Differentiation and Engagement in Secondary School Classrooms

0. Literature review on Differentiation and engagement in computer science classrooms
Computer science offers educators aiming towards differentiated teaching within the secondary schoolroom setting a distinctive series of challenges. In particular, coding may prove to be a rigorous, exacting field that calls for a demonstration of organization and precision on the part of students before they can effectively create even the simplest programs. Computer science classes will probably witness learners utterly unfamiliar with coding and fluent pupils, in addition to those who cannot even type or need other personalized academic plans (Gregory and Chapman 2012; Shah et al. 2014). Thus, how will an educator teach a particular topic in computer science to such a diversity of learners, providing additional help to certain learners and more challenging activities to others while ensuring all learners’ engagement and motivation for smooth movement together in one single class?
This discussion assumes differentiation forms the basis for attaining equitable access within the context of computer science teaching, where all learners, irrespective of their linguistic, socioeconomic, or racial background, and sex enjoy equal chances for success. This paper proposes a strategy for resolving these issues and accomplishing the above (TechSmart 2018). The resolution put forward in this paper has been devised by reviewing numerous study findings gathered over several years of teaching computer science, impacted by regular input grounded in learner outcomes and educator feedback, transforming from traditional classroom differentiation to an encouraging, novel approach that combines computer science teaching and technological innovations.
0. Depth of Knowledge Scaffolding
The vast range of coding capability displayed by learners is potentially the greatest challenge concerning computer science differentiation. Students are typically not split into different tracking clusters as this may restrict their potential or cause exclusion (Gustiani 2019); rather, a whole-class heterogeneous approach is adopted. For aiding learners with diverse skills and learning profiles to collectively get done with the same task, all tasks are accorded five scaffolding differentiation levels.
The abovementioned levels differentiate based on the Depth of Knowledge theory put forward by Norman Webb, enabling learners to learn/ practice the same topic at suitable depth levels to challenge and support them (Hess 2006).  While lower scaffolding levels offer them more direction by concentrating on activities that involve calling to mind and applying concepts, higher levels slowly do away with scaffolding and concentrate on critical thinking, planning, and analysis.  
Table 1: Scaffolding levels for coding activities
Scaffolding level
Depth of Knowledge (DoK) level
Activity Description
Level 1
DoK Level 1
Learners focus on precision, undertake tasks for retrieving data, and compare their work with a model to ensure correctness
Level 2
DoK Level 2
Learners fit together pieces for constructing frameworks, demonstrating concept mapping to content prepared
Level 3
DoK Level 3
Learners are presented with an activity to complete, which they break down into various steps, followed by identifying the right concepts to put into use and generalizing the kinds of solutions to different issues
Level 4
DoK Level 4
Presented with a big problem, learners split it up into several activities and comprehend the interrelationship between different activities
Level 5
DoK Level 5
Offered a goal, learners assess and enumerate issues to be resolved, followed by activity organization in the right order, and ascertainment of the ideal strategy to resolve issues
A critical point to remember is that all levels include the previous one’s skills. In other words, a level will not replace the tasks of the previous one; rather, it will supplement the latter by eliminating scaffolding and demanding more profound understanding. For acquiring mastery over coding, consistent application of the right syntax and remembering code commands (i.e., levels 1-2) represent key skills. Even when learning revolves around critical thinking and problem resolution (i.e., levels 3-5), the above basic capabilities are practiced on an ongoing basis instead of being ignored using code-adjacent tasks abstracting or obscuring them (Lindner and Schwab 2020).
With all exercises that comprise the above levels of scaffolding, the entire class will be able to progress collectively with the aid of an ingeniously-planned lesson activity progression while, according to individual learners, the right degree of challenge and guidance. As educators are easily able to shift every learner from one level to the next for distinct exercises, learners aren’t divided into restrictive, permanent tracks; instead, they are allowed to go forward through coding capability levels at the appropriate speed to attain efficiency as well as confidence (TechSmart 2018).
0. Assisting with Syntax
The field of computer science, seemingly, has an especially steep entry barrier among academic disciplines. Owing to coding’s nature, learners are required to key in the precise symbols and words, usually using idiosyncratic syntax, for writing code interpretable by computers. Additionally, several learners may struggle with typing using the keyboard, potentially glacially slowing down coding. How is scaffolding able to ease the above challenges when helping learners acquire mastery over them?
