Teaching Practice Report

Product, Process, and Content:
Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University
Debate Course
Russell Minshull

Abstract
Since 2020, all first-year students at a Japanese university participate in a mandatory
English CLIL Debate course in order to enhance their language skills, academic
skills, and their general knowledge of a variety of topics. Classes are organised into
four proficiency levels based on TOEIC scores. With 3000–4000 students entering
the university every year, English proficiency ranges from elementary level, up tohighly advanced returnees and international students. However, despite the vastdifferences between proficiency levels, the unified syllabus requires that all levelgroupings utilise a single in-house textbook and syllabus. Therefore, teachers face
the challenge of differentiating this source material according to class proficiency
level. Over the last few years, the author has addressed this challenge by employing
a differentiation model proposed by educator Carol-Ann Tomlinson (2001), whoemphasises differentiation in product, process, and content. In this paper, the debate
course is analysed according to a framework proposed by Tomlinson, before theauthor reveals some of the adaptations made during his years teaching the course.
Finally, the author reflects on the effectiveness of these adaptations.
Keywords: Differentiation, Adaptive teaching, Content, Debate

Introduction
Since 2020, all first-year students at Rikkyo University are required to take a debate
course during the second semester. Whereas other mandatory first-year courses mainly focus
on building language skills, the debate course was introduced to help ease students’ transition
into a program of CLIL elective courses (Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020, p. 54) implemented in
the subsequent years of the university curriculum. Referred to as a CLIL course by faculty,
successful debating requires more than language proficiency, as students need to acquire andrefine various academic and critical thinking skills (Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020).
As 3000–4000 students are entering the university each year, they come from various
educational backgrounds and have mixed levels of English. The students are split into four110

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

proficiency levels.
Table 1
Debate Level Groupings by TOEIC Score
Level

TOEIC Score Range

Level One680 or above

Level Two

480 to 679

Level Three

280 to 479

Level Four

Below 280

As you can see, this table represents a very wide range of English proficiency levels. In
level one classes, the students are often highly advanced. This can include returnee students,
international exchange students, and native English speakers, all of whom are experienced
in studying with English-medium instruction. On the opposite side of the scale are level four
students, who are still getting a grip on the basics of the English language. As mentioned, allstudents are required to take the course, however, teachers are only given one textbook andsyllabus outline. Therefore, this presents a challenge. How can teachers adapt the debate course
to the various proficiency levels?
In my experience of three years teaching the course, the various level classes experience
the course in different ways. Higher proficiency groups can usually meet the demands ofdebating quite quickly, leaving the teacher with the question of how to ensure they remain
sufficiently challenged. In contrast, lower proficiency groups will sometimes struggle to acquire
the basics of a debate and sometimes can become overwhelmed.
With classes at such different stages of proficiency, and with teachers only provided with
one textbook with which to teach the classes, there is a clear need to differentiate the content
of the course to meet the diverse needs of the classes. In this paper, I will discuss some ways I
have differentiated the debate course during my time teaching it and reflect on the effects of thisdifferentiation. Throughout the paper, an advanced level one class and a lower proficiency level
three class are compared in order to provide examples on the oppositie ends of the spectrum.
Differentiation
Broadly speaking, differentiation in education is often described as adjusting curriculum
or lesson content to variations in student needs. It often emphasises that teachers should seek tobuild profiles of students` characteristics as learners and adapt course content accordingly. The
term seems to have come to prominence in line with the rising importance of equal opportunities
for children in Western education, that every student should receive an equal opportunity tolearn, such as with the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) or the ‘School For All’ policy in
Scandinavian countries (Blossing et al., 2014). Therefore, in Western education this century,111

