Introduction
Academy X is an average-size, mixed-gender, comprehensive state-maintained school situated in an outer London borough. Academy X sits above the national average for Free School Meal eligibility (FSM) within a state-funded secondary school, which was 22.7% in 2022/23. Across England in 2022/23, 18.1% of pupils are known to have English as an additional language (EAL), compared to 24.2% at this academy. The percentage of pupils who have Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) support is 10.4%, which is less than the national average of 13% in 2022/23. The academy’s Progress 8Footnote 1 score is considered average at 0.07, and the percentage of pupils who achieved a grade 5 or more in English and Maths at GCSEFootnote 2 was 37%, which is below the national average (45%). The academy was also rated ‘Good’ by OfstedFootnote 3 in 2019. The school has mixed-ability classes for most subjects except for Maths in KS3, and so the class I taught for this assignment was mixed-ability.
The class I taught was a Year 9 class (aged 13-14) made up of 10 pupils, which is half the national average class size. The class was made up of 8 girls and 2 boys, 3 students with English as an Additional Language (EAL) (Athena, Dionysus and Artemis), and 2 students with SEND (Hestia and Pandora) with differing needs, one with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the other mental health problems. Amongst the class there were three high prior-attainers, one middle prior-attainer, and six low prior-attainers before I started teaching them. All pupils except one (Athena), seemed to be completely disengaged from the lessons regardless of prior attainment and therefore little progress was being made. Therefore, adaptive teaching methods were going to be relevant to this class as there was a considerable need to make the content accessible for all students in order to get them engaging with it.
Literature Review
Adaptive teaching and differentiation
The Teachers’ Standards (2021) require all teachers to understand how a variety of factors can limit a pupil’s ability to learn, such as special educational needs and disability, and EAL. The Teachers’ Standards (2021) require teachers to be able to use different teaching approaches to engage and support all of these pupil types, meaning they also need to know how and when to differentiate appropriately. The Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2021) also requires teachers to be able to respond and adapt their teaching as necessary after identifying misconceptions accurately. However, the Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2021) suggests that this needs to be done without individualised approaches. Harris (Reference Harris2005), a key name in literature surrounding differentiation in History, suggests a similar approach to that of the Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2021). Harris suggests that pupils should not be given different tasks depending on their ability as no pupil should be made to feel excluded. Instead, Harris suggests teachers need to make work engaging for all, as engaging them, first and foremost, will give them better access to the content. Tomlinson (Reference Tomlinson2014) agrees that engagement is an important part of adaptive teaching and claims that a significant percentage of students are neither trying nor paying attention in lessons. However, Tomlinson (Reference Tomlinson2014) disagrees with the Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2021) and Harris (Reference Harris2005) about not using individualised approaches, as she claims that students do not have to take the same path to get to the same end point. Thus Tomlinson (Reference Tomlinson2014) suggests differentiating lessons should provide equity of access for every student. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) agrees, claiming that teachers need to consider student’s ability and their starting points. He then suggests teachers plan to differentiate accordingly in order for all pupils to achieve the same learning outcome. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) (in disagreement with the Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2021) and Harris (Reference Harris2005)) claims that differentiation is not pupils doing different things but doing the same thing in different ways. Overall, engagement is key to giving access to all pupils, but teachers should use a mixture of adaptive teaching in the moment and pre-planned differentiation strategies to help all pupils achieve.