For answering the above question, consider level 1 scaffolding of coding exercises. Learners are provided with the starter code and comprehensive comments presenting students with the program’s whole organization and structure, thereby facilitating their precision and recollection by completing individual code lines. Such comments clarify individual lines’ purpose while consistently including keywords for individual code commands to be utilized. These may be pasted/ typed on to Code Assist, which is a coding aid. Here, they will come across examples and explanations of distinct coding command usages and template codes that may be pasted into programs (i.e., they need not be typed but only tweaked for fitting their specific use within the program in question) (Kaur 2017).  Using Code Assist alongside starter codes, learners can be taught concepts of computer science and recall codes without having to remember specific code syntax or key in excessive text.
Table 2: Example of Python Starter Code at Scaffolding Level 2
### ----OUTPUT WINNER ----####
# IF player1 is EQUAL TO player2
# Print message saying the result was a tie
# ---> TEST AFTER THIS LINE < ---#
The phrases capitalized represent the keywords of the present lesson that can be keyed into Code Assist for discovering template code that may be copied and learning more about connected computer science topics.
0. Empowering Teachers to Differentiate
As differentiation represents a dynamic process of grasping and acting in response to learners’ needs, successful differentiation depends on the educator’s capability to understand and accommodate learners (Sharp et al., 2020).  This may pose further challenges in the computer science discipline that lacks educators’ profound experience in the subject matter. Studies reveal that the ideal means of sustainably resolving this issue is transforming educators into instructors in computer science with an advanced grasp of the subject matter via training (TechSmart 2018). Offering them a complete set of tools to assess learner needs offers a convenient administration of differentiation.
Successful differentiation requires continuous diagnostic learner evaluation by educators through formative assessments in individual lessons and routine learner self-assessment in the areas of engagement and confidence (Sharp et al., 2020). Educators may instantly access this information via Insights data visualization for pinpointing learners requiring further scaffolding, challenges, or other means of supporting students’ unique learning profiles (Benjamin, 2002). Differentiation may be administered merely by learner drag-and-drop in diverse scaffolding levels while still personalizing the curriculum using other ways for suiting students’ unique learning profiles.
0. The Importance of Differentiated Education
Several research works corroborate differentiation’s efficacy concerning learning outcome improvements. Talented and learning-disabled pupils benefit greatly from this approach (McQuarrie et al., 2008; Suprayogi et al., 2017). It is attested by Lawrence-Brown (2004) that differentiation, indeed, proves effective in the inclusion of a range of learner skill levels; besides, Baumgartner and coworkers (2003) indicate that differentiation has positive impacts both on learners’ skill levels and their attitudes. Equitable teaching of computer science is considered a critical aim when readying learners to understand and provide their valuable contributions in the current age. For opening computer science education to a wider array of learners, the challenge of differentiation has to be resolved. This section describes engagement and evidence-based differentiation to guarantee equity within a computer science class at the secondary school level.
0. Methods of classroom differentiation
For serving mixed-ability secondary-school computer science learners, the following differentiation techniques may be adopted by educators.
i. Flexible-pace learning
Activities are traditionally done within a fixed period that is generally sufficient even for slow learners. A fast learner may be held up in this approach because of their classmates’ speed, while slower learners may feel rushed and cannot learn at the required speed (Promethean 2018). But a flexible way of completing time-based activities may allow fast learners to finish extension tasks while, according to others, a chance at finishing the exercise comfortably.
ii. Collaborative learning
Enabling group work forms an excellent means of encouraging increased participation of introverted learners in the class. Dividing learners into mixed-ability clusters can help high achievers better express their ideas while enabling lower ability learners to work together with, and learn from, classmates. Role allocation to individual group members further aids learners organize themselves based on their unique abilities and skills, providing less-skilled learners a chance to add value and increase their confidence.
iii. Progressive tasks
Educators can give different learners different tasks or activities depending on their skills. But such an approach may give rise to some challenges: it publicly highlights student skills with possibly-negative social consequences and demands a significantly greater amount of educator administrative work (Promethean 2018). Progressive worksheets that increase in complexity with learner progress maybe a better option. While enabling slower learners to complete exercises comfortably enables more talented learners to proceed swiftly to trickier questions.
