Extra credit solves differentiated instruction dilemma

Imagine your right hand is tied to a high-achieving student and your left hand is tied to a student who struggles in the class. The expert student wants to pull you forward, while the other wants to pull you back. Which way should you go?

Many teachers have turned to differentiated instruction as the answer. Differentiated instruction effectively divides course material into two “levels” of difficulty: one set for the average or struggling student and one for high-achieving students. The question that plagues teachers who employ this method is how to maintain a fair grading system? The simple answer would be extra credit.

In any classroom, a wide spectrum of skill level is expected with each end holding its own problems. For example, staying up until 3 in the morning trying to grasp a chemistry concept from last week’s lecture is frustrating to say the least. Likewise, doing vocabulary exercises on the same words for the fifth day in a row is simply boring.

To address these concerns, teachers often give additional challenging problems to push high-achievers forward and more practice problems to help those who are struggling. In addition, more difficult project options are available to those high-achievers.

However, this begs the question of how should teachers grade these separate skill levels. Should teachers grade indifferently to whether or not they chose a more difficult project?

Teachers should grade the two levels equally, but attach extra credit to more difficult projects and exercises. This would reward those who challenged themselves as well as motivate the average student to strive ahead.

Individual grades would then more accurately reflect a student’s accomplishments in a class. The extra credit could easily push a student into the A+ range and that A+ would exemplify his expertise in the course.

To prevent extra credit being the only motivating factor to complete a harder project, the increase in difficulty level must be significant enough to discourage students from doing just that. High-achievers would have no problem tackling this extra challenge.

The sheer amount of work could be a factor in determining that increase, but the most important would be teacher observation. Can these students handle researching outside sources and writing a full report instead of simply analyzing the text?

In the beginning of the year, the extra credit offered and increase in difficulty level would be at a minimum. As the year progresses, teachers can gauge how far the extra mile would be for the high-achieving students and adjust to fit that profile.

But what if these classes are simply split up into appropriate skill levels such as English 11A and English 11B? Splitting those classes into varying levels invariably leads into several questions such as how would English 11B factor into calculating GPA. Would it be considered for half honors credit or the same as a regular class?

Furthermore, there will inevitably still be skill level distinctions in those levels. Do we then break it down further into AB and BC or even into AAB, ABB, BBC, and BCC? Advanced classes such as AP or Honors courses do not apply since students have the option to drop the class.

With finite resources such as teachers, classrooms, and money, it would be illogical to engage in this logistical nightmare. This entire dilemma can be easily remedied by offering extra credit for differentiated instruction.

The majority of students will also progress at a comfortable pace, while at the same time, those high-achievers do not feel “held back” by the rest of the class.