Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs Volume 4 Number 2 2004 doi: 10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00023.

x
Title Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

91 97

Enhancing students learning through differentiated approaches to teaching and learning: a Maltese perspective
Audrey Fenech Adami
University of Birmingham

Key words: Enhancing students learning, School Development Plan, planning for differentiation.

Within the context of Malta, differentiated teaching pervades the National Minimum Curriculum (NMC) published in 1999, in 11 of 15 principles that the NMC supports. The study seeks to explore how well prepared and equipped the teachers are with the necessary skills to full a differentiated teaching approach. The aim of this research study was to explore the current pedagogical procedures teachers are adopting in order to ensure curriculum access to all students, and to what extent these actually reect differentiated instructional strategies. Data was collected through questionnaires. All teachers in the school were asked to participate and the response rate was high. The results are therefore representative of this particular school but cannot be generalised to the whole teaching population. It was found that many teachers were taking an individualised role to teaching, and in the future the school will need to adopt policy decisions and a School Development Plan (SDP) which feature differentiation. Such an approach will be needed in order to encourage the teachers to utilise strategies that reect a differentiated approach to teaching within a whole school context. In-service training will be required to enable teachers to be made aware of the varying ways of responding to the needs of all students through differentiated teaching approaches in order to provide paths to learning so that the classroom becomes a good t for varied learners.

stimulating, appropriate and challenging work for all students, together with appropriate assessment procedures of the students achievement (Barthrope & Visser, 1991; Moore, 1996). This paper presents part of the ndings of a research study carried out in an independent mainstream school in Malta. The study is based on the premise that differentiation is good practice for all students as it allows students from all backgrounds and with all abilities to demonstrate what they know, understand and are capable of doing. Visser (1993) emphasises the importance of teachers understanding the signicance of differentiation since research conrms that differentiation allows all students to achieve at their maximum ability (Barthrope & Visser, 1991; Visser, 1993; Dickinson & Wright, 1993). This objective can be managed by meeting the students educational needs through an accessible curriculum and by choosing the appropriate teaching methods to match each individual students learning strategies? Because differentiation improves students learning experience, Visser (1993) maintains that differentiation also enhances job satisfaction among teachers, a valid premise as one of the reasons for teaching given by teachers is to see students learn and progress. Context of the study In the light of the new Maltese National Minimum Curriculum (NMC, 1999) document which recognises the importance of equity and embraces full inclusion, the study sought to nd out how much teachers are prepared and equipped with the necessary skills to full a differentiated teaching approach. Although the school being studied believes in a differentiated approach to teaching and learning, the teachers appear to be encountering difculties in implementing it. Interviews carried out in a previous study, (Fenech Adami, 2001) revealed that the teachers are generally in favour of fullling the school authorities belief on differentiated teaching, but are still uncertain as to how to apply such a teaching approach. One teachers comment represents the view of the majority of the teachers at the school. She said:
91

Introduction Each school is endowed with a vast repertoire of skills, experiences and needs. The diversity, allied with the individual and social differences evident in the student population, enables and requires a pedagogy based on respect for and the celebration of difference. (Maltese National Minimum Curriculum, 1999, p. 30) Differentiation is based on recognising the value and the worth that exist in each individual. It is concerned with the delivery of a curriculum that ensures relevant,
NASEN 2004

Table 1: The advantages and disadvantages of the research instruments

Use of interviews Use of observation Advmantages Secures a response and within a set time. The interviewer can determine whether questions have been understood and clarify matters. Information gathered tends to be somewhat less supercial than questionnaire data. Probing is possible, thus enhancing quality data. Disadvantages Costly and time consuming. Interviewer bias. Lack of anonymity. Can be viewed as threatening. Subjective bias of researcher. Inability to probe. Information obtained can be supercial. Individuals may not be able to complete the questionnaire. Smaller sample size. Response effect. (Adapted from: Bell, 1999; Cohen & Manion, 1994; Coolican, 1992) Directness to the natural environment. Spread out over a period of time allowing researcher to develop a relationship built on trust. Allows time to think about, search for and recall information/data. Rapid way of gathering information. Allows larger sample. Allows anonymity. Use of questionnaires