iv. Digital resources
The employment of digital applications and interactive tools can facilitate different approaches to a given subject/ topic by mixed-ability classes. Sometimes, digital resource usage may highlight a particular passion or capability in low-performing learners while simultaneously allowing others to work better via non-conventional media and resources (Tomlinson 2014). Such a differentiation technique facilitates diverse tools, materials, and platforms for achieving identical learning outcomes and making learners confident in their digital capabilities.
v. Verbal support
At the heart of this differentiation, the technique is verbal dialogue. Educators may ascertain diverse learning abilities to adjust their verbal explanations and thus support multiple academic levels. The use of targeted questioning may give rise to diverse responses in students of diverse learning profiles (Promethean 2018). The above method depends on educator-student dialogue, and the former’s ability to engage the latter in simple and complex discussions based on their learning requirements.
vi. Variable outcomes
Instead of giving tasks with one correct answer or one single outcome, an interpretive approach accords learners the flexibility of achieving more personalized outcomes. Learners at different skill levels can reach outcomes aligned to their learning/ grasping level. Explicit formalization of rules and direction before giving tasks to complete may help avoid less-skilled learners performing too low.
vii. Ongoing assessment
Continuous feedback and assessments facilitate educators’ teaching techniques to students’ unique learning conditions and requirements. At present, assessment occurs all through the academic year as well as at year-end. ActivPanel and other front-of-class interactive displays may help educators carry out open or anonymous surveys, pop quizzes, and end-of-class evaluations (Promethean 2018). Thus, they may continuously follow students’ levels of learning, understanding, and interpretation. Such a flexible strategy helps serve every learning profile at the most valuable time, instead of retrospectively.
1. Differentiation and behavior management -differentiation does it help behavior management?
Differentiation forms a central pedagogical element since a classroom will probably comprise students at various physical, cognitive, and social developmental stages. Besides, socio-cultural, religious, and economic background and other factors can impact student response to familiar instruction styles. Learners at different academic levels (e.g., skilled, learning-disabled, students with behavioral difficulties, etc.) ought to be considered as well (Capel and Blair 2013). According to Tomlinson, C. (2000), differentiation isn’t any ‘recipe for teaching’; instead, it represents a technique of creating an effective learning atmosphere that considers numerous philosophical ideologies: learners differ concerning the quantity of new information/ skills they are prepared to learn, based on their circumstances and life experiences, as well as learning techniques; their differences concerning learning speed and extent of support needed in this process; and how effectively they connect study matter to their life experiences.
Differentiation ought to make the most individual learners’ capacity, appropriately harnessing it to help the student achieve his/ her maximum potential. It is a mixed approach towards a national curricular subject or standard with various difficulty levels (Tomlinson, C. 2000). Several strategies may be employed for attaining this, including scaffolding level; time is given; kinesthetic, visual, or auditory activities; learners working independently or in groups; and practical or information identification using a text. Furthermore, differentiation functions in the capacity of a behavior management method, facilitating eliminating the likelihood of learners exhibiting unacceptable behavior. Some challenges posed in non-differentiated classrooms are learners being unable to: comprehend classwork; completely grasp language utilized; and finish tasks before peers, thus being inadequately challenged.
Tomlinson (2001) brings up the topic of “on-task behavior”: how it should be grasped and appreciated within the classroom setting. By ensuring learners stay on task in differentiated classrooms, “on-task behavior” can be maintained that eliminates needless interruptions by bored, insufficiently-challenged, and “un-engaged” learners or those lacking the material to meet their level of understanding. Moreover, the author addresses the topic of stray movers and quick finishers: those who quickly complete tasks and like moving around the class, disturbing fellow students. The presence of alternate assignments that will ensure the engagement of such kinesthetic learners in class will reduce the likelihood of these students having directionless free time. By adopting diverse differentiation approaches, teachers can meet all students’ learning levels and cater to individual students’ distinctive learning styles, allowing them to devote valuable classroom time to being engaged in lessons instead of disturbing peers.
1. Methods for differentiating for behavior management
As in teaching academic behavior, the use of certain scaffolds in the early stages of expected behavior-learning enhances institution-wide expectation-teaching. Such scaffolds encompass setting-specific anticipated behavior posters that offer students visual prompts for behaviors expected in individual settings. Additionally, they present staff members with the opportunity to utilize scaffolding to review expectations and present examples of behaviors expected in specific settings. Poster usage might decline with time, which staff potentially only needing to use as reminders; ultimately, they may be hung on walls in individual settings as scaffolds for students.
