelle, Fabrizio Butera (2013). Reducing the Socio-Economic Status Achievement Gap at University by Promoting Mastery-Oriented Assessment. Published: August 8, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071678 open access









Roeleveld, J., Karssen, M. & Ledoux, G. (2014). Samenstelling van de klas en cognitieve en sociaal-emotionele uitkomsten. Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut pdf




Juergen Budde (Hrsg.) (2013). Unscharfe Einsätze: (Re-)Produktion von Heterogenität im schulischen Feld info




J. A. van Kemenade (2003). Elsevier.



Ed Schüssler (Red.) (2006). Weg van de middenschool. Dertig jaar na de start van het middenschoolexperiment. Garant.



Rauno Parrila, Kaisa Aunola, Esko Leskinen, Jari-Erik Nurmi & John R. Kirby (2005). Development of Individual Differences in Reading: Results From Longitudinal Studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299-319. abstract

“The results indicate that it is possible for educational systems to significantly reduce individual differences in basic reading skills during early reading development.”



Amanda Keddie & Richard Niesche (2012). Productive engagements with student difference: supporting equity through cultural recognition. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 333-348. abstract



Mikael Alexandersson (2011): Equivalence and choice in combination: the Swedish dilemma, Oxford Review of Education, 37:2, 195-214. abstract



H. G. van de Werfhorst (2011). Selectie en differentiatie in het Nederlandse onderwijsbestel. Gelijkheid, burgerschap en onderwijsexpansie in vergelijkend perspectief. Pedagogische Studiën, 88, 283-297. pdf op website auteur



H. G. van de Werfhorst & J. J. B. Mijs (2007). Onderwijsdifferentiatie en ongelijkheid: Nederland in vergelijkend perspectief. Instituut voor Arbeidsstudies. pdf



H. G. van de Werfhorst (2008). Leren of ontberen? Over onderwijsinstituties en ongelijkheid. inaugurele rede



Ulrich Trautwein and Oliver Lüdtke, Herbert W. Marsh, Olaf Köller, Jürgen Baumert (2006). Tracking, Grading, and Student Motivation: Using Group Composition and Status to Predict Self-Concept and Interest in Ninth-Grade Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 788-806. abstract



Philip C. Abrami, Yiping Lou, Bette Chambers, Catherine Poulsen & John C. Spence (2000): Why Should We Group Students Within-Class for Learning?, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 6:2, 158-179 <--pdf--> abstract: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F158 Een altijd weer enorm omstreden onderwerp, zeker in Nederland, is dat van meer heterogene klassen. Dat leverrt onmiddellijk de associatie 'middenschool' op, en dat is niet bevorderlijk voor een rustige uitwisseling van inhoudelijke argumenten. Toch kan niemand om het onderwerp heen, want het gaat niet om een absolute tegenstelling tussen homogeen of heterogeen samengestelde klassen: het gaat om gradaties van heterogeniteit. Om een simpel voorbeeld te geven: het is een gevestigd maar niet empirisch ondersteund idee dat zittenblijven goed is voor alle betrokkenen, en dat zittenblijven resulteert in minder heterogeen samengestelde klassen dan anders het geval zou zijn. De zittenblijver maakt de klas waarin hij terechtkomt echter weer heterogener dan anders het geval zou zijn.


Er is erg veel onderzoek beschikbaar, zowel Nederlands en ander nationaal onderzoek, als internationaal onderzoek, dat licht kan werpen op de vraag of minder heterogeen in bepaalde opzichten 'beter' uitwerkt, etcetera. In deze webpagina wil ik een begin maken van een overzicht. Het probleem hierbij is dat het telkens raakt aan andere onderwerpen die een belang op zichzelf hebben, zoals zittenblijven, individuele verschillen, toetsen en examineren, kwaliteiten van leraren, kenmerken van onderwijsstelsels. Daar zij dan telkens naar verwezen. Hier gaat het om de grootste gemene delers te vinden.


