RPIC ICS Implementation Digital Module 9: Design Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning​ for All Learners

© 2015 to 2023. Elise M. Frattura and Colleen A. Capper. School Modules for ICS Equity. All rights reserved. You may not reproduce, modify, or distribute this work without written consent from the authors. Please email [email protected] to obtain such permission.

1. Current Practices Based on Common Assumptions

If we do not understand the history of educational marginalization (Digital Module 1/Step 1), we are destined to perpetuate it through our curriculum and instruction.  As we learned in ICS Equity Digital Module 1/Step 1, and is reinforced throughout each ICS Equity Digital Module/Step, schools and districts throughout the country have created practices of grouping students by ability, based on standardized test scores, language acquisition, and sadly by curriculum guidelines, even with little to no research supporting such practices (Hattie, 2011; Oakes, 2005; Leithwood, 2004).

Such programs, interventions, and tracked classrooms maintain a normative that comes at the cost of learning, for students with disabilities, students who are black and brown, students from a range of ethnicities, students who experience poverty, students who are linguistically diverse, and students who identify as gender non-conforming, gay, transgender, bisexual and/or questioning. Sadly, the less a child can see themselves within a curriculum, the more educators can blame students as being the “problem”. When students or their families are viewed as the problem, educators jump into action through a normative lens, often implementing the following practices and associated assumptions, absent any peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness:

1. Core Plus More practices
2. Ability grouping
3. Remediation/intervention is more beneficial than rigor
4. Flexible grouping by achievement or skill development is not ability grouping
5. Educational disabilities are the result of the child, not the system

As a result of such assumptions and practices, educators too often teach to a normed group of students and then differentiate instruction for specific students who are not successful, either formally (specified intervention) or informally (within a classroom through make-shift practices). Regardless, an increasing number of students receive the core instruction in a manner that does not represent how they best receive information and are often asked to engage in instruction that is irrelevant to them, while being required to express what they know in a manner that does not accurately demonstrate how much they have learned.

The current Response to Intervention (RtI) practices have disappointedly become part and parcel of such a reactionary system. That is, instead of using Response to Intervention (RtI) as a proactive framework to determine how the system can better meet the needs of all learners (within Tier 1), RtI has become part of a reactionary or deficit-based system, often resulting in remedial or substandard instruction, where educators continue to work in isolation of each other based on false assumptions. Believing that “only specially licensed staff” can work with “specifically diagnosed students”, results in sending groups of students by needs or abilities “someplace else”.

Through RtI, the assumption persists that there is a normed-group of students that educators must teach to first, and then when some students are not successful they are referred for Tier 2 and 3 interventions, special education, at-risk supports, English Language Learners, etc. These services are often provided through ability grouping or by pulling students out of instruction with an attempt to provide “core plus more” during specials, social studies classes, or science classes (often those same classes in which the students could experience a strong sense of success), all while maintaining the assumption that “core plus more” remains essential.

Regrettably, within this deficit-based system, students learn that they must fail before they can receive support, that instruction remains remedial, and that they are expected to be a linear learner. Instead, educators must provide high-quality instruction based on how the child learns the first time the concept is taught. Doing so minimizes, if not eliminates, remediation, ability grouping, and pull-out instruction, which all fragment a student’s day, for the same students who require the most synthesized and comprehensive instructional opportunities.

Dr. David Rose often defines such a practice as “teaching to the illusory average student”. See the video below for more on Rose’s explanation of the “illusory average student” and the Universal Design for Learning response:

Educators view Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as an instructional practice where teachers are required to teach to a normed group of students by attempting to provide instruction with a visual component, hands-on component, and auditory component at all times. UDL becomes ineffective as well and often provides students with overstimulation of information, as they are required to sort and find the instructional strategy that works best for their specific needs, while also attending to an inordinate amount of information. In addition, such practices usually perpetuate the process of normed-group grading and engagement processes.

As we attend to these assumptions that often dictate our practices, we find little to no empirical evidence that supports ability grouping as an effective practice, and instead find that the inverse is true, according to Dr. Jeannie Oakes. See the following YouTube video for more on Oakes’ conclusions:

2. Equitable Best Practices

When we transform curriculum and instruction within Cornerstone 3, we view educational practices through a lens of rigorous, identity-relevant pedagogical practices based on how a child learns, what curriculum is employed, how a child shows what they know or what opportunities they have access to within their schools. As Maxine Green states,

“[Students] ought to be able to discover a project by means of which they can shape their own identities; the study of styles; gender issues in the public services; the problem of sweatshops, modern dance, and so on. It is clear to many that the commitment to a project, an undertaking shared with others, feeds into the growth of identity and, at once, voluntary participation… without such awareness, young people are liable to feel locked into a world that others have constructed (Greene, 2000).”