The second means of offering “scaffolded” student support is utilizing institution-wide expectations in the form of labels for describing learner behavior. For instance, instead of merely praising a student with a remark such as “Good job,” he/ she may be told, “Good job refraining from running in the corridors and walking in a straight line to the gym.” By specifically connecting the positive remark with demonstrated behavior, learners understand what they have done right and display a greater likelihood of demonstrating similar behavior later on. Further, such feedback overtly relates the behavior in question to a particular institution-wide expectation.
For maximizing learning, staff members ought to make sure behavioral expectation teaching is linked to learners’ previous experiences, learning, and knowledge. One means of doing so is aiding learners in identifying similarities between home/ community expectations and school expectations for building upon the previous knowledge of learners. A second means of achieving this is incorporating actual student priorities or life experiences into such behavior expectation lessons (Yong and Cheney 2013), which offers learners a chance to identify home/ community behavioral expectations and discussing differences and similarities with educators. In instances where there are behavior expectation-related differences, staff members teach students those differences, together with the reason for the institution-wide expectation.
Superior-quality teaching involves careful reviewing and practicing of major capabilities and concepts. Within PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), careful practicing and reviewing of institution-wide expectations within all settings are required as well, and such “booster sessions” as they have been named ought to occur all through the course of the academic year. They are generally conducted at predictable times marked by the more frequent occurrence of behavioral errors (for instance, following the summer vacation). Additionally, they might be scheduled in locations and times where a distinct need is suggested by discipline referral information. For instance, if school leaders report growing problem behaviors in the 5th-grade recess, there will be a booster session for this grade level specific, scheduled in the playground (Rodriguez et al. 2016). Such booster sessions will usually be administered in creative formats like songs, videos, review games (jeopardy, bingo, etc.), and story starters.
1. Difficulties and Triumphs in Differentiation for behavior management
After deciding upon coming up with a differentiated classroom curriculum, some educators may find that they encounter certain challenges. Like in the case of several other novel classroom implementations, certain educators may display reluctance when it comes to applying a different instructional technique. Moreover, less-experienced educators might find themselves overwhelmed. Nevertheless, they may be encouraged to begin with small differentiation increments, in addition to employing a slower teaching speed (Tomlinson 2001). Furthermore, the nature of differentiated classrooms generally implies considerable noise and movement. In large classes, it might be hard to stay up-to-date on individual students’ academic progress besides keeping track of them all (Delisle 2015). The aim of mixed-capability differentiated classes is: allowing every student to learn at his/ her comfortable speed by employing his/ her unique style of learning, rather than ensuring all students finish tasks together, at identical speeds (Moore 2009). Planning and administering tasks for “quick finishers” in addition to maintaining a “home base” to get back to will help ensure minimal noise levels and disruptive behaviors (Tomlinson 2001).
Moreover, a challenge that may crop up for educators when adopting differentiated curricula is the many time limitations with class time, classroom resources, and time devoted to developing lesson plans for differentiated classes. The ideal practice for educators unfamiliar with differentiation is: commencing gradually and on a small scale with low preparation-level lessons and ultimately progressing to high preparation differentiation ones. Plainly articulating to learners what they are expected to do and guiding them on moving about the schoolroom, submitting completed tasks, and minimalizing stray movement establishes the basis for collaborative, positive differentiated classrooms. The challenges of adopting a novel, the differentiated curriculum will typically be overshadowed by the tremendous benefits gleaned from cultivating this sort of inclusive, unique classroom (Tomlinson 2001).
Learners in differentiated classrooms find themselves exposed to customized curricula adapted to their unique learning style, offering them highly individualized instruction, which is usually only provided to those assigned IEPs (Individualized Education Plans). In Heacox’s (2002) words, the “more ways you can engage students in learning -the better their ability to learn” (p.7). Meeting students’ specific learning requirements will help ensure they are more likely to succeed in academics, irrespective of whether they are mainstream students or are learning-disabled (Tomlinson 2015). With the help of differentiated curricula, several learners will find themselves better engaged in lessons and will consequently be able to better connect with lessons. They will be more interested and eventually get more from their lessons, ensuring increased classroom success (Heacox 2002).