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

there has been a considerable amount of academic discussion focused on differentiation(Eikeland & Ohna, 2022).
Roiha writes that differentiation is a synthesis of various ideas, such as Gardner’s
Multiple Intelligences theory and Vygotsky’s idea of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)(Roiha, 2014, p. 3). By building a profile of each student’s strengths and weaknesses, teachers
can estimate their stage of development and teach according to their ZPD.
One prominent writer on differentiation in education is Carol-Ann Tomlinson, who
has published extensively on the subject. Several of her works feature recurrent models thatexemplify an approach to differentiation (e.g. 2001). These models appear to be influential in
the area: a review of literature on differentiated instruction found 18 academic publications that
employ her frameworks (Bondie et al., 2019, p. 339).
Two of Tomlinson’s main themes can be summarised thus. First, in order to successfully
differentiate course content, you need sufficient knowledge of your students. Second, particularareas of course content should be explored.
Tomlinson refers to the knowledge of your students as student characteristics, andsuggests that these characteristics can analysed through several variables. These variables
include interest, learner profile, and readiness (Tomlinson et al., 2003). Interest covers student
interests and motivations, that is, what kind of subject matter motivates and engages students.
Learner profile relates to how students prefer to learn, for example, some students might preferto learn visually, whereas others might learn better through dialogue. Finally, Tomlinson oftenemphasises awareness of student readiness. This refers to the current knowledge and skills
regarding course content, which Tomlinson relates to Vygotsky’s ZPD (p. 26). If the student
does not have sufficient knowledge and skills to acquire course content, then efforts must be
made to accommodate the student either by adapting the course content or through scaffolding.
Regarding course content, Tomlinson (2001) identifies variables that can bedifferentiated, and these usually include the elements of content, process, and product.
According to Tomlinson, content means the input we provide students, “what we teach orwhat we want students to learn” (p. 72). She also includes access to input in this category andposits that a teacher should consider when to give access to certain content based on student
readiness to acquire it (p. 72). Process means how students make sense of the content, andin turn how the teacher leads students to the content. In other words, we could say it means
what students do in order to process the input. Tomlinson highlights that most teachers wouldrefer to this as ‘activities’ students take part in to learn the content (p. 81). The last element,
product, refers to the major pieces of work students produce. Tomlinson writes that productassignments should be designed to enable students to review, rethink, and extend what they
have learned over a relatively long period of time (p. 85). Furthermore, the product provides
the vechicle for the main demonstrations of student learning on the course (p. 8). Although she
does not mention assessment or testing, my interpretation is that product refers to assignmentsthat contribute significantly to formative and/or summative assessment, as these are the works
112Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

in which students typically demonstrate their cumulative learning across a number of lessons.
The Content, Process, and Product of the Debate Course
What constitutes the components of content, process, and product will naturally dependon the particular course.
Debate Course: Content
The debate course could be considered to have various main objectives and subsidiaryobjectives, however, I usually approach the course with three main objectives in mind: students
enhance their knowledge of the topics they study, students develop critical thinking skills
required for argumentation, and students build language skills. Therefore, I would say thatthese three particular areas form the content of my courses.
One of the primary outcomes is that students are learning about various issues.
They investigate a range of themes, for example, textbook topics include vegetarianism, theenvironment, and gender. Students explore topics in class through discussions, texts and videos,and various brainstorming activities, before researching them independently or in groups.
Finally, they put their knowledge to the test in the debates.
The language component of the course could be considered to be complex. The textbook
features a set of phrases that are designed to help students participate in the various parts ofa debate; namely opening statements, cross-examination, rebuttal, and summaries. However,students also need to be able to use topic-specific vocabulary, which is not designated in the
textbook. Also in the language component, we can include various speaking, writing, listening,
and reading skills. For instance, in order to complete a debate students need to be able towrite an academic paragraph, they need negotiation of meaning skills to complete a crossexamination, they need listening skills to be able to take accurate notes during the opposition’s
statement, and so on. There are a broad range of language skills involved in a debate class.
Finally, there are critical thinking skills which mainly revolve around argumentation.
For instance, students need to evaluate the strength of various arguments before selecting thestrongest for their opening statements. They also need to predict the opposition’s arguments,
which gives them practice of thinking from various perspectives. Additionally, they need toevaluate the strength and suitability of evidence along with various other critical thinking skills.
Debate Course: Process
The process aspect of the course involves, first of all, students learning what a debate is,what its purpose is, how it is structured, and how to participate in one. After that, students willgo through a mix of theory and practice on how to be successful at debating. On my courses, wespend between four to six lessons focused more on learning about debate as a genre. After that,students go through a process of preparation, debate, and then feedback and further practicethrough the end of the course.
113