I dont think that the school can actually do a policy and then expect us to do the work without guiding us on how to do differentiation. This reects what Housden (1993) cited in Mittler (1993), writes when he states that little attention has been given to the skilled needs of teachers who are expected to implement these changes. Bearne (1996) conrms, I think that you have to differentiate with (my emphasis) the teachers too (p. 15). Drawing on the above, this research study sought to explore how the teachers are responding in practice to the perceived challenges of a differentiated aspect to teaching. The study explored the pedagogical procedures that the teachers are adopting and to what extent these actually reect differentiated teaching and learning approach. Methodology This pedagogic research study was of an exploratory descriptive nature. The study aimed at capturing what Robson (1993) denes as a snap shot of what was happening at the school being studied on differentiated teaching/learning approaches. The goal was to gather preliminary data, to be able to explore the extent to which classroom practice in the various subjects of the curriculum was consistent with that which is promoted as effective literature on differentiated instructional strategies. Indeed, it was hoped that the analysis of the results of the research study would provide evidence that would contribute towards the development of in-service courses, which would assist teachers to become more focused on differentiated teaching approaches. The main purpose of these courses would be to encourage teachers to improve classroom practice, through critical reection and evaluation of the current situation and thus ensure that teachers are not only willing but are also able to engage in a differentiated teaching approach.
92

The research instrument Despite some disadvantages, the use of questionnaires for data collection in this study was thought to be the most appropriate method for a number of reasons. The apparent advantages and disadvantages of questionnaires, interviews and observations that were taken into consideration when searching for the most appropriate method, are summarised in Table 1. Although various advantages are bound to interviews and observations as noted in Table 1, questionnaires seemed to be the most suitable method for data collection in this research study. In the context of the limited resources available to carry out this research study (as part of parttime postgraduate distance-learning programme), questionnaires appeared to be less time consuming, reduced subjective bias and secured anonymous participation. Because interviews and observations are very time consuming both in carrying them out and in their analyses (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Bell, 1999) it would have been difcult for the sample to include all the teachers at the school being studied. Thus the sample size would have to be reduced and problems of representativeness and generalisabilty would have arisen. With the use of questionnaires on the other hand all the teachers were included in the study (n = 51). The questionnaire was piloted amongst a small sample of teachers, (n = 5), who did not belong to the target population being studied in the main data collection. The open-ended and close-ended questions are represented in Figures 1, 2 and Table 2. The response rate was 90.2%. The ndings of this study may therefore be used to develop the work of the school towards a differentiated teaching approach. Nonetheless, they may not be generalised for the entire teacher population in the country, or teacher population in any other schools.
NASEN 2004

Figure 1: Teaching strategies teaching experience

used

according

to Table 2: Responses of teaching approaches used when delivering a topic to a mixed-ability class
Total Differentiation by content Differentiated work Set objectives Differentiation by level and pace Graded tasks Differentiation by interest Discovery learning Student centred approach Creative activity Differentiation by sequence Differentiation by access and teaching style Visual aids Hands on activity Role play Recapitulation Games Adapted questions Audio presentations 5 2 1 2 2 1 0 13 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 2 0 2 2 4 2 1 1 15 5 1 1 10 4 2 4 4 2 0 28 9 7 7 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 7 4 0 4 4 9 4 2 2 33 10 2 2 %

Figure 2: Rating of how students learn most effectively

Participation in the study was voluntary and informed consent was sought from the participants. Approval to carry out the study was granted by the school authorities. The study was carried out as part of a postgraduate programme under the supervision of an academic supervisor. Results and discussion The results presented in Figure 1 show that the most favoured teaching strategy is whole class teaching. In the main a combination of teaching techniques has been used among the various groupings. It is interesting to note that the teachers within the 20+ bracket do not use one-to-one teaching techniques. The other teaching technique that was mentioned in the comment section of the questionnaire was pair work. McNamara & Moreton (1998) have stressed on the importance of using peer tutoring as a technique in class. They call this differentiation by paired task. More able students are encouraged to act as tutors to the less able students. Both students benet from this technique. Such a strategy can help the student who acts as a tutor to clarify his or her understanding whilst helping the less able student; thus he or she would be consolidating his or her own learning. Being
NASEN 2004