An educational world that does not see them, that others them, that makes them the educational problem.

To interrupt such practices of “othering” as an oppressive educational practice, C3 Teams must consistently rely on strategies and instructional practices that have the greatest impact on student achievement 100% of the time. These practices should occur in heterogeneous small groups that represent the diverse normative of students. In so doing, C3 Teams are better able to create lessons that lift all learners academically, emotionally, and behaviorally. In this section, we provide information on how to create proactive, assets-based lessons that lift each and every learner with the following structure:

1. Identity Relevant Instructional Strategies that have the Potential for the Greatest Impact
   1. Research-Based Instructional Strategies
   2. Moving Beyond Ability Grouping
   3. Heterogeneous Small Group Instruction
   4. A Word on Universal Design for Learning and Backward Mapping
   5. Identity Relevant
2. Identity Relevant Instructional Practices that Support those Strategies that have the Greatest Impact
3. Creating Lessons that Lift the Learning of All Learners

1. Identity Relevant Instructional Strategies that have the Potential for the Greatest Impact on Student Learning

1. Research-Based Instructional Strategies

John Hattie has completed multiple meta-analysis studies over the past decade or more, correlating effect sizes across all areas related to student achievement. Hattie’s effect size list in 2018 contained 252 areas and is updated every couple of years with new meta-studies. Hattie uses Cohen’s d to represent the effect size. Cohen’s d is defined as the difference between two means divided by the standard deviation of the pooled groups or the control group alone. Hattie “found that the average effect size of all the interventions he studied was 0.40.” Hattie judges the success of influences relative to this “hinge point”, to find an answer to what works best in education.

Figure 1 below reflects five areas and their impact on student achievement based on Hattie’s meta-analysis in 2009 (increase impact on student achievement over .40):

Figure 1:  Relative Impact on Student Achievement Based on Hattie’s Meta-Analysis

Based on this analysis, Ability grouping has little to no impact on student achievement with a Cohen’s d of .12. Cohen’s d demonstrates that Peer influences on achievement have an impact of .53. Not labeling has a strong correlation to student achievement (.61). But most importantly, Assessment capable learner practices have the single highest effect size (1.44). Such practices engage the student as their own agent to self-assess, track, and share their own progress. When assessment capable learner practices are paired with reciprocal teaching (.74), students have a much greater opportunity to accelerate their achievement especially compared to current practices of ability grouping. Therefore, often educators ask “… if I do not ability group, what do I do?” and the answer is, use reciprocal and assessment capable learner practices as the “how” within an Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning (IRTL) framework.

1. Moving Beyond Ability Grouping

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams begin each lesson plan design with who the student is, how the student brings in information, and shares what they know the most often. To create such plans, the C3 Teams rely on the ICS Skills at a Glance or ISAAG Template (as described in ICS Equity Digital Module 8/Step 8). The ISAAG guides C3 Teams to be intentional about creating instruction that does not rely on ability grouping, and at the same time, does not ignore the importance of teaching student-specific skills, such as learning how to read.

The C3 Team’s lesson plan design supports student learning through grade level and above content that holds a student’s interest and also constantly conveys to the student that they are capable. The lesson plans ensure that students are expected to function in heterogeneous small groups that will in turn increase critical and creative thinking. The lesson design supports students to read content at grade level and content that is designed to facilitate maximum learning, regardless of reading level. When the C3 Teams maximize student opportunities to read throughout their day, the sooner students will learn to read at their grade level and beyond. Through the ISAAG’s, C3 Teams can design targeted instruction that provides maximum opportunities for skill practice throughout the day. Examples that target reading instruction throughout the day include the following:

• Highlight essential words
• Provide opportunities to review specific vocabulary
• Chunk grade-level reading material into manageable opportunities for a student by sentences or paragraphs
• Use highlighting techniques to chunk specific words and letters a student should focus on – follow with 1:1 instruction as part of their heterogeneous small group
• Identify complicated sentences – detail or break down the sentence – and multi-syllable words – use the group to review readings and point out complicated sentences that should be broken down to assist in learning for all
• Use reading material as a map- draw lines between who said or did what and their pronouns

That being said, other educators view Universal Design for Learning (UDL), as an instructional practice where teachers are attempting to provide instruction with a visual component, hands-on component, and auditory component at all times. This practice is ineffective and often provides students with an overstimulation of information, as they are required to sort and find the instructional strategy that works best for their specific needs, while also attending to an inordinate amount of information. In addition, such practices often perpetuate the process of normed-group grading and engagement processes.