Grouping
Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) explains that differentiation by grouping is when teachers group pupils based on prior attainment, gender, or their favoured learning style. Blatchford and Russell (Reference Blatchford and Russell2019) agree but claim that there is a wider variety of strategies used such as ability, mixed-ability, pupil relationships, pupil choice, behaviour, gender, age, and class size. Lindner et al (Reference Lindner, Nusser, Gehrer and Schwap2021) and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) disagree with grouping by ability. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) claims that mixed-ability groups are more beneficial, as they allow both higher and lower attainers to learn from working together. Coe and Hunt (Reference Coe and Hunt2022) agree, claiming that mixed-ability groups give low-attaining Latin students better access to the material. Law’s (Reference Law2021) study of a Latin classroom also shows that group work allowed the pupils to recognise each other’s strengths and weaknesses and help each other in response. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) suggests that teachers should group according to the activity, by questioning how the groups will reinforce the learning outcomes. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) advises that teachers must think carefully about the groups they are choosing. Smith (Reference Smith2017) agrees but adds that teachers should use more than one way of grouping pupils to avoid repetition and to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Law’s (Reference Law2021) study showed that using different groupings within a Classics classroom was successful; however her study was small in scale and thus has its limitations. Markoglou (Reference Markoglou2022) claims that grouping in a Classics classroom encourages intellectual and social independence and provides students with the opportunity to develop different skills to work independently. Law’s (Reference Law2021) study came to the same conclusions as Markoglou (Reference Markoglou2022), as her pupils had increased learner independence when group work was used. Whilst Law’s (Reference Law2021) study was small, it pays homage to Gilles (Reference Gillies2004), which was a much larger study, and came to similar conclusions on the effectiveness of group work. Gilles (Reference Gillies2004) claims that in order to teach classical literature, all pupils need to know their role and be taught small group skills. There are concerns with Gilles’ (Reference Gillies2004) study such as its age, and the fact that the school and teachers had had extensive training in group work, making it hard to apply the conclusions to schools that have not had this training. However, Law (Reference Law2021) uses Gilles’ (Reference Gillies2004) findings to influence her own study, and despite not having extensive training, her findings were similar to that of Gilles (Reference Gillies2004), in that pupils should be taught how to work in groups for group work to be effective. Patel (Reference Patel2015) also agrees that group work must be a taught skill in order for pupils to become successful independent learners in the Classics classroom. There are some limitations to using group work in the Classics classroom, as Speers’ (Reference Speers2020) research showed that group work can be ineffective if teachers’ instructions are not clear enough. Blatchford and Russell (Reference Blatchford and Russell2019) claim that large groups are ineffective compared with smaller groups. Law (Reference Law2021) concludes that despite all of the positives of group work, pupils do not necessarily need these skills for their exams. Overall, however, it is evident that group work can be an effective way to engage students and promote independent learning. However, to do so, grouping must be well thought out, ever-changing, and specific to the learning outcomes. Teachers must also be clear and be specific about how group work works, or it will limit its effectiveness within the classroom.
Questioning
Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) claims that asking different types of questions in different contexts helps to develop deeper learning. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) and Vale (Reference Vale2019) both argue that teachers struggle to use questioning to develop profound learning. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) states that teachers need to refrain from only asking higher-attaining students the questions that encourage deeper learning as it limits the learning of the lower-attaining students. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) says we should encourage this type of thinking from all students. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) agrees, arguing that by adapting questions to suit different abilities, we are achieving little. However, Robinson’s (Reference Robinson2023) research suggests that pupils in a Classical Civilisation classroom who were quieter did not engage in group discussions unless they were asked more simple questions that required shorter answers. Robinson (Reference Robinson2023) argues therefore that a balance of questions is important in engaging all students, as it allows all students to participate. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) argues that teachers should focus more on the follow-up question, claiming it develops low-attainers’ thinking and challenges higher-attainers. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) and Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) both praise progressive questioning in getting pupils engaged. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) suggests getting higher-attainers to build on answers given by low-attainers, saying that if all questions are connected it can deepen the understanding of all pupils as there is a clear route of thinking being followed. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) suggests that by shortening wait time for low-level questions and increasing it for higher-level questions, the quality of the response will improve. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) and Smith (Reference Smith2017) encourage the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy to produce questions that challenge all pupils. However, Vale (Reference Vale2019) suggests that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the ability of the teacher to adapt to the answers given by pupils. Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) advocates for planning questions in detail before a lesson. Speers’ (Reference Speers2020) research shows that when she planned questions, there was more pupil engagement with Classical Civilisation compared with when she had not planned. Speers (Reference Speers2020) also notes that getting pupils to ask questions is an effective way to engage pupils with Classical Civilisation content but suggests that there needs to be planned criteria for them to follow to make sure the questions they asked are promoting high-order thinking. Vale (Reference Vale2019) also advocates for peer questioning in the Classics class and recommends giving them an explicit way to construct the questions. However, Vale notes that pupils do not consider wait time when asking each other questions. Vale also claims that the value of questioning depends on the students’ engagement and the success of engagement is hard to measure when there is little written work produced by the questioning strategy. Overall, it is evident that questioning can impact pupil engagement with the learning to a large extent, and teachers must plan questions in great detail to make sure they are challenging and engaging all pupils equally.