Examples Adapt written class work Asking weaker students to read text beforehand Typed notes Oral activities Modelling Enlarged print Echo reading Positive reinforcement Writing, speaking, listening and reading Students examples Class correction Problem solving Using d boards Use of charts Writing skills Praising weak students Reading Limit note taking Different resources Differentiation by response Differentiated homework Feedback Feedback from low ability students Differentiation by sequence Differentiation by structure and teacher time Step by step instruction Guided and demonstrative approach 11 attention 11 explanation 11 correction Help students when writing Differentiation by group work Group work Class discussion Adopting the buddy system Group explanation

93

helpful also increases self-esteem (McNamara & Moreton, 1998). Figure 2 relates to providing information on the ways that the teachers believe that students learn best. The answers to this question show that the teachers ranked their responses in the following order of preference: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. pay attention to the teacher work actively on task work cooperatively in groups discuss between themselves have educated parents who follow up their work at home have technological resources available in class

different ways of working. In an attempt to identify the strategies used to differentiate lessons the responses have been grouped under categories suggested by Lewis (1992): content; interests; pace; level; access; response; sequence; structure; teacher time; teaching style and grouping. Differentiation by content This type of differentiation means that teachers choose particular contents for specic students within the same subject matter according to their learning needs (Lewis, 1992; Jakupcak, 1998). Ten per cent of the teachers in the study have mentioned differentiated work but the phrase is broad and has many meanings and they do not give details of what they mean. Various authors have explained the important procedures that should be adopted by teachers when identifying whether the content of a topic should be differentiated (Barthrope & Visser, 1991; Byers & Rose, 1996; McNamara & Moreton, 1998; Riley, 2000; Roberts & Roberts, 2001). During this stage the teacher should stratify learning into three objectives, namely, what everyone should learn, what some will learn and what others might learn (Barthrope & Visser, 1991; McNamara & Moreton, 1998; Moore, 1992; Spillman, 1991). Norwich (1996) argues that because all students fall into one of the above categories, teachers are obliged to provide effective teaching and learning opportunities by prioritising on the students learning needs. This is an important step as it helps teachers focus on the demands of a particular task and on the intended outcome of the learning activity. Such aims could allow teachers to assess whether there are any barriers that will impede on the participation of any students or divert the students efforts into activities that do not form part of the learning intention. Differentiation by level and pace This type of differentiation occurs when students work at similar activities but at varying levels of difculty and different speeds. Only two teachers mentioned having graded tasks set for students, but no respondents mentioned varying the pace for students. Differentiation by level is necessary in order for students to participate as fully as possible in the classroom (Lewis, 1992) and is one of the most difcult tasks for teachers. Lewis (1992), Norwich (1996) and Spillman (1991) have all suggested having extension work available for students who are working at varying speeds. Extension activities do not necessarily have to be written work: for example, students who have nished their work could meet in groups to discuss their learning experience in that particular topic. Such a strategy would allow more time for students who are slower to nish off their work whilst allowing the students working in groups to clarify their thoughts, listen to other students and consequently build on to their existing knowledge. Care would need to be taken, however, to ensure that group consultation does not become an elitist activity. Differentiation by interest and sequence This type of differentiation ensures that activities are relevant to the students own experiences and sources of
NASEN 2004

It is clear from these results that teachers still believe that they are the most important contributors to the learning experience. Rief (1993) states that only 15% of children tend to be strong auditory learners. This is a very important implication as students will only concentrate on a limited amount of teacher talk. Numerous studies have shown that cooperative learning is more successful than whole-class methods of teaching (Babbage, Byers & Redding, 1999; Dunne & Bennett, 1994; Fawthrop, 1996; Hopkins & Harris, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1990). Rief (1993) emphasises that students learn and retain information from: 10% of what they read; 26% of what they hear; 30% of what they see; 50% of what they see and hear; 70% of what they say; and 90% of what they say and do.