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

Also integral to the this aspect is the process students go through in order to complete
a debate, as this facilitates significant learning on the course. This process generally includes
brainstorming and sharing of ideas, deeper research, selecting and constructing arguments,
participating in the actual debate, and finally reflection and feedback.
Debate Course: ProductAs previously mentioned, the product of a course as described by Tomlinson (2001) iswhat the students are expected to produce, which helps us to evaluate learning. On the debate
course, the most tangible product is the debates themselves. There are the four main sectionsof the debate, opening statements, cross-examination, rebuttals, and summaries. Within these
sections students demonstrate competencies and knowledge on the course. For example, theyshow research skills and logic by integrating sourced evidence into opening statements, they
demonstrate their counter-argument skills in rebuttals, and so on. Students take part in a midterm and final debate, and these both carry significant weight toward assessment on the course.
There are also less quantifiable elements such as teamwork skills, confidence, anddivergent thinking, that are more difficult to assess but could be made visible through activities
such as written reflections.

Methods of Differentiation
Numerous adaptations can be made to the product, process, and content of debate inorder to differentiate the course. In this section, I will discuss some of the changes I have madeover three years of teaching the course, and the theory behind them.
Content Differentiation
The main differentiation I have implemented related to the content of the debate course
has revolved around adapting debate topics and propositions, and in adapting the language focus
according to the various levels.
Content Differentiation: Topics and Propositions
The topics and propositions used for the debate can have a big influence on the difficultyof the classes. Students need to have sufficient amounts of both knowledge and vocabulary inthe subject area. Therefore, if they are lacking in both at the start of the process, then completinga debate will be difficult. Alternatively, if they already have some background knowledge andsome vocabulary, then the debate becomes less demanding as students can focus more onbuilding logical arguments and practising debate skills. Thus, topics, and also propositions, canbe selected accordingly. Some may need an easier topic to complete a debate, whereas others
might thrive on a more challenging, academic topic.
My approach to this is to be flexible in which topics and propositions are debated and114

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

I achieve this through negotiation with students. This negotiation process involves asking forsuggestions, voting, and getting feedback on the topics we use.
This process allows us to nominate topics and propositions that are within students’ areasof interest but also allows me to apply a filter to the suitability of the topics and propositions interms of difficulty. Here are the topics and propositions that were used in a level one and level
three class last year:
Table 2
Topics Used in Two Classes in the Debate Course in 2022
Level One

Level Three

Animal Rights: Zoos are Beneficial for
Animals.

Education: School Students Should Wear a
School Uniform.

Crime and Punishment: The Death Penalty
Should be Abolished.

Urbanisation: Living in the City is Better than
Living in the Country.

Gender: Women Have a More Difficult Life
than Men in Japan.

Social Media: Social Media is Beneficial toSociety.

Free Speech: Insulting Others Online Should
be a Criminal Offence.

Media: Video Games are Bad for Children.

Euthanasia: Euthanasia Should be Legal in
Japan.

Education: Online Education is Superior toFace-to-Face.

The topics and propositions used in the level three class could generally be described asalready familiar to students. In previous research on the university’s discussion course, students
stated that familiar topics were easier to discuss because they already had ideas to talk about(Minshull, 2021), and perhaps the same applies to debate. For example, the debate around
online and face-to-face education has been a much-discussed topic over the last few years due
to COVID-19, so it was safe to assume that students would have background knowledge in the
topic, having recently experienced online education. Moreover, there was a good chance they
had already discussed the topic in another English class in the first semester.
The level one class tended to gravitate toward more abstract topics, such as euthanasia
and animal rights. It seemed as though students had limited knowledge of the discourse
surrounding these topics at first, but were able to research the topics well enough to conduct
impressive debates. Also noteworthy is that this particular class, which was especially strong
in terms of English and academic skills, seemed to be more motivated by divisive topics thanclasses in other levels.