Input
Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) suggests that teachers should provide different resources in order for pupils to complete the same task in the Latin classroom, giving examples such as word lists and extension activities. He claims that these resources could give confidence to those who might be discouraged. Atkin’s (Reference Atkin2020) research suggested that creating extra resources was successful in helping pupils translate authentic Latin texts and would be a good strategy to use in a Latin reading course. Sanchez (Reference Sanchez2014) also recommends similar supportive input in a Latin classroom, as it helps to create the right environment for independent learning. Downes et al (Reference Downes, Mcdonnell and Hunt2012) recommend extra support for a mixed-ability class, with lower-attaining pupils using the most resources and higher-attaining pupils using the least. Thomson (Reference Thomson2013) suggests that extra resources benefit dyslexic students in a Latin classroom: pictures to go along with text could help understanding of the text. Pearcy (Reference Pearcy, Capel, Leask and Younie2016) suggests that methods to help pupils with SEND are not distinct from ordinary teaching methods; they are only expansions of regular tactics, implying that what teachers do for pupils with SEND might be beneficial for all other pupils also. Bracke (Reference Brackle2016) suggested that using resources that are differentiated by ability and having resources prepared for pupils who finish before anyone else is effective in a classroom where there is mixed-ability. Newland (Reference Newland2016) claims that student’s motivation and how they see their ability is fundamental to their success; however, a positive attitude can only be obtained if they have the knowledge of how to accomplish a task. Newland (Reference Newland2016) claims that extra support on how to complete the task, especially when completing a Latin translation, can build confidence and thus encourage engagement with the task. However, Newland’s (Reference Newland2016) overall conclusion was that resources do not work if there is no motivation for pupils to use them. Resources from Petty (Reference Petty2024) claim that input is not an effective method in adaptive teaching, suggesting that it does not develop learning as well as other methods, and that extra resources for the main task do not develop learning; for this, extension tasks are needed. Overall, it is important for teachers to create extra resources for pupils, whether it be extensions, word lists, or pictures with text, as they promote engagement with the task. It is important to use the resources to help all students achieve the learning objectives, and make sure all pupils are being challenged appropriately.