1. Heterogeneous Small Group Instruction

Small heterogeneous group learning allows for the following:

1. Promotes ‘deep’ learning: Encourages deep learning and higher-order cognitive activities, such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Engage by being active participants in the learning process, as opposed to passively “absorbing ” information.
2. Develops critical thinking skills: Allows students to develop critical thinking by exploring issues together and testing hypotheses that are difficult to do well in a lecture. This practice develops problem-solving skills.
3. Promotes discussion and communication skills:Environment is conducive to discussion. Students do not feel exposed or hidden but are comfortable. Each student is encouraged to actively participate and share their understandings and inquiry.
4. Active learning: Help identify what a student does not understand, and discussion aids understanding by activating previously acquired knowledge.  Students are encouraged to reflect on their experiences and develop self-regulatory skills.
5. Self-motivation: Encourages involvement in the learning process, increasing motivation and learning. By taking responsibility for their learning, they become self-motivated rather than being motivated by external factors, e.g., the lecture (teacher-centered approaches usually do not facilitate self-directed learning.
6. Develops transferable skills: Helps develop skills necessary for leadership, teamwork, organization, prioritization, providing support and encouragement for peers, problem-solving, and time management.
7. Application and development of ideas: Yields opportunities to apply ideas and consider potential outcomes. Making connections during group discussions enhances student understanding.
8. Tutor as a role model:A logical and systematic tutor approach demonstrating ‘transferable’ skills motivates student learning and development.
9. Recognizes prior learning:Students are encouraged to surface their own prior knowledge, including their own perceptions (and misconceptions of material previously covered.
10. Social aspects of learning:Participation and social aspects of small-group learning means that learning is more enjoyable than solitary approaches.
11. Encourages alternative viewpoints:Encourages an awareness of different perspectives on various topics and can therefore increase learning based on the diversity of the learners.

(adapted from https://www.mrowe.co.za/blog/2013/12/small-group-teaching/)

Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams and the Heterogeneous Small Group Processes

The table below is based on proportionally represented classrooms and all teams being realigned as C3 Teams, as described within the Digital Modules of ICSEquity.org.

1.   A Word on Universal Design for Learning and Backward Mapping

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA, Public Law 110-315, August 14, 2008) supports Universal Design for Learning as “a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practices”:

• (A)“Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways, students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways, students are engaged…”
• (B)“Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficiency.”

According to Dr. Rose and Dr. Meyer in 2002, the three Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles are:

1. To support recognition learning, provide multiple means of representation – that is, offer flexible ways to present what we teach and learn.
2. To support strategic learning, provide multiple means of action and expression – that is, flexible options for how we learn and express what we know.
3. To support effective learning, provide multiple means of engagement – that is, flexible options for generating and sustaining motivation, the why of learning.

Considerable resources on UDL are included within this Digital Module. Todd Rose sets the stage for the myth of average in the following YouTube video:

To date, the principles and practices of UDL have not been considered nor been informed by identity-relevant pedagogy. That is, a teacher could engage in effective UDL practices of representation, expression, and engagement, per se, yet the teaching remains centered in white, middle-class values, and is not relevant to cultural difference nor developing critical consciousness in students, as does culturally relevant pedagogy. Thus, ICS Equity suggests the merging of a UDL framework for lesson development with identity-relevant pedagogy.

1. Identity Relevant

In the ICS Equity Framework and Process, we rely on the word identity intentionally as the ICS Equity Framework and Process addresses literally all students in a school/district and their range of identities and intersections of identities including race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ability, language, socio-economic status, ethnicity, religion, etc. Within the ICS Equity Framework and Process, Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning (IRTL) refers to providing instruction that is identity relevant across all identities and their intersections.

Historically, educators draw from what we most often call “culturally relevant” pedagogy, which in turn typically refers to race only. According to Irvine and Armento (2001), many educators hold the following myths about culturally relevant pedagogy:

Myth #1:  Culturally relevant pedagogy is a new and special type of pedagogy that is relevant only to low-income, urban students of color.

Myth #2:  In schools with diverse student populations, only teachers of color are capable of demonstrating the essential elements of a culturally relevant pedagogy.

Myth #3:  Culturally relevant pedagogy is a “bag of tricks” that minimizes the difficulty of teaching some students of color.

Myth #4:  Culturally relevant pedagogy requires teachers to master the details of all the cultures of students represented in the classroom.