The clear implications of the above are that it is necessary to use a combination of techniques. Riefs last point illustrates that students need hands-on experience to learn and they also need the opportunity to verbalise their understanding frequently during the day. An understanding of students learning styles is of crucial importance. Hamblin (1981) cited in Babbage et al. (1999) states that: To try to impose a learning style is the pedagogic equivalent of imposing a false self upon someone (p. 31). Research evidence, points out to the need for teachers to take into account a range of learning styles to suit all students (Babbage et al., 1999; Banner & Rayner, 1997; Ebeiling, 2001; Riding, 2002; Riding & Read, 1996; Weston, 1992). Table 2 presents the teaching methods used by teachers during the delivery of a lesson. Differentiation of classroom methods in theory is limitless, as every learner and teacher has unique learning needs and experiences (Lewis, 1992). The results presented in Table 2 support this statement as the respondents mentioned many
94

motivation (Lewis, 1992; Weston, 1992). In the survey no teacher mentioned these approaches to teaching. Four per cent of the teachers mentioned using a student-centred approach, which encompasses various techniques, one of them being utilising the students interests to motivate their learning experience. Differentiation of access This type of differentiation calls for different ways of presenting materials for learning (Lewis, 1992). The Maltese NMC (1999) states that: different students learn differently what is being taught. Teachers should be aware of these differences and their pedagogical implications so that they can engage in a more effective pedagogical approach based on the provision of different learning experiences (National Minimum Curriculum, p. 31). The above quotation suggests that even though the learning objectives are the same, because of students differences the stimuli, tasks, teaching approach and the methods of recording progress provided by the teacher should vary. It is worth noting that what differentiation is mainly concerned with is equality of opportunity for all students and because all students are different, equality cannot be achieved if all students are treated in the same manner (Hart, 1996). It is interesting that the respondents in this research study mostly utilise this type of differentiated approach. Ausubel (1968) cited in Riding (2002) has also argued that for meaningful learning to occur, the new material has to be presented in terms of what is already known. Ten per cent of the teachers in the study have specically mentioned this strategy. Ausubel argues that learning in this way is better retained as it can be more efciently applied or transferred to new situations and problems. Differentiation of access encompasses both modifying the mode of presentation as well as adapting the materials used within the presentation (Lewis, 1992; Riding, 2002). Only 4% (n = 2) of the total respondents have mentioned this type of adaptation. Lewis (1992) states that teachers could also alter the language used when instructing students. This type of strategy was specically mentioned by only 2% of the respondents. Differentiation by response This type of differentiation acknowledges, respects and values the various ways that students may respond to an activity (Lewis, 1992; Price, Schwabacher & Chittenden, 1995; McNamara & Moreton, 1998; McNamara, Rose & ONeil, 1996; Nevin, 1998). Only 7% of the respondents have mentioned the use of allowing students to show their learning in various ways. This shows that the most preferred mode of receiving feedback was still predominately through written work and which also reects the ndings of a study carried out by Alexander (1991) cited in Lewis (1992), who found that there is little evidence of differentiated modes of response within a mainstream class.
NASEN 2004

Differentiation of structure This type of differentiation can be interpreted as teachers utilising a curriculum-based assessment in order to set individualised objectives within the same curriculum (Spillman, 1991). No teachers mentioned this technique. Differentiation of teacher time Differentiation of teacher time happens when teachers assist students individually. Although only 4% of teachers have mentioned the use of one-to-one teaching, it is important to keep in mind that the ability of a teacher to provide such a strategy depends on the nature of the learning needs of the whole class. Dickinson & Wright (1993) understand that teachers do not always nd the time to work with students on their own. Spillman (1991) suggests the use of in-class support from other adults when specic guided tutoring is needed. Dickinson & Wright (1993) go a step further and state that support need not necessarily entail extra adults, but could also include cooperative teaching, small-group tutoring and technology. The authors also suggest valuable considerations when utilising one-to-one support, stating that it is important to consider student personality when setting up such support, as some students may feel intimidated by the adult. Another consideration is that adult support could hinder the ow of ideas when students are working in groups and inhibit the ability of the student to take control. Differentiation by group work Thirty-three per cent of teachers stated that they use group work in their classrooms. Many researchers stress the benets gained by students working in groups (Babbage, Byers & Redding, 1999; Dunne & Bennett, 1994; Fawthrop, 1996; Hopkins & Harris, 2000) What emerges from this body of research is the fact that when group work is practised properly, and therefore students are working collaboratively, they learn how to nurture responsibility not only for their work but also for the group thus developing positive interdependence (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993). Cooperative group work assists in developing both social and intellectual skills as well as helping practising the skills of negotiation, organisation and communication. Summary and conclusions This research study sought to explore how teachers were responding in practice to the perceived challenges of a differentiated aspect to teaching. The ndings of this research study have allowed me to propose recommendations for the organisation of in-service courses and thus ensure that the teachers are not only willing to consider, but also engage in a differentiated teaching/learning approach. The general picture that emerged from the ndings was that while some teachers are truly differentiating, others must be made aware of the varying ways of responding to the needs of all students. In-service courses will therefore allow all staff to understand the need to utilise a differentiated approach to teaching, because all learners are different and therefore all teaching needs to be differentiated. Once the teachers realise the importance of embracing exible learning and teaching techniques through in-service courses,
95