115

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

Content Differentiation: Language Focus
The textbook provides a set of functional phrases as the main language focus of thecourse. In my experience, the challenge of acquiring the set phrases and related skills varies
depending on the group. Moreover, the language requirements of debate extend further thanthese phrases, and what is helpful can vary depending on the class. Therefore, the language
focus is another content area than can be considered for differentiation.
I have usually implemented this differentiation reactively, meaning that I tend to workwith emergent issues rather than predict what would be effective. The following table showssome of the language skills covered in the level one and level three classes last semester.
Table 3
Some Key Language Points Studied by Two Classes in 2022
Level One

Level Three

Understanding Propositions

Acquiring Textbook Phrases

Being Concise

Developing Arguments with Explanation

Cause and EffectFluency Practice

Persuasive Language

Negotiation of Meaning

Volume of Opening Statement Delivery

Issues Related to Delivery (e.g. pronunciation,
volume, intonation)

In the example of the level three class, the major language work went toward acquiring
the textbook phrases and the related skills, which was done gradually and through practice.
They also often needed support in developing a strong written argument. This included sharing
model statements to help them internalise structures, encouraging them to explain arguments
in detail, and encouraging them to include evidence to support arguments. They also struggled
in the cross-examination and rebuttal sections, mainly due to limited spoken fluency anddifficulties with negotiation of meaning. To help with these issues, we practiced negotiation of
meaning skills, such as paraphrasing, and would have pair and group discussions as often as
possible. Finally, sometimes the delivery of statements could be an issue during debates. There
were difficulties related to pronunciation, intonation, and volume, all of which impeded listenerunderstanding. Students were given instruction on delivery, including how to independently
learn the pronunciation of new words, intonation, and delivering arguments with volume andenthusiasm.
Conversely, the level one class were able to use the textbook phrases and skills almost
immediately, or were already proficient in them, so I looked for further language points to help
strengthen their debates. For example, some early opening statements exceeded the five-minute116

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

time limit, so we practiced writing concisely. We also studied cause and effect to help thememphasise the importance of their arguments. A final example is that after a few debates, their
opening statements seemed effective, but somewhat straightforward, so we studied persuasive
writing to increase the impact of their statements and to encourage more creativity.
Product Differentiation
As mentioned, the major product of the debate class is the debates, because this is wherestudents can best demonstrate their learning on the course. The two major debate sections I
have focused on differentiating over the last three years have been the opening statements andthe rebuttals.
Product Differentiation: Opening Statements
Opening statements can be differentiated by length and detail. This can be done byadapting the grading rubric, meaning students need to achieve a different set of standards inorder to attain a high grade. Alternatively, it can also be done through suggestions from theteacher. The following table gives an example of how one might differentiate the rubric.
Table 4
Possible Differentiation of the Assessment Rubric Regarding Opening Statements
Level One - In order to get maximum points, there should be 3 main points, all with sourced
evidence. Sources should be mostly English language.
Level Three - In order to get maximum points, there should be 2 main points, 1 of whichcontains sourced evidence. However, students are encouraged to include a third point, andmore sources, where possible.

For an effective opening statement that lasts around 3–5 minutes, it seems that threemain points are ideal. However, for classes that are finding preparing statements difficult,requirements can be changed so that two main points are sufficient. Having to produce fewer
arguments can give them more time to work on producing arguments of good quality. With
more advanced students, as mentioned previously, they can sometimes produce overly longstatements, and requiring three points can work as a limitation, meaning they need to focus on
arguing more concisely.
Related to this is the level of detail and research that students are required to integrate
into the statement, which can be differentiated by requiring different standards of evidence. For
example, a strong class could be required to include English language sources in all of theirpoints. In contrast, less-ready students can be required to include less sourced evidence, forexample, one or two points, with examples or common knowledge accepted elsewhere. Withinthese criteria there are several possible permutations, depending on what is suitable for the class.

