In the February 2012 issue of Education Leadership, UVA professor Daniel Willingham and James Madison University professor David Daniel advise schools to create learning environments “geared to common learning characteristics.” They conclude,
But when it comes to applying research to the classroom, it seems inadvisable to categorize students into more and more specialized groups on the basis of peripheral differences when education and cognitive sciences have made significant progress in describing the core competencies all students share. Teachers can make great strides in improving student achievement by leveraging this body of research and teaching to commonalities, not differences.
Willingham and Daniel argue that organizing instruction around common cognitive characteristics (factual knowledge, practice, and feedback from a knowledgeable source) is essential, but they note that these categories do not require teachers to employ specific strategies or instructional methods. Even so, they find that certain methods improve the process of teaching factual knowledge to students. These methods include distributing study time effectively, practice recalling facts to aid memorization, and cycling between concrete and abstract concepts.
Why does any of this matter? Many “experts” (particularly those in schools of education, state education agencies, and central [school district] offices) believe that teachers should be able to “differentiate” instruction, that is, tailor instruction to students of various levels of mastery and ability in the same classroom. Obviously, this idea discourages schools from organizing students according to common cognitive characteristics. More importantly, the burden falls on the teachers who are required to perform instructional gymnastics for every class that they teach. Willingham and Daniel offer a better way – for teachers and students alike.