Pat Rubio Goldsmith (2011). Coleman revisited: School segregation, peers, and frog ponds. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 508. abstract

Jesse Levin (2002). Essays in the economics of education. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam. Geen pdf beschikbaar (zoek de artikelen zelf, daar is dit proefschrift immers uit samengesteld). samenvatting

Yiping Lou, Philip C. Abrami, John C. Spence, Catherine Poulsen, Bette Chambers & Sylvia d’Apollonia (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.

Margaret C. Wang & C. Mauritz Lindvall (1984). Individual differences and school learning environments. In E. W. Gordon: Review of Research in Education Volume 10—1984 (161-226). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Sarah Warshauer Freedman, Verda Delp & Suzanne Mills Crawford (2005). Teaching English in untracked classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 62-126. pdf



Duru-Bellat, Marie and Mingat, Alain(1998). Importance of Ability Grouping in French ‘Collèges’ and its Impact upon Pupils’ Academic Achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4: 4, 348 - 368. abstract




Frederick Mosteller, Richard J. Light & Jason A. Sachs (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Eduucational Review, 66, 797-842. abstract



Jo Boaler (2008): Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach, British Educational Research Journal, 34:2, 167-194 abstract



Omar S. López (2007). Classroom Diversification: A Strategic View of Educational Productivity. Review of Educational Research, 77, 28-80. free pdf

Inez van Eijk (1975). De middenschool. Aula 547.

APS (1973). Gesamtschule Conferentie 1973. Het Algemeen Pedagogisch Studiecentrum. isbn 90231709 ???? [8 cijfers??? De weggelaten aanvangs-nul kan ik begrijpen. Maar waar is het 10e cijfer?]

Koning, P. de Koning (1973). Interne differentiatie. APS / RITP (Muusses).

wiki/Gesamtschule

Literaturliste zum Thema Gesamtschule

H.G. Herrlitz et al (Hrsg.) (2003). Die Gesamtschule, Geschichte, internationale Vergleiche, pädagogische Konzepte und politische Perspektiven. Juventa [nog niet op de kop getikt]



J. Terwel (2002). Curriculumdifferentiatie en leren denken: een onderwijspedagogisch perspectief. Pedagogische Studiën, 79, 192- . samenvatting



Jan Terwel (2005). Curriculum differentiation: multiple perspectives and developments in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 37, Issue 6 November 2005 , pages 653 - 670

Carol Corbett Burris, Jay P. Heubert & Henry M. Levin (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136. abstract



Herbert W. Marsh & Kit-Tai Hau (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364-376. abstract



Herbert W. Marsh, Ulrich Trautwein, Oliver Lüdtke, Jürgen Baumert and Olaf Köller (2007). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect: Persistent Negative Effects of Selective High Schools on Self-Concept After Graduation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 631-669.



Gregory Arief D. Liem, Herbert W. Marsh, Andrew J. Martin, Dennis M. McInerney, Alexander S. Yeung (2012 online preview). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect and a National Policy of Within-School Ability Streaming: Alternative Frames of Reference. American Educational Research Journal abstract



Marjorie Seaton, Herbert W. Marsh, and Rhonda G. Craven (2010). Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect: Generalizability and Moderation—Two Sides of the Same Coin. American Educational Research Journal 47, 390-433 abstract

Rianne Kloosterman & Paul M. de Graaf (2009). Zittenblijven of afstromen? De relatie tussen sociaal milieu en keuzes in het voortegzet onderwijs voor drie cohorten leerlingen. Mens en Maatschappij, 4-28.

Bram Spruyt, Ilse Laurijsesen & Yoris van Dorsselaer (). Kiezen en verliezen. Een analyse van de keuze na het krijgen van een B-attest in het Vlaams secundair onderwijs als een replicatie van Kloosterman en De Graaf (2009). Mens en Maatschappij, 279-299. pdf

Jeremy E. C. Genovese (2005). Why educational innovations fail: An individual differences perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 569-578 [ook beschikbaar op questia.com, voor wie daar toegang toe heeft]

Hannu Simola (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455-470.