Choice
Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) describes differentiation by choice as giving students different ways to interact with the same content and claims that in doing so, teachers give students access to the material and a way to engage in learning. Platt (Reference Platt2018) argues that this form of adaptive teaching is good in the Classics classroom because it does not divide students by ability. Patall et al (Reference Patall, Cooper and Wynn2010) also note that giving pupils choice does not isolate them from each other. Platt (Reference Platt2018) and Patall et al (Reference Patall, Cooper and Wynn2010) concur that choice is a valuable way of adapting one’s teaching to engage pupils. Platt (Reference Platt2018) and Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) show that choice of task might encourage pupils to work harder in the Classics classroom as it may boost motivation. Flowerday and Schraw (Reference Flowerday and Schraw2003) argue that giving students a choice gives pupils a sense of autonomy and independence. They suggest this sense of control creates a better learning environment and Platt (Reference Platt2018) claims that, in addition to this, control might also inspire pupils to work harder. Although differentiation by choice might appear to be an effective way to engage pupils in learning theoretically, Patall et al (Reference Patall, Cooper and Wynn2010) note that there is little evidence of choice being a beneficial form of adaptive teaching, and so it is hard to determine its effectiveness. In fact, Flowerday and Schraw’s (Reference Flowerday and Schraw2003) research shows that pupils who were not given the choice of assignment performed better than the students who were. Atkin’s (Reference Atkin2020) research also found that pupils given the choice of task chose the easier one, and so some were not challenged when they should have been. He suggests that this form of differentiation was ineffective in engaging pupils in original materials within a Latin class. Platt’s (Reference Platt2018) research of a Latin class and Classical Civilisation class concludes that the effectiveness of differentiating by choice is dependent on the class and the pupils within it. Platt (Reference Platt2018) claims that the task that pupils choose can be affected by gender, age and social pressure within the classroom and thus the effectiveness of adapting teaching using choice can fluctuate. Contradicting Atkin’s (Reference Atkin2020) claim that choice is ineffective, Downes et al (Reference Downes, Mcdonnell and Hunt2012) and Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) suggest that giving pupils the choice of how they approach the same task is more beneficial than giving them different tasks. Downes et al (Reference Downes, Mcdonnell and Hunt2012) also demonstrate, via a case study of a Latin class, that if the pupils are used to differentiation by choice, they will make the right choice for them, and therefore it can be effective. Therefore, for this strategy to be effective, it needs to be consistent, and the teacher needs to plan the choices given carefully, considering individual makeup of the class, such as gender, interests, age etc. They must also carefully select the types of choice the class will make, ensuring the options allow for the learning outcomes to be achieved by all.
Literature and Lessons
How Lessons Were Planned
Blatchford and Russell (Reference Blatchford and Russell2019) recommend putting pupils into small groups as they work better than larger ones. This influenced the planning of all my lessons. In lesson one the pupils sat in the same pairs throughout the unit of work. With Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) and Coe and Hunt (Reference Coe and Hunt2022) in mind, these pairs will be mixed-ability, as both authors claim that it is a more successful way of grouping pupils in order to make the content more accessible for low-attainers and to develop the learning of higher-attainers. Smith’s (Reference Smith2017) suggestion to switch groups around every now and then to keep pupils from becoming disengaged was worth testing to see if it truly engaged pupils more. This approach, therefore, was used in lesson one.
Planning questions before the lesson as being a more effective way to encourage pupil engagement struck me as noteworthy (Speers, Reference Speers2020; Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2015). Therefore, in lesson two there was some pre-planned targeted questioning used in order to get all students participating and accessing the content. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) claims that adapting questions for different abilities amounts to little, and so the lessons will include questions that would typically be asked to high-attainers being asked to low-attainers in order to challenge them. Robinson (Reference Robinson2023) recommends using a balance of question types as not all learners may be willing to answer challenging questions. Thus, there will be a variety of question types that require a variety of answers from pupils to keep them engaged.
Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) recommends using different resources such as word lists and extension tasks, as both will aid low-attainers and challenge high-attainers, making sure everyone is engaged with the content. Therefore, this approach will be trialled throughout the unit of work. Newland (Reference Newland2016) argues that giving pupils support with completing a Latin translation can help with pupil engagement as it gives them more confidence. Accordingly, in lessons three and four, where pupils will complete translation tasks, there will be extra resources to support them.
Platt (Reference Platt2018) and Patall et al (Reference Patall, Cooper and Wynn2010) recommend choice as a valuable way of adaptive teaching due to its capacity to not divide pupils by ability. It seems to be a significant way to engage a mixed-ability class. Following Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) and Downes et al (Reference Downes, Mcdonnell and Hunt2012), lesson four will give the pupils the choice of how to approach the same Latin story with a focus on translation, which in turn should give them better access and thus engage them more (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Lesson sequence.