117

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

Product Differentiation: The Demands of Rebuttals
In in-course and post-course surveys conducted over the last few years, students often
say rebuttals are the most challenging aspect of debate. This seems to be because they are
inexperienced in thinking of criticism, they are taken aback by a well-argued point, or they havedifficulty producing counterarguments in English under time pressure. To help with this, whatis expected during rebuttal is another thing that can be differentiated.
Table 5Differentiation of Rebuttals
Level One - Encourage students to rebut all three of the opposition’s main points. Try andinclude sourced evidence in rebuttals if possible, otherwise explain your counter-argument
thoroughly.
Level Three - Students should be encouraged to rebut two of the opposition’s main points, andexplain their counter-arguments in as much detail as possible.

First, as with the opening statements, the length of the rebuttals can be adapted.
Producing three rebuttals is more challenging than producing two or one. With classes that are
struggling, requiring fewer rebuttals can allow them to focus on quality over quantity. Second,
we can also change what is required in terms of rebuttal content. For instance, if the class isready for a challenge, they may be encouraged to include sourced evidence in their rebuttals.
Process Differentiation
Mainly due to COVID-19, the three years of debate I have taught so far have been
conducted either online or under classroom restrictions, and I feel as though I have not madeas many adaptations in the area of process as in content and product. Not being able to leave
the teacher’s desk sometimes made it difficult for me to see how students actually work duringclasses, such as how they write an opening statement. However, the following are some attempts
made at differentiation of process.
Process Differentiation: Preparation TimeThe amount of time students get to prepare for a debate can significantly affect theirperformance, so this can be moderated. For instance, lower-readiness students can get moretime to prepare, while advanced students can be given less. However, this intersects with what
students are expected to produce. If your more advanced students are expected to produce morework, and of a higher standard, then cutting their preparation time might be counterproductive.
Regardless, it is still something that can be considered. Another approach to managing time
during debates involves the allocation of preparation time before cross-examination andrebuttals, with lower-readiness students getting more and advanced students getting less.

118

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

Process Differentiation: Debate Personnel
I usually aim for groups of three in a debate, however, I have on occasion used less ormore than this. With one class that seemed low on motivation and confidence, I made groupsof four or five. With more advanced classes, pair debates can provide a challenge. However, as
debates will probably need to be done simultaneously, this is difficult to grade and is best donein practice debates.
Another adaptation regarding debate personnel is grouping students based on theirindividual abilities. Usually, I will do this by grouping stronger students with weaker students.

Reflection on the Effectiveness of Differentiation
First of all, Tomlinson (2001) says that it is somewhat difficult to separate the elements
of product, process, and content, as students do not experience them in isolation (p. 72). Also,in my experience, there is likely to be more than one adaptation in effect at the same time, so it
is challenging to evaluate their individual efficacy. However, I will now offer a series of shortreflections on the various differentiation strategies, and offer some advice for differentiating thedebate course to different ability levels.
Table 6
Effective and Less Effective Differentiation
Effective

Less Effective

Negotiating Topics/Propositions

Differentiating Requirements for the Length ofOpening Statement/Rebuttals

Scaffolding - Language and Knowledge
Flexible Language Focus
Standards Demanded during Debate(e.g. sourced evidence is required or not)Proficiency-Based Debate Groupings

Preparation Time before Debates
Allowing Longer Times to Prepare for
Rebuttals and Cross Examination
Larger Teams in Lower Readiness Classes
Moderating L1 Use

Adapting the Topics and Propositions
To start with, it seems that the topics and propositions tend to be the biggest factor in
determining the level of difficulty of debates. Therefore, this is probably the highest yield factor
in terms of differentiation.
Lower-proficiency classes tend to encounter difficulties with unfamiliar topics. They
need to not only learn a whole new area of background knowledge but also need to learn
related language up to the point where they can debate. This is a huge challenge and can lead119