the next step would be to plan and produce schemes of work that address the needs of a mixture of ability present in any group of students. This could be done through departmental planning which would specically feature differentiated teaching. During the departmental meetings, teachers could prepare a checklist that highlights the main methods suggested by Lewis (1992). The teachers would then spend time observing each other in the classroom, and would then meet in their departments to evaluate the procedures and to discuss the lesson observed. Time should be spent in offering suggestions to each other on what worked or did not work and on how the lesson could be improved. Such collaborative working structures would assist in developing a collegial approach to teaching, based on mutual trust, empowerment and commitment. Members of the senior management team have a crucial role to play in creating the necessary support structures, appropriate time frames and guidance by, for example, adopting the role of a learning consultant in order for teachers to implement the necessary changes through collaborative practice (see Dyson, 1994 and Putnam, 1998). Such an approach calls for the development of a wholeschool policy and a carefully planned School Development Plan (SDP) which features differentiation. Research clearly indicates that a specic SDP greatly facilitates the implementation of curriculum approaches such as differentiation (Bezzina, 1999; Hart, 1996; Maltese NMC, 1999; Moore, 1992; Rogers, 1994). These authors, among others, remind us that a SDP calls for a coordinated effort from staff and a climate which fosters a belief in each others worth. It also depends upon a willingness to work together to achieve set goals. As a result everyone feels ownership. Bezzina (1999) has proposed a model for SDP, which assists members to focus on the agreed aims and goals, which give direction to the work. A SDP addresses at least ve central questions, which involve ve processes. These are:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Vision: Where do we want to get? Audit: Where are we now? Priorities: Where shall we start? Plans: How shall we get there? Review/Monitor: How well are things going?

I support this model because it allows members to focus on what has been achieved so far and it enables teachers to make decisions about what and how to improve. This model can be used at various levels in developing a differentiated teaching approach, namely, at senior management, departmental, classroom and student level. Among the advantages of such team planning are that it helps teachers share the load in the build-up of resources. It is also a way of sharing problems faced in class, such as challenging behaviour, thus assisting teachers in relieving stressful situations in an effective way (McNamara & Moreton, 1998). It also creates the opportunity for teachers to discuss the concepts that are expected to be acquired by students and to ensure that there is a common conceptual base among teachers.

Views expressed by the contributors to this journal are their own and do not necessarily reect the policies and opinions either of the authorities by whom they are employed or of NASEN.

Address for correspondence Dr Audrey Fenech Adami, 4 Juniper Lane, St Julians Street, Birkirkara, Malta. Email: aacaruana@hotmail.com