John Mighton (2003). The myth of ability. Nurturing mathematical talent in every child. Anansi. isbn 0887846939, 211 pp. paperback,

Stevens, Peter A. J. and Vermeersch, Hans(2010) 'Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: exploring teachers' perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams', Oxford Review of Education, 36: 3, 267 — 284 pdf

Franzis Preckel & Matthias Brüll (2010). The benefit of being a big fish in a big pond: Contrast and assimilation effects on academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 522-531.

Joyce VanTassel-Baska & Susannah Wood (2010). The integrated curriculum model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345-357. [in themanummer over giftedness, en speciale programma's voor begaafde leerlingen)

R. Dekker (1991). Wiskunde leren in kleine heterogene groepen. [nog niet gezien] (Zie promotieonderzoek.htm#Dekker

Karl Heinz Gruber: Unlearnt European lessons: Why Austria abandoned the comprehensive school experiments and respored the Gymnasium. In David Phillips (Ed.) (1992). Lessons of cross-national comparison in education 147-154. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Volume 1. Wallingford: Triangle Books.

Noreen M. Webb, Kariane Mari Nemer and Stephen Zuniga (2002). Short Circuits or Superconductors? Effects of Group Composition on High-Achieving Students' Science Assessment Performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943-989. abstract



Zemira R. Mevarech & Bracha Kramarski (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365-394. abstract



Judith Ireson, Susan Hallam & Clare Hurley (2005): What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment?, British Educational Research Journal, 31:4, 443-458 abstract



James E. Rosenbaum (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of Research in Education, 8, 361-401.



Christopher Wheadon & Anton Béguin (2010): Fears for tiers: are candidates being appropriately rewarded for their performance in tiered examinations?, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17:3, 287-300. abstract



Tina Isaacs (2010): Educational assessment in England, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17:3, 315-334.a href="http://dx.<010.491787" target='_blank'>abstract



Carol Ann Tomlinson heeft een aantal populaire boeken over gedifferentiëerd onderwijs op haar naam staan. Ik heb daar nog geen kennis van genomen. Haar werkterrein is de UK. Zie bijv. deze website, of deze lijst artikelen in Scholar.

Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom

The Differentiated School

The Differentiated Classroom.



Carol Ann Tomlinson (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61 #2, 6-11. pdf



Hugh Mehan, Irene Villanueva, Lea Hubbard= & Angela Lintz (1996). Constructing school success. The consequences of untracking low achieving students. Cambridge University Press. ch. 5 The social scaffolding supporting academic placement, ch. 7 Peer group influences supporting untracking ch. 9 Implications for educational practice, ch. 10 Implicatons for theories explaining educational inequality. Gaat over de San Diego untracking program AVID.

p. 77: Our discussion of the social processes of untracking rests on two interrelated ideas: One, academic life has implict or hidden dimensions that students must master in order to be successful in school; and two, a system of institutional supports or 'scaffolds' supports AVID students as they traverse this implicit cultural system. (...) AVID attempts to maintain a rigorous curriculum for all students while adding increased support for low-achieving students.



Joke Wagenaar, Nico van Kessel & Annemieke de Vries (1979). Een oonderzoek naar de beginsituatie van scholen die als tweede generatie begonnen zijn aan het middenschoolexperiment. RION. isbn 9063701764



Pieter Licht (1982). Differentiatie binnen klasseverband voor natuurkunde. Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit. Rodopi. — 411 blz. ingenaaid, stellingen, ex-lib



A. V. Kelly (1975). Case studies in mixed ability teaching. Harper & Row.



Elizabeth G. Cohen & Rachel A. Lotan (1995). Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom. American Educational Research Journal abstract


Razend interessant. Een sleutelpublicatie op het thema heterogene groepen, ook al is een enkel onderzoek natuurlijk niet beslissend. Het gaat meer om de theoretische insteek, om het gevoelig worden/,aken voor wat er spelt in klassen en in groepen binnen klassen, vanuit het heterogenitets-perspectief.