Evaluation
Grouping
Following Law (Reference Law2021), Markoglou (Reference Markoglou2022) and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015), I found grouping to be one of the most successful strategies I used. In my scheme of work, I used grouping throughout all lessons. In lesson one I put them into mixed-ability pairs, which they would continue to work with throughout all lessons. I was pleasantly surprised to see these pairs were taken well by the majority of the students. In the first lesson, I included lots of paired talk to get them used to working together. Most pupils did this well; they were engaged with each other and the tasks (Blatchford & Russell, Reference Blatchford and Russell2019; Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2015; Coe & Hunt, Reference Coe and Hunt2022). During the paired work in lessons two and three, pupils became more independent and were completing the work with little help from me, confirming that group work encourages independence and provides students with skills that independent work cannot (Markoglou, Reference Markoglou2022; Law, Reference Law2021). By lesson three, I saw a vast improvement specifically in engagement of two lower-attaining students, Circe and Hestia. Circe is usually completely disengaged from language lessons. However, in lesson three, she participated consistently, completed the main task well and in good time, even completing an independent extension task. Hestia, a pupil with SEND who is also a low- attainer, also benefitted from paired work. Sitting next to Penelope (a high-attainer) made her more focused on tasks and increased her confidence to participate in lessons. Thus, I saw pair work as a hugely impactful strategy in getting lower-attainers engaged and progressing (Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2015; Coe & Hunt, Reference Coe and Hunt2022). Hephaestus is a higher-attaining student who I paired with Artemis, a low-attaining student, hoping they might learn from one another (Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2015), which, unfortunately, was unsuccessful. For example, she asked him a question and he hardly responded. As I watched them, I saw her catch my eye and send a silent plea for help, so I went over to try to ignite conversation, but even then, his responses were minimal. Thus, although I agree that groups should be considered carefully, they still might not work effectively. During lesson one, I did a group activity which involved them getting into different mixed-ability groups, which pupils seemed excited about. The majority of pupils seemed engaged with the task. However, in this activity, Hephaestus was still not participating even with encouragement from me and his group, which contradicts the advice given by Smith (Reference Smith2017) about changing groups engaging all pupils. One group planned together but during the activity which involved the writing of a letter, only Dionysus and Demeter were engaged, whilst Pandora and Athena were drifting in and out of the task. I was advised by my mentor that my success criteria could have been more specific and clearer. Next time I would have more specific success criteria and give roles to each pupil, so everyone has to participate at all times. I would also decrease the time length for the group activity, to make it more of a challenge for them.
Questioning
I found my questioning techniques to be a reasonably effective strategy. I used questioning throughout my unit of work; however, my attempt at pre-planned and targeted questioning was used in lesson two. Speers (Reference Speers2020) and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) both suggest that pre-planned questioning is more effective than questioning on the spot. In lesson two, I planned to ask the pupils the same two questions about their own respective sentence with a relative clause in it, making sure to plan the order in which the pupils would answer. Circe and Dionysus are usually reluctant to answer questions about language due to a lack of confidence in their own ability, and Pandora and Hestia are also reluctant due to their SEND needs. I decided to ask some higher-attaining pupils first. This allowed the pupils who are usually less confident to be able to see how others are answering the question and take the time to work out how to answer it themselves. I found that this strategy really worked, as the pupils mentioned managed to all answer the questions about their sentences correctly and with confidence. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015) suggest that teachers need to stop adapting questions to suit ability and instead to expect all pupils to be able to answer questions that foster more profound thinking. In lesson two I tried to do this by asking Hestia to come up with her own English example of a sentence with a relative clause in it. This was a question aimed at everyone; however, I chose Hestia to answer. Unfortunately, she refused to participate, saying she did not want to answer, and then seemed to withdraw engagement in the lesson for the next ten minutes. This did not seem to match with the suggestions of Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) and Bartlett (Reference Bartlett2015). In contrast Robinson (Reference Robinson2023) suggests that there should be questions of varied ability used in the classroom as it allows all students to participate. So, upon Hestia reaction to the question asked, I decided to ask her a few simpler questions that I knew she could answer throughout the next part of the lesson, such as “What does magnam mean?” and “Where is the object in this sentence?”. This led to her engaging with the lesson much more as her confidence increased. This led me to believe that there is nothing wrong with using simple questions aimed at low-attainers if it gets them engaged with the lesson. By the end of lesson two, all pupils managed to recall the definition of a relative clause, explain how we spot them in English and Latin when asked, and could demonstrate how to translate a sentence with a relative clause in it when asked in a group discussion. However, I felt that the high-attainers were not challenged enough as I saw Hephaestus with his head in his hands looking bored when answering certain questions, as if it was too easy for him. I focused more on my low-attainers and their engagement in my planning and therefore struggled to adapt my questions to challenge him during these times. Vale (Reference Vale2019) claims that the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy to develop questions depends on the teacher’s ability to adapt to answers in the lesson. Next time I will plan questions more carefully, paying closer attention to challenging my high-attaining students, to make sure they are engaged as well as engaging my low-attaining students.
Input
I found the extensive use of input and resources to be a largely effective strategy (Hunt, Reference Hunt2023; Atkins, Reference Atkin2020; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2014). I mainly used this strategy in lesson three where I created multiple different resources to help pupils complete two gap-fill tasks and an exit ticket which all focused on relative pronouns (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Examples of exercises for learning about Relative Clauses.
These resources gave all pupils access to the task, which meant that all pupils were able to complete the task with increased independence. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) and Newland (Reference Newland2016) suggest that input would increase confidence and motivation of discouraged pupils, which I can attest to from this lesson, as Circe, who is usually discouraged, completed the task with little to no help. She seemed to be engaged throughout the lesson and with all tasks, even going as far as to complete the extension task after finishing the gap-fill and attempting the extension on the exit ticket (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Extension Task.
Hestia, who has SEN, also managed to complete the task on time with little help from me, which is not a common event. She also correctly completed the ‘English to Latin’ extension task given to her with little guidance from me. Two out of three of the higher-attainers, Athena and Demeter, also got round to the extension task. Whilst I agree with Sanchez (Reference Sanchez2014) that an independent learning environment was created by the use of plenty of input support, I would argue that how to use this support needs to be explicitly taught beforehand. I suggest this because I spent the first few minutes of each gap-fill task showing individual pupils such as Pandora and Medea, who looked confused and reluctant to get started, how to use their resources to help them complete the task. Some pupils such as Artemis, Hephaestus, Demeter, and Penelope were still getting verb endings wrong despite having the verb-ending table on the vocabulary sheet for them to use, which happened in the task during lesson four also. Therefore, next time I would explicitly show the pupils how to use each resource by modelling it for them, so that they have a clearer understanding of each resource’s usefulness.