References Babbage, R., Byers, R. & Redding, H. (1999) Approaches to Teaching and Learning Including Pupils with Learning Difculties. London: David Fulton. Banner, G. & Rayner, S. (1997) Teaching in style: Are you making a difference? Support for Learning, 12 (1), pp.1518. Barthorpe, T. & Visser, J. (1991) Differentiation: Your Responsibility. Tamworth: NASEN. Bearne, E. (1996) Differentiation and Diversity in the Primary School. London: Routledge. Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project. (3rd edn). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bezzina, C. (1999) Opening Doors to School Improvement: An Introductory Handbook. Malta: Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) Publications. Byers, R. & Rose, R. (1996) Planning the Curriculum for Pupils with Special Educational Needs: A Practical Guide. London: David Fulton.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Coolican, H. (1992) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Dickinson, C. & Wright, J. (1993) Differentiation: A Practical Handbook of Cassroom Sttrategies. Crown: National Clearing House on Education and Training for People with Disabilities (NCET). Dunne, E. & Bennett, N. (1994) Managing groups. In Bob Moon & Ann Shelton Mayes (eds) Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools, pp. 16672. London: Routledge. Dyson, A. (1994) Towards a collaborative, learning model for responding to student diversity. Support for Learning, 9 (2), pp. 539. Ebeiling, D. G. (2001) Teaching to all learning styles. The Education Digest, www.eddigest.com, pp. 415. Fawthrop, J. (1996) Differentiation through small group learning. In Susan Hart (ed.) Differentiation and the

96

NASEN 2004

Secondary Curriculum: Debates and Dilemmas, pp. 6478. London: Routledge. Fenech Adami, A. (2001) Exploring the ideas of school staff in developing a policy of special educational needs. Project for course module 1105473. Special Studies in Special Education and Educational Psychology. The University of Birmingham. School of Education. Hart, S. (1996) Differentiation and the Secondary Curriculum: Debates and Dilemmas. London: Routledge. Hopkins, D. & Harris, A. (2000) Creating the Conditions for Teaching and Learning: A Handbook for Staff Development Activities. London: David Fulton. Jakupcak, A. J. (1998) School programs for successful inclusion of all students. In JoAnne W. Putman (ed.) Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom: Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1989) Building acceptance of differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped students: the effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, pp. 25767. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. J. (1993) Circles of Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Lewis, A. (1992) From planning to practice. British Journal of Special Education, 19 (1), pp. 247. McNamara, S. & Moreton, G. (1998) Understanding Differentiation: A Teachers Guide. London: David Fulton. Mittler, P. (1993) Teacher Education for Special Educational Needs. NASEN. Moore, J. (1992) Good planning is the key. British Journal of Special Education, 19 (1), pp. 1619. Moore, J. (1996) Across the primary-secondary divide. In S. Hart (ed.) Differentiation and the Secondary Curriculum, pp. 308. London: Routledge. National Minimum Curriculum (1999) Creating the Future Together. Malta: Ministry of Education. Nevin, A. (1998) Curricular and instructional adaptations for including students with disabilities in co-operative groups. In J. W. Putnam (ed.) Celebrating Diversity in

the Classroom: Co-operative Learning Strategies for Inclusion, pp. 4965. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Norwich, B. (1996) Special needs education for all: connective specialisation and ideology impurity. British Journal of Special Education, 23 (3), pp. 1003. Price, J., Schwabacher, S. & Chittenden, E. (1993) The Multiple Forms of Evidence Study. New York: National Centre for Restructuring Education Schools and Teaching (NCREST). Putnam, J. W. (ed.) (1998) Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Cooperative Learning Strategies for Inclusion. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Riding, R. (2002) School Learning and Cognitive Style. London: David Fulton. Riding, R. and Read, G. (1996) Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences. Educational Psychology, 16 (1), pp. 81105. Rief, S. (1993) How to Reach and Teach ADD/ADHD Children. New York: The Centre for Applied Research in Education. Roberts, J. L. & Roberts, R. A. (2001) Writing units that remove the learning ceiling. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (eds) Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted. Waco, TX: Prunfrock Press. Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practioner-Researcher. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Rogers, R. (ed.) (1994) How to Write a School Development Plan. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Rose, R., McNamara, S. & ONeil, J. (1996) Promoting the Greater Involvement of pupils with special needs in the management of their own assessment and learning processes. British Journal of Special Education, 23 (4), pp. 16671. Slavin, R. E. (1990) Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practise. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Spillman, J. (1991) Decoding differentiation. Special Children, 44, pp. 710. Visser, J. (1993) Differentiation: Making it Work. Tamworth: NASEN. Weston, P. (1992) A decade for differentiation? British Journal of Special Education, 19 (1), pp. 69.

NASEN 2004

97