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

to students becoming overwhelmed. In level three classes, I have seen several debates that havemore or less collapsed, or else been very short, and I believe this is sometimes due to the topic
being too difficult or else uninteresting to students. On the contrary, using familiar topics willusually help them to obtain some success. Prior background knowledge and already acquired
English vocabulary in the area seem to allow them to focus on building strong arguments.
In contrast, with stronger groups, I feel that using topics students are already very
familiar with does not motivate them. I have also found that they might be unenthusiastic
about topics that they have already studied during their first year at the university. For example,
the level one class last year did not want to debate the environment as a topic, because they
had already covered it comprehensively in other classes. Also, stronger classes tend tohave confidence in their academic ability, and they often seem to thrive on the challenge of
researching unfamiliar topics. Several students in stronger classes already study in English
as the medium of instruction, or are planning to in the future, and perhaps this approach canprovide a motivating way of practising research skills on academic topics.
With all groups, it is worthwhile discussing the topics of debate with students andpaying attention to how students feel about them, either before selecting a topic or in feedback
after a debate.
Flexible Language Focus
As mentioned, I tend to take a reactive approach to language input on the course.
In lieu of more detailed needs analyses, working with emergent issues allows me to cater tostudents’ ZPD more directly than with prescribed language points. Moreover, trying to prescribe
language points can sometimes be unsuccessful. For example, last year, the level one classstudied persuasive and emotive language and were able to integrate that into their debates,
which seemed to improve the quality of their debates. Previously, I tried this language skill ina prescribed fashion with groups that were in the level two bracket, and while they seemed to
be engaged with the point when studying it, there was little reproduction of it during actual
debates, suggesting they were perhaps not ready to acquire it yet.
Another example is that classes tend to have their idiosyncrasies, which also means
they have their specific challenges. The level three class last year seemed capable of writing
decent opening statements, but would often have issues delivering them. Therefore, a focus was
required on delivering a statement properly.
Without more detail on students coming into the course, I think that a flexible approachto language input, in which the instructor works with emergent issues, can help to differentiate
the course.
Required Standards of Debates
I have found that moderating the standards of argumentation expected can be aneffective way of differentiating debates. For example, around the middle of the course, my120

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Course

level one students were not only able to include sourced research in each of their opening
statement points but had also started to integrate it into their rebuttals. This looked promising,so I encouraged them to do this as much as possible, highlighting the impact it can have. By the
final debate, they were integrating sources into rebuttals regularly, which was highly impressive
to me.
This progressive elevation of difficulty might also have helped motivate them.
Sometimes advanced classes can become proficient at debating quickly, and later debates canfeel like they are just going through the motions, so this kind of increasing challenge might
have helped invigorate them and maintain engagement.
With struggling classes, lowering expectations of the standard of argumentation seems
to be a useful method of differentiation. By reducing the requirements related to integrating
research into their statements, they can focus on foundational skills and on completing
debates successfully. This is not to say they should not try and include sourced evidence,and I highlight that sourced evidence will usually make their arguments stronger. However, I
will also emphasise that using examples and common knowledge can also be effective, and isacceptable. I believe that this allows students who are lacking in confidence, or readiness, togive a meaningful contribution to debates, whereas other students who feel ready can practise
integrating sources into their arguments.
Required Length of Arguments and Preparation Times
On the other hand, moderating the length of statements and rebuttals has been lesssuccessful. Although it certainly simplifies debates, it can lead to them being so short as tofeel underwhelming. In my classes, students get homework plus around 60–90 minutes toprepare for a debate, and therefore if the resulting debate is a matter of a few sentences, it feels
unsatisfying. Therefore, I tend to adhere to asking for three main points in opening statements
and two or three rebuttals, and seek alternative ways to differentiate the challenge.
Similarly, I have not had great results with manipulating the amount of time required
to prepare for cross-examination and rebuttals. Ideally, students have two or three minutes
before cross-examination in which they can prepare questions for the opposition, and about
five minutes to prepare rebuttals. In the past, I have moderated this to be longer for lowerproficiency groups, on occasion going up to ten minutes for rebuttal preparation. Again, thiscan feel underwhelming if the resulting rebuttals are still quite brief. Moreover, this can makethe debates rather long, which can interfere with lesson time-keeping. Instead, I try to address
the difficulty of rebuttals through tactics such as encouraging students to start preparing them as
early as possible in the debate, and by encouraging them to predict the opposition’s arguments
in advance.
Grouping Depending on Student Proficiency
Regarding process differentiation, I have had good results in grouping stronger students
121