Pieter de Koning (1987). Programmadifferentiatie in het voortgezet onderwijs. Een studie naar de achtergronden, ontwikkelingen en problemen van programmadifferentiatie in de eerste fase van het voortgezet onderwijs. Proefschrift RU Utrecht. Swets & Zeitlinger. [Ik heb het boek weggegevn: ik vind het onleesbaar door de enorme lappen tekst. Pieter had niet echt greep op de differentiële psychologie van een en ander, is mijn indruk.]



A. A. Beekman (1897). Denkbeelden omtrent eene reorganisatie van middelbaar en gymnasiaal onderwijs. [Pleidooi voor een middenschool] [nog niet gevonden]



Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. L., & Argys, L. M. (1995). Detracking America’s schools. The reform without cost? Phi Delta Kappan november, 210-217 preview . Jaeger, R. M., & Hattie, J. A. (1995). Detracking America’s schools; Should we really care? 218-219. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Detracking and its detractors. Flawed evidence, flawed values. 220-221. Smith-Maddox, R., & Wheelock, A. (1995). Untracking and students’ futures. Closing the gap between aspirations and expectations. 222-228. Dominic J. Brewer, Daniel I. Rees and Laura M. Argys (1996). The Reform without Cost? A Reply to Our Critics. he Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, No. 6 (Feb., 1996), pp. 442-444



Wheelock, A. (1992). The case for untracking. Thema ‘Untracking for equity' in Educational Leadership, october 1992, 50, 8-25. html Negen scholen die het toepassen. Themanummer



Richard Daugherty (1995). National curriculum assessment. A review of policy 1987-1994. The Falmer Press.



Nancy A. Madden & Robert E. Slavin (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569. abstract



Henry Rouanet (1996). For Better or Worse: The Impact of Upward Social Comparison on Self-Evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51-69. abstract



Susanne Wiborg (2010): Why is there no comprehensive education in Germany? A historical explanation. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 39, 539-556. abstract




Evertson, C.M., Sanford, J.P., & Emmer, E.T. (1981). Effects of class heterogeneity in junior high school. American Educational Resarch Journal, 18, 219-232.




Bert Zwaneveld (1974). Rapport over een vorm van wiskundeonderwijs waarbij differentiatie naar tempo centraal staat. Didactiek Commissie van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Wiskundeleraren NVvW.




Francis Meester, George Schoemaker & Jaap Vedder (1980). Rekening houden met individuele verschillen. NVvW



J. Lavrijsen & I. Nicaise (2014). Comprehensief onderwijs: een bedreiging voor kwaliteit? Een heranalyse van Rindermann en Ceci (2009). Pedagogische Studiën, 91, 270-279. abstract




Harry Webb (january 25, 2015). Seriously, differentiation really doesn't work. Blog 'websofsubstance' no longr available




Frederick Mosteller, Richard J. Light and Jason A. Sachs (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797-842.


Indrukwekkend artikel. Skill grouping: research ontbreekt voornamelijk, en wat er is levert geen eenduidige resultaten.



Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Matthew C. Makel, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius (first published December 1, 2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students' Academic Achievement. Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses RER abstract




What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students' Academic Achievement Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Matthew C. Makel, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius RER download




Philip D. Parker, John Jerrim, Ingrid Schoon, Herbert W. Marsh (2016). A Multination Study of Socioeconomic Inequality in Expectations for Progression to Higher Education: The Role of Between School Tracking and Ability Stratification. AERJ, 53, 6-32. pdf




RELATIO N OF SECTIO N VARIANCE TO ACHIEVEMEN T GAINS I N ENGLIS H AND MATHEMATICS I N GRADES 7 AND 8 JASON MILLMAN and MAURITZ JOHNSON, JR. 1964 AERJ, 1, preview




Mieke Van Houtte (2016). Lower-track students' sense of academic futility: Selection or effect? Journal of Sociology, 52, 874-889 abstract




Hans Kuyper (2007). Saliency of social comparison dimensions. International eview of Social Psychology, vol 20, 145-163. open access




Eddie Denessen (2017). Verantwoord omgaan met verschillen: sociaal-culturele achtergronden en differentiatie in het onderwijs. oratie




Ida Gran Andersen & Simon Calmar Andersen (2015). Student-centered instruction and academic achievement: linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools' instructional strategy British Journal of Sociology of Education abstract




Benjamin S. Bloom (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley. lccc 64-17133 abstract




Emilie J. Prast, Eva Van de Weijer-Bergsma, Evelyn H. Kroesbergen & Johannes E.H. Van Luit (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 90-116. pdf


'Expert consensus': Okay, but: who are the experts, and are they experts?



  Faber, Glas & Visscher (2017). Differentiated instruction in a data-based decision-making context School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice.  open access


Individualised instruction, has it added value? . via @stevebissonnett  tweet



Dominick Esposito (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43, 163-179. abstract & references & read online free


Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis RE Slavin - Review of educational research, 1987 - journals.sagepub.com This article reviews research on the effects of between-and within-class ability grouping on the achievement of elementary school students. The review technique—best-evidence synthesis—combines features of meta-analytic and narrative reviews. Overall, evidence Geciteerd door 1314 Verwante artikelen Alle 7 versies Citeren Opslaan Meer [PDF] ed.gov Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis RE Slavin - Review of educational research, 1990 - journals.sagepub.com This article reviews research on the effects of ability grouping on the achievement of secondary students. Six randomized experiments, 9 matched experiments, and 14 correlational studies compared ability grouping to heterogeneous plans over periods of from Geciteerd door 1082 Verwante artikelen Alle 8 versies Citeren Opslaan Meer



Matt Barnum (Jan 2018). Why ‘personalized learning’ advocates like Mark Zuckerberg keep citing a 1984 study — and why it might not say much about schools today blog


How to scale personalized learning | McKinsey & Company 24-08-16 12:47


How to scale personalized learning


A systemwide approach offers the best chance of reaching the most students.


The US public education system is struggling to meet the needs of its students.1


Even among those who graduate from high school, only 42 percent are properly prepared for college.2 22.2015 College Board program results, collegeboard.org. And success depends on more than just traditional academic performance: more than 60 percent of all positions in the economy involve knowledge work by people who rely heavily on critical thinking, creativity, and interpersonal skills.333.Michael Horn and Heather Staker, Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools, first edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.


One promising way to improve outcomes is to offer personalized learning, a teaching approach aimed at addressing the individual educational needs of students. Research into personalized learning first emerged in 1984 when the educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom challenged the academic community to replicate, at scale, the effectiveness of one-to-one or small-group tutoring. Bloom found that students who received personalized instruction outperformed 98 percent of those who did not.4 44.Benjamin S. Bloom, “The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring,” Educational Researcher, June–July 1984, Volume 13, Number 6, pp. 4–16. [Op voorhand: flagrante nonsens. Maar ik ga het nog even checken. Die 2-sigma kwam ik onlangs tegen in een tweet of email, van jou denk ik ;-) ]