1. Conclusion
The adoption of differentiated, structured instruction in the classroom, which stimulates the mind of every mixed ability learner within the classroom, can aid in ensuring minimal behavioral problems in class (Tomlinson 2015). Learners who aren’t adequately challenged might end up getting disinterested and, consequently, start behavior disruptions such as going off-task, engaging in disruptive talk, and being incapable of self-directing their free time. Sometimes, the opposite problem might emerge: a learner might be incapable of understanding concepts, which may result in inadequate motivation, which may, in turn, result in the learner becoming off-task (Sasson, 2010).
Struggling learners aren’t confident that they can grasp concepts and typically become disinterested and disengaged in the classroom. Educators find that initially, their classroom experiences several kinds of increased behavioral issues because several pupils go off-task for various reasons. Numerous learners will either lack sufficient interest in lessons, may not be experiencing teaching at their level of understanding, may not be sufficiently challenged in the classroom, or may experience disinterest because they cannot grasp concepts. But the appropriate differentiation approach (that is, either differentiation instruction or differentiated curriculum) can help ensure achievement of behavior management within the classroom and the overall school environment.


References
Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M.B. and Rush, C., 2003. Increasing Reading Achievement of Primary and Middle School Students through Differentiated Instruction.
Benjamin, A. (2002). Differentiated instruction: a guide for middle and high school teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Capel, S. and Blair, R., 2013. Why do physical education teachers adopt a particular way of teaching. Debates in physical education, pp.120-139.
Delisle, J.R., 2015. Differentiation doesn’t work. Education Week, 34(15), pp.28-36.
Gregory, G.H. and Chapman, C., 2012. Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn?t Fit All. Corwin Press.
Gustiani, S., 2019. Challenges and Strategies in Teaching English to Heterogeneous Classes: A Case Study. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 6(2), pp.301-310.
Heacox, D. 2002. Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: how to reach and teach all learners. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Hess, K., 2006. Exploring cognitive demand in instruction and assessment. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Dover NH. Retrieved from http://qualityassessment.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45823115/DOK_ApplyingWebb_KH08.pdf.
Kaur, M., 2017. To Recognise, Realise and Differentiate the Learning Needs of Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 25(2).
Lawrence-Brown, D., 2004. Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American secondary education, pp.34-62.
Lindner, K.T. and Schwab, S., 2020. Differentiation and individualization in inclusive education: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, pp.1-21.
McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., and Stack-Cutler, H., 2008. Differentiated instruction provincial research review. Edmonton: Alberta Initiative for School Improvement.
Moore, K.D., 2009. Effective instructional strategies: from theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Promethean, 2018. 7 methods of classroom differentiation. ResourcEd. Retrieved from https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/differentiation-classroom-7-methods-differentiation/
Rodriguez, B.J., Loman, S.L. and Borgmeier, C., 2016. Tier 2 interventions in positive behavior support: A survey of school implementation. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(2), pp.94-105.
Sasson, D. 2010, January 2. Tricks of the Trade For Dealing With Discipline Problems of Mixed Ability Classes. EzineArticles. Retrieved from https://ezinearticles.com/?Tricks-of-the-Trade-For-Dealing-With-Discipline-Problems-of-Mixed-Ability-Classes&id=3510009
Shah, N., Lewis, C. and Caires, R., 2014. “Analyzing Equity in Collaborative Learning Situations: A Comparative Case Study in Elementary Computer Science.” In Joseph L. Polman, Eleni A. Kyza, D. Kevin O’Neill, Iris Tabak, William R. Penuel, A. Susan Jurow, Kevin O’Connor, Tiffany Lee, and Laura D’Amico (Eds.). Learning and Becoming in Practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014. Volume 1. Colorado, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp. 495-502.
Sharp, K., Jarvis, J.M. and McMillan, J.M., 2020. Leadership for differentiated instruction: teachers’ engagement with on-site professional learning at an Australian secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(8), pp.901-920.
Suprayogi, M.N., Valcke, M. and Godwin, R., 2017. Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, pp.291-301.
TechSmart, Inc., 2018, November 15. Achieving a Differentiated Computer Science Classroom: An Approach to Promote Equity. Retrieved from https://www.techsmart.codes/achieving-a-differentiated-computer-science-classroom-an-approach-to-promote-equity/
Tomlinson, C. 2001. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A., 2000. Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades. ERIC Digest.
Tomlinson, C.A., 2014. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd.
Tomlinson, C.A., 2015. Differentiation does, in fact, work. Education Week, 27.
Yong, M. and Cheney, D.A., 2013. Essential features of tier 2 social-behavioral interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 50(8), pp.844-861.