Yet, as Dr. Ladson-Billings clarified in her 1994 (2009, 2nd edition) book, The Dreamkeepers, culturally relevant [educators] possess the following eight principles:

1. Communications of High Expectations
2. Active Teaching Methods
3. Practitioner as Facilitator
4. Inclusion of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students
5. Cultural Sensitivity
6. Reshaping the Curriculum or Delivery of Services
7. Student-Controlled Discourse
8. Small-Group Instruction

Such practices must go hand in hand with the practice of decolonizing all curriculum. By this we mean that all curriculum should be vetted through an identity-relevant lens and interrupt stories that are only told from a white, predominately male, cisgender, middle class, English speaking, able bodied perspective. The more diverse our curricular authors are, across all identities, the greater opportunity we have to decolonize the curriculum. Yet, a diverse author pool is not the only factor, as discussed in Digital Module 3, our curriculum should reflect authors who have grown in their own identity development and understandings. The content of all subjects can be decolonized and most importantly even the topic of colonization should be decolonized.

These same practices are embedded in strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning and are detailed within this Digital Module. In the next section of this Digital Module, we discuss those practices that have the greatest impact on student learning.

1. Identity Relevant Instructional Practices that Support those Strategies that have the Greatest Impact on Student Learning

John Hattie provides a list of practices that support those strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning in his 2018 book, 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. Certainly other researchers and practices can be included, such as Max Teaching and Cooperative Learning. Below are just a few of those practices and their associated strategies that have the greatest impact on student learning, as described by Hattie and Zierer (2018):

Table 2:  Practices that Embrace High Impact Strategies (Hattie and Zierer, 2018)

All of these practices provide students with opportunities to engage in high impact strategies for student learning as follows:

• Worked examples (.67)
• Meta Cognitive Strategies (.69)
• Questioning (.48)
• Study Skills (.63)
• Dialogue vs Monologue (.82)
• Peer Tutoring (.55)
• Summarization (.74)
• Highlighting (.44)
• Small-Group Learning (.49)
• Reciprocal Learning (.74)
• Self-Reporting Grades (1.33)

More specifically, when we use every minute of a student’s educational time to intentionally prevent stereotype threats ( .-33) while providing collective teacher efficacy (1.33) through our Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams that are orchestrated within heterogenous (.53) small groups (.47), while not labeling students (.61), we support all students in having a more positive self-esteem (.47) and learning more, In this way, literally all students learn more.

3. Creating Lessons that Lift the Learning of All Learners

As discussed in Digital Module 8/Step 8, Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams deliberately co-create a lesson beginning with the core grade-level standards/learning targets and cluster or bundle together within a content area or across content areas for heterogeneous small groups of students, often beginning with the student’s interest and connecting identity relevant experiences for each and every learner. Included at the bottom of this Digital Module are C3 lesson plan examples for the elementary school level, middle school level, and high school level.

3. ‘Operationalizing’ Our Work

Sample Lesson Plans that Lift the Learning of All Learners

Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning (IRTL) for all students can be overwhelming to many educators. A few simple rules of implementation can assist in a smooth transition from teaching to the normed–group of students to proactive teaching, using the principles of the IRTL framework. IRTL can increase the learning of all students and in so doing, interrupt the institutional marginalization of all learners.

1. Create C3 Lesson Plans beginning with Identity and then determine how each child within the group takes in information, how each child shows what they have learned in the manner that they can demonstrate their knowledge the most often, and how each child will be engaged in a manner that piques their interest and that they find to be relevant by age, culture, interest, gender/sexual identity, etc.
2. Align the Core Curriculum State Standard (CCSS) and what the district has determined as the most appropriate scientifically-based curriculum to be used.
3. Divide students into heterogeneous (proportional representation) groups by how they receive information, engage in information, and express what they have learned.
4. Develop the instructional opportunities by sharing expertise from the members of the C3 Team and write the lesson plans as discussed in Digital Module 8/Step 8: Construct Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams.

We provide a sample co-plan for a 6th grade English Language Arts class (see Appendix B) at the bottom of this Digital Module. This plan begins with three different areas that students have chosen for engagement (the War on Terror, Fault in Our Stars, and Football) to address a variety of standards (lesson presented is specific to the application of ‘explicit and inference’). After students are arranged in a group based on engagement, then the C3 Team can determine how each student receives and expresses information (entered on the first page of an excel file and in the students’ personalized plans) to guide how the C3 Team will facilitate instruction.

4. Creating Our Plan: Cornerstone 3: Transform Teaching and Learning; Digital Module 9/Step 9: Design Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning for All Learners:

In the next ICS Application, you’ll identify and discuss the current practices that must be interrupted and discuss future recommendations of how to facilitate the information in this Digital Module with all staff, along with the steps necessary to ‘operationalize’ such recommendations.

 

---

References:

Hattie, J. & Zierer, K. (2018). 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. Routledge, New York.

Hattie, J. (2011). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge.

Irvine, J. J. & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally relevant teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children, 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.