The sample size was very small, consisting of a total of six participants. Results of this study are applicable only to Gauteng Province, where the GPLMS support system has been implemented and monitored at full-service schools. Furthermore, this study is restricted to senior phase subject educators, specifically the Grade 7 Mathematics and English First Additional Language educators and how they implement differentiated instruction. The role of the Learning Support Educators (LSEs) with regard to supporting the implementation of differentiated instruction at full-service schools is not included in this study. Another limitation is that the scope of this study did not address the part played by the Institution- Level Support Team (ILST), and the District-based Support Team (DBST), with regard to implementing differentiated instruction at full-service schools. Finally, the duration of the study was short-term, which therefore did not allow for a follow-up study in 2016, on whether differentiated instruction had an impact on how the Grade 7 learners at both full- service schools performed on the ANA exams.
72 6.3 Recommendations
According to the Guidelines for Full-service/Inclusion Schools (DBE 2010a, p. 22) one of the roles of the Institutional-Level Support Team (ILST) is to guide “educators to develop and implement Individual Support Plans and effective curriculum differentiation.” Furthermore, the ILST also has to establish teams specifically involved in the planning for individual support for learners. As stated in the above guidelines (DBE, 2010, p. 21) the Learning Support Educators (LSEs) are supposed to “assist in co-ordinating the work of the institutional-level support team” as well as to provide support with regard to the professional development of educators. The following proposal outlines how both the ILSTs and LSEs at full-service schools could become involved at three levels, in order to further facilitate the implementation of differentiated instruction:
At a fundamental, foundational level, it is recommended that the LSEs and members of the ILST collaborate in order to provide training on current evidence-based teaching practices, as well as direct instruction strategies. This is necessary, in order for differentiated instruction to effectively reach and provide greater support for learners at full-service schools who experience barriers to learning, for example, visually-impaired learners, learners who experience specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia and learners who are hearing impaired. This need is confirmed by the conclusion reached by de Clercq (2014, p. 326), where she states that educators in poorly performing schools in Gauteng “require expert support to effectively teach their ‘slow’ learners from poor socio-economic and multilingual backgrounds as well as those with learning barriers.” Enlisting support from colleagues who have expertise in dealing with learning difficulties is encouraged by Florian and Linklater (2010, p. 371), when they assert that “… the expertise of colleagues who specialize in learning difficulties, and those from related disciplines can be used to support teaching and learning in the mainstream classroom.”
At a more advanced level, it is recommended that members of the ILST and LSEs at full- service schools undergo training by experts specifically in differentiated instruction and multi-level teaching. This training should then be implemented and monitored by the ILST. Members of the ILST should consult regularly with the experts in differentiated instruction, in order to receive ongoing support, guidance and updated information based on recent research on differentiated instruction. The goal would be for the ILST, the LSEs and the educators at full-service schools to continue to derive the benefit from training in multi-level teaching and differentiated instruction in the long term. In other words, with ongoing support and continuous reflection, Educators at full-service schools should themselves become experts at differentiated instruction. Dr. Diane Heacox (2009, pp. 159-164) outlines eight steps, which the members of the ILST and LSEs can implement, for a “School-Based Action Plan For Differentiation.” Furthermore, the “Walkthrough Indicators of Differentiation in Action” (Heacox, 2009, p. 166), followed by post-conferences with the educators, could be useful to encourage reflection on and further development in skills relating to differentiated instruction. Professional growth in differentiated instruction will be ongoing and will also be an individualised process, as each educator at a full-service school will be “in a particular and
73 personal stage of her or his professional development in differentiation” (Heacox, 2009, p. 165). This must be borne in mind when planning for continued professional development. At the most advanced level, as they engage in project-based learning, learners will employ higher-order thinking skills as related in Bloom’s Taxonomy, including ‘application, analysis and synthesis’, as well as ‘evaluation’. In order to effectively engage in differentiated instruction at this level requires expertise in and a deep level of understanding in the subject area being taught. In concurrence with the recommendations made by Walton et al. (2014), Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) should be established at full-service schools. As members of the PLC, the LSEs and other members of staff involved with providing academic support should collaborate with educators who have subject knowledge expertise. Collaboration within the context of such communities would provide educators at a full- service school the opportunity to discuss challenges, share success stories, learn from each other and broaden their subject area knowledge. Within the context of PLCs, the expertise of educators with regard to differentiated instruction will continue to grow. In fact, PLCs would serve as a suitable context for applying the tips suggested by Heacox (2009, p. 147) “For Keeping Differentiation Alive In Your School.” PLCs can furthermore offer a supportive framework to promote authentic differentiation practices and to encourage activities that facilitate differentiated instruction becoming a habit. Heacox (2009, pp. 168-169), outlines twelve criteria for authentic differentiation and specifies what the habits of differentiation are.