As technology has become more effective and less costly, Bloom’s ideal seems, for the first time, attainable for all students. [Dat is een non-sequitur. De twee hebben niets met elkaar te maken] In the past several years, classrooms around the country have been experimenting with ways to transform teaching and learning under the label of blended, or personalized, learning. While the terms mean different things to different people, the most successful models create individual-learning profiles that help students follow their own paths through a competency-based progression, in flexible environments that deploy space, time, and personnel creatively. What these models have in common is the use of technology to better meet the needs of individual students.555.“Personalized learning: A working definition,” Education Week, October 20, 2014, edweek.org. [bla bla] The results have been impressive. For example, a 2014–15 study by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and RAND Corporation found that students attending public schools implementing blended learning improved their performance on Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments by an average of 11 percentage points in math and 8 percentage points in reading.6 66.Early progress: Interim report on personalized learning, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and RAND Corporation, November 2015, k12education.gatesfoundation.org. [Vertrouw nooit Gates-funded research. Ik zal deze bron nog checken]


These personalized learning efforts at the school level, though laudable, are only the first step in improving educational achievement for students across the country. The next challenge for educators is to replicate these results on a large scale. Some school systems have managed to introduce personalized learning across most or all of their schools, and, while still early days, they are seeing promising results:


A midsize suburban district [anecdote] has redesigned its secondary schools to give students three hours in the morning to work independently with an online, adaptive learning curriculum. Teachers offer personalized support as needed. The afternoon is dedicated to electives and to work in small groups with teachers. Students are reporting greater engagement at school, and teachers appreciate the time and flexibility to spend more one-on-one time with them.


A network of charter schools [anecdote, no reference given, no way to check on what is claimed here] has moved to a competency-based approach777.In a competency-based approach, students advance only after demonstrating mastery. in which all students use a software platform that guides their learning by identifying and addressing gaps in their mastery. Instructional time is devoted exclusively to multiweek, cross-disciplinary projects undertaken by groups. Students also take a few weeks a year to participate in enrichment activities outside of school. Students in these schools have achieved growth above the national average on the Northwest Evaluation Association’s MAP math and reading assessments.


A large urban district [anecdote] focused on improving results for math and English language arts in the early grades has introduced a station-rotation model888.In a rotation model, students move through a fixed schedule (or at their teachers’ discretion) between learning modalities, at least one of which involves online learning. in elementary- school classrooms. This approach facilitates personalized, independent learning while allowing teachers to offer small-group instruction on specific issues. The district has equipped these classrooms with devices (for example, Chromebook computers) and software to support the model. Assessments in the first year of implementation suggest the approach is accelerating students’ academic growth.


While it is too early to declare victory, we think these examples provide guidance for other districts on how to scale personalized learning pilots. In this article, we discuss the three major components of a viable approach: defining a vision for the innovative design of instruction and schools; establishing a process for pilots, rapid iteration, and scaling; and creating an environment where innovation can thrive, including redesigned adult learning for educators and a strategic reallocation of resources.


A systemwide approach to innovation


The adoption of personalized learning at scale requires major changes in how teachers and others in the system operate. Accomplishing this goal will require supportive systemic change grounded in a clear instructional vision. Below are a set of principles we believe are critical to making this happen.


Define a vision for innovative design of instruction and schools


We routinely observe school districts that invest in hardware, software curricula, or specialized blended learning professional development tools yet lack a vision of how instruction and schools should be designed. As a result, those investments often don’t relate to the day-to-day work in schools. To reverse this trend, districts must articulate a clear vision for teaching and learning that links to their system’s aspirations.


The first step must be a sharp definition of desired student outcomes. What are the biggest gaps a school system aspires to close? What are their causes, and what is the theory about why personalized learning can help? Once a school district has prioritized the gaps, it should define what instructional and school design can best eliminate them. What are students doing during the day? Where does this happen? At what pace? Which adults are involved, and what role do they play? Once these questions (among others) get answered, a district, in partnership with its schools, should develop the design that best supports the instructional vision. During this work, it is important not only to reference the range of models in use but also to understand that one size does not fit all. There must be a willingness to experiment and innovate to create new models. [bla bla]


One large suburban school [anecdote] district articulated a vision for using technology [foutje; bedoeld is geanaceerde software die nog niet op de markt is] to personalize learning for students in its five-year strategic plan. The vision clearly described the core elements of what the district hoped technology could do to advance learning: provide better information on each student’s strengths and needs, offer flexible access to engaging content directly addressing them, and allow the student to progress at his or her own pace, based on mastery of specific competencies. These guidelines gave the necessary direction to schools developing their own models but were flexible enough to permit experimentation.