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

with weaker students. This was particularly effective in the level three class last year. In thefirst third of the course, which is more theory than practice, I was concerned about the class’s
overall readiness to successfully complete debates because although they enjoyed talking inclass, they did not seem particularly inclined to the more academic side of debate. However, inthe first practice debate, I noticed several students were, in fact, quite talented when it came toresearching and constructing arguments. Thereafter, I would endeavor to separate these students
into different teams. I believe that this ensured debates maintained quality. This could also be
good for building cooperation skills, as students can realise strengths and weaknesses, and takeon different roles.
Larger Teams in Lower Readiness Classes
In contrast, making larger teams in lower readiness classes has been less successful. In
theory, having more students working together should make the process easier, as there is more
manpower to help out with doing the research and so on. However, I have found that in reality,
this can lead to some students becoming seemingly idle for long periods during preparation
time, making me wonder how much they are contributing. Also, having large groups makes it
difficult for each member to significantly contribute to the debates in real-time, and also perhaps
makes the process confusing as the delegation of work becomes more complicated.
Final Reflection One: The Need for Needs Analyses
As a first concluding thought, something that underpins any effective differentiation is
how much you know about your students. On this course, when we meet the students, we know
only their TOEIC scores from a test taken upon entering the university. In reality, this gives us
little information about their skills, interests, and aptitude for debate. Thus, gathering further
information about students early in the course would allow us to better cater to their needs. I
usually attempt this through surveys, a written assignment, and group discussions, all done very
early in the course. However, it is usually not until we have completed a full practice debate that
I feel confident I have an understanding of the class. Also, my knowledge of student interests
develops as the course progresses, so it can be difficult to prepare certain content, such as debate
topics, in advance. A possible solution to this is to use more thorough needs analysis methods
early on in the course, which I intend to do in the future.
To help with this, I encourage those involved in the debate course to share information.
Around 4000 students are taking the debate course, and this means that a good deal of
information about the classes could be shared, which could help to inform a more detailed,faculty-wide needs analysis. In lieu of this, I would recommend teachers gather as muchinformation about students’ needs, wants, and likes as possible early in the course.
Final Reflection Two: The Need for Differentiation
Working in the university context in Japan, I have found it is not unusual to be tasked
122

Product, Process, and Content: Practical Strategies for Differentiation on a University Debate Coursewith delivering mandatory courses to large numbers of students, who will often have quite
different levels of readiness and varying learner profiles. Preparing, delivering, and grading
the courses can be time-consuming, so it can be tempting to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.
However, in teaching these courses and reflecting on what I have done, I have increasingly
realised the usefulness of differentiation in such situations. Many of us will have encounteredclasses that seem overwhelmed or unmotivated, and perhaps in many cases adapting course
content to students’ needs would help. Perhaps the course content is too difficult, or just does notseem relevant enough to motivate them. On the other hand, there is not always an easy approachto differentiating courses, particularly if your institution has specific requirements. Some might
demand you use a particular textbook, that you must aim for a particular outcome, or that a
particular assessment must be implemented, and these might not always fit with your students’levels of readiness. This can make differentiating course content difficult or even daunting.
However, a framework such as Tomlinon’s product, process, and content model could help us
to make the implementation of differentiation more manageable.

References
Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014). The Nordic Education Model: ‘A School for All’
Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7125-3
Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How Does Changing “One-Size-Fits-All” toDifferentiated Instruction Affect Teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1),336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130
Eikeland, I., & Ohna, S. E. (2022). Differentiation in education: a configurative review. Nordic
Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 8(3), 157–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2022.2039351
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
https://congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Minshull, R. (2021). To What Extent Do the Topics on a Japanese University Discussion Course
Support Fluency Building? Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research, 2,
105–121.
Nitta, R., & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy
perspective: Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign
Language Education and Research, 1, 47–62.
Roiha, A. S. (2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated
learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(1),1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.748061
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nded.). ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K.,123

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第 4 巻（JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE, VOL. 4）

Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response toStudent Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms:
A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203

124