Choice
I found choice to be the least effective strategy that I used, despite Hunt (Reference Hunt2023), Platt (Reference Platt2018) and Patall et al. (Reference Patall, Cooper and Wynn2010) suggesting otherwise. In my fourth lesson I gave pupils a choice of task twice. The first choice they were given was how to approach a Latin story, in which the different options were suited to different abilities, but all focused on translation. Whilst some pupils such as Penelope, Dionysus, Artemis, Medea, and Pandora chose the task that was most suited to their ability, others chose work not suited to their ability. For example, Hestia, who has SEN and is a low-attainer, chose the middle-ability task, which meant that she spent an hour completing a 30-minute task, and only completed half of it. The work she produced had hardly any mistakes, but nonetheless, she could not progress onto task two as the first was incomplete. This leads me to agree with Downes et al. (Reference Downes, Mcdonnell and Hunt2012), that pupils need to understand which choice is right for them. For example, Athena, who is one of the higher-attainers of the class, chose the gap-fill task. She then finished it within half the time limit and completed an extension task to fill the rest of the time before we moved onto task two. Atkin’s (Reference Atkin2020) conclusion, that pupils usually pick the easy option, proved to be true in this case. Some pupils in the class did not finish the first task within the timeframe given, and so I decided to let them continue with the task until it was completed, as without completion, they could not attack task two. As some lower-attaining pupils such as Hestia and Dionysus did not complete the task, I disagree with Platt (Reference Platt2018) that autonomy gives low self-esteem students motivation. However, I do agree with Platt’s (Reference Platt2018) conclusion that using choice in the classroom depends on the class, as social pressure influenced one of my high-attaining students (Hephaestus). As I was going through the options with them and getting them to choose, Hephaestus was hesitant, but chose the gap-fill at the very last minute when he saw how many others put their hands up for it. There was one pupil, Penelope, who proved that choice can be effective, as she chose the hardest option to try and challenge herself, and ended up completing the task within the time, and to a good standard, demonstrating Hunt’s (Reference Hunt2023) and Platt’s (Reference Platt2018) points about how choice can boost motivation to work harder. Of those who did the second choice task, all chose the more creative task, and all seemed to be engaged with it, confirming Hunt’s (Reference Hunt2023) ideas of choice increasing engagement. Next time I would use only one task that uses choice and focus on that as the main task, and I would also use options that vary creatively, as the main task in this lesson was not all that different when it came to creativity and pupil interests. I will continue to use choice within the classroom.
Conclusion
I began this assignment with the opinion that the adaptive teaching strategies I have looked at would all engage my pupils in some way or another, as to me the literature that advocated for them, such as Hunt (Reference Hunt2023), made them seem as though all pupils would react positively to them. Tomlinson (Reference Tomlinson2014) writes that a large part of adaptive teaching is engaging pupils. Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) writes that all four strategies should help all learners engage with the content taught as it will give them better access. I soon came to conclude that it is much more complicated than simply implementing the strategies within your classroom.
The most successful techniques were ones based off prior knowledge of the class and pupils, such as grouping. I do not believe that this strategy would have been as successful if I had not known the pupils’ prior attainment, learning styles, engagement levels, and friendship dynamics. Furthermore, giving extra resources to help low-attainers with a task was largely effective in building the confidence of my low-attaining pupils, and therefore was successful in increasing their engagement. However, due to the short-term of this project, I can conclude that some strategies were less successful. For example, to differentiate by choice in theory seems like it would be a successful way to engage pupils; however in the short term of this project, it was not very successful, as pupils had never done it before and therefore did not choose suitably. That is not to say this strategy would not be successful if used long term, which is why my conclusions are that if pupils are used to choosing in their lessons, they will eventually make the right decisions for themselves. I felt that using balanced and varied questioning to be largely effective in allowing all students to participate successfully in the lesson, which increased engagement. However, I feel that in the long term, once pupils’ confidence has increased, moving more towards Hunt (Reference Hunt2023) and Bartlett’s (Reference Bartlett2015) suggestion of using questioning to ask all pupils challenging questions rather than only high-attainers would work better than it did in the short timeframe of this project. It also might work better once I am more confident in my questioning ability.
I have massively enjoyed looking closely at my pupils and their engagement within my lessons and in doing so, I feel I have understood what it takes to implement adaptive teaching well, which is knowledge of your pupils. This supports the outlook of the Teachers’ Standards (2021) that all teachers need to know their pupils and use different strategies to engage all types of pupils. Overall, within this project, I saw a huge improvement in pupils’ engagement in lessons, especially amongst lower-attainers and students with SEND. All students understood the concepts being taught and participated more in the classroom than I had seen previously. Thus, despite of some drawbacks, the strategies used were largely successful in engaging students in lessons.
Open access