Establish a process for pilots, rapid iteration, and scaling


The rapid iteration of prototypes and pilots to test and refine models requires capabilities that school districts typically don’t have. There are several ways to manage the process of innovation, including the development of clearly defined metrics and processes to evaluate and refine pilots as needed. Districts often wait too long after the launch of a pilot to evaluate and refine it. Rapidly assessing its progress and making small changes throughout its life promote innovation. A solid strategic plan— with clear activities, milestones, and owners, and an approach that lets the leadership maintain momentum and monitor progress—can help to guide the process. [bla bla]


A large urban district [anecdote] has been launching, improving, and scaling up school models for more than five years. Almost a third of its students are now in schools using new approaches to instruction. The district began by selecting a handful of schools with leaders who had both the will and the skills to develop models and gave those leaders internal and external support. Over several years, these schools refined their models, supported by a team from the central office, which worked with them to solve problems and evaluated the pilots. This first wave of pilots turned into a second and then into a menu of proven models that other schools in the district could use. The central office still works with schools to improve their models, but now it can also provide targeted support to schools that want to scale up proven approaches.


Create an environment in which innovation can thrive


To ensure that pilots succeed and to create the right environment for scaling them up, districts should adjust their operations to reflect the new design for instruction. [words words words] Without such changes, leaders of pilots may find themselves swimming against the current: while schools are embarking on innovative paths, for example, their teachers may receive forms of professional development that aren’t related to the new model. Data systems are another roadblock. If schools embrace a model that lets students advance, at their own pace, when they achieve mastery of specific competencies, critical real-time data must be made available to teachers—but most districts are ill equipped to do so. To facilitate innovation, districts should consider redesigning adult learning for educators, reorganizing central-office support, identifying needed technology and data systems, aligning policy with resources, and enlisting external partners. [eigen verdienmodel]


Redesigning adult learning to align it with innovative models. Transitioning to new models requires shifts in adult roles: teachers must change the way they facilitate the learning of students and empower them to chart their own paths. School leaders must learn how to better support educators playing a variety of new roles and how to manage redesigned budgets and master schedules. And district leaders need to redefine the support functions they offer. These role shifts require new knowledge, skills, and mind-sets. [sic] Districts must define the shifts, understand which of them will be the hardest to make, and then offer appropriate professional development opportunities. They can take advantage of rapidly increasing content for adult learning, but even the most innovative districts are grappling with how to make it reflect their vision.


Recently, a group of districts and a charter management organization, [anecdote] both leaders in personalized learning, reflected on how they could improve their models. These school systems recognized that adults were struggling to adopt practices aligned with the instructional vision—a problem attributed to a lack of clarity about which competencies were most important for the personalized learning models of teachers, school leaders, and district leaders. Creating an adult learning approach that authentically reflects a system’s vision for personalized learning is critical to ensuring that adults feel supported during the implementation process.


Reorganizing central-office support. Any innovation in models will require the central offices of most school districts to evolve, perhaps by redesigning support functions or creating new ones. For example, more specialized support may be required to introduce novel technologies in schools, more budget decisions may end up in the hands of school leaders, and purchasing departments might need to become nimbler and more tech savvy so they can better choose from the vast, rapidly changing market for software products. Districts planning to open schools must address cross- functional issues about facilities, budgeting, and accountability. In addition, districts will need to build a project management capacity to sustain the cross-departmental work supporting schools as they transition to personalized learning. [bla bla]


A few large urban districts [anecdote] have begun creating cross-functional departments focused on implementing this new approach. Such an office is responsible for helping to set a vision for the district and to launch pilots. To ensure that they succeed, the office is responsible for working with other departments across the district to remove the barriers pilots face and to begin building systems at scale.


Identifying needed technology and data systems. New technology should be seen as a way to facilitate the innovative vision of instruction, not as an end in itself. If technology underpins a district’s chosen innovation, there may be several prerequisites, including more Internet connectivity for each school, interoperable system platforms and ecosystems with federated identity management, instructional software, and devices. Systems must not only understand how these technology components work together but also navigate the complex market of providers to procure suites of products that operate seamlessly. The further personalization of learning also requires a solid data infrastructure that gives teachers timely access to information on students so they can be placed in new groups when appropriate and the instructional model can be adjusted in other ways as well.


Aligning policy and allocating resources. For most districts, achieving the potential of personalized learning will require changes in key policies and funding sources. Seat time, scheduling, and limits on competency-based learning, for example, may inhibit or constrain a district’s ability to innovate. Similarly, funding policies that constrain how a system purchases technology or instructional materials can limit the pace of investment, and an unclear cost-benefit analysis of technology can further slow change. However, districts can make a financial case for such investments and craft creative solutions (such as raising money for infrastructure in the bond market) to get started while broader policies are addressed.


Enlisting external partners to help develop and sustain the work. Sustaining change requires deep sets of partnerships with organizations that can provide ongoing support, which may vary with the instructional model. The supporters could include local funding partners during the innovation period, businesses and community groups that provide enrichment opportunities outside of schools, and higher education institutions that ease access to college-level courses, taken either in person or online.


A large urban school district, [anecdote] for example, has built a partnership with a local graduate school of education to add expertise in innovation and teacher development. These ties have proved to be an important element of the overall program of personalized learning. As a result, the district is constantly connected to new research, to leading practitioners from other school systems, and to entrepreneurs pushing the boundaries of traditional models.


Innovative education products and approaches are proliferating. But long-term success depends on defining a truly systemwide approach to innovation, ensuring that pilots are successful, and putting in place the conditions for an eventual scaling up. Any systemwide effort must be supported by a deliberate approach to change management that engages the right leaders across the organization and supports individuals as they change their behavior and mind-sets to align with the new models. [bla bla]


When school districts successfully implement the elements described above, the students who most need improved—and sustained—support will be able to receive it. Innovation will be designed as a core piece of the ongoing strategy, not a stand-alone initiative, and districts will be ready for constant improvement rather than one-time trials. Adults across the system will feel that they own the innovations and will be supported to develop the knowledge, skills, and mind-sets necessary to realize and sustain change. Finally, the work will gain community-wide buy-in, providing significant external resources and support. [‘When’ . . . . ] [dream on]


About the author(s) Greg Rawson is an alumnus of McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office. Jimmy Sarakatsannis is a partner in the Washington, DC, office. Doug Scott is an alumnus of the Chicago office.




Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional development on student achievement. Emilie J. Prast, , Eva Van de Weijer-Bergsma , Evelyn H. Kroesbergen , Johannes E.H. Van Luit (2018). Learning and Instruction, 54, 22-34. [nog geen pdf tot mijn beschikking] abstract




Lee J. Cronbach & Richard E. Snow (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. Irvington. isbn 0470150661




Larry Cuban (21 Feb 2018). Spilling the Beans on “Personalized Learning” blog




Louise Archer, Becky Francis, Sarah Miller, Becky Taylor, Antonina Tereshchenko, Anna Mazenod, David Pepper, Mary-Claire Travers (2018). The symbolic violence of setting: A Bourdieusian analysis of mixed methods data on secondary students’ views about setting. First published: 15 January 2018Full publication history DOI: 10.1002/berj.3321 British Educational Research Journal open













maart 2018 \ contact ben at at at benwilbrink.nl    

Valid HTML 4.01!   http://www.benwilbrink.nl/literature/heterogeniteit.htm