I first encountered the expression “low floor, high ceiling” while running a Math Circle for middle school students a decade ago. This pedagogical framework seeks to offer assignments and activities that begin at an entry point accessible to all learners (low floor) but are designed to lead learners to sophisticated and challenging questions and to extensions that encourage learners to keep learning and asking questions.
My experience teaching with this strategy in the Math Circle quickly demonstrated the immense value of it for (1) creating a collaborative learning environment, (2) increasing student engagement and curiosity, and (3) improving learning outcomes. What I did not expect and did not realize until student and parent feedback much later, was that this approach improved students’ self-image and helped them think of themselves and their peers as strong and capable students.
Although the low floor, high ceiling framework came out of mathematics pedagogy and is often cited as a teaching strategy in the math classroom, I have worked to implement the low floor, high ceiling principle in the humanities classroom. This can be done effectively by structuring single-class-period lessons and by assigning larger research projects.
In this article, I offer two examples of low floor, high ceiling projects—a podcast project and a creative writing response—and one example of a low floor, high ceiling daily lesson plan. Each of these examples demonstrates how a teacher can plan, present and assess within this framework without calling public attention to student deficits and without turning lesson planning for a single course into what is effectively lesson planning for several levels of ability within the course.
In my European history course, generally taken by tenth graders, I assign a podcast project. The project is designed to introduce students to the genre of microhistory and enable them to connect a specific personal interest to the study of European history.
The first year I assigned the project, I was amazed by the level of engagement the students showed and the quality of the podcasts I received. The students chose topics that reflected personal interests—for example, one student who was a serious amateur entomologist began his podcast with the description of an intricately decorated silk chasuble from medieval England. The podcast then went on to describe how silk was produced in medieval Asia, how it first came to Europe and finally the roots of European domestic silk production.
The podcast for this course was assigned in the second quarter of the course and the student had experienced frustration with written assignments to that point. The microhistory genre and the audio medium freed him to research a topic over which he had full ownership and compose a project at least as comprehensive as a research paper but in a different medium. For this student, the success he enjoyed on the podcast research project renewed—or perhaps initiated—his enthusiasm for the course and his overall engagement and achievement improved.
This example is one of a high-achieving student being empowered to deeply engage with a topic and produce high-quality work, but also of a student who overcame a learning weakness because of a project that was designed to offer flexibility.
This past school year I had the good fortune to teach a wonderful group of tenth grade history students. The class was overwhelmingly populated with motivated, high-achieving students. This unfortunately made a student with an intellectual disability, self-conscious and withdrawn. When it came time to create a final project for our study of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, I opted for a creative writing assignment with an art component.
I asked students to write in Chaucer’s style and meter a poem that satirized a modern “pilgrim.” The project also required some illustration of the pilgrim—medium unspecified, so collage, drawing, painting, cartoon or photography were all acceptable. Students in the class chose influencer, video game enthusiast, and “virtue signaler” among others. The student with an intellectual disability chose “church lady.” The student produced 20 lines of insightful, loving and humorous observations in a composite portrait of the women she encountered at daily Mass. She read the piece out loud in class and her classmates recognized the careful observation behind the work and appreciated the satire and its author.
I believe the student recognized that the appreciation was genuine and not merely patronizing. The student gained selfconfidence, was more at ease in the classroom and engaged with her peers more readily in an academic context than she had previously. Her motivation increased and her belief in her capabilities increased.
In daily lesson planning, including a low floor, high ceiling framework is less intuitive than in research project design. However, several key strategies open space for the framework. I ask all my students to write down certain broad or essential questions to provide a discussion thread throughout the course. In modern history, I tell students on the first day that we will be (1) considering how modern citizens wish to organize their governments, and (2) what degree of self-determination we can see in modern societies. We also (3) consider the definition of “freedom” in modern society throughout the course. I ask students to remind themselves and their classmates of these essential questions. At the lowest level of engagement, students can flip to a page in their notebook and read the questions off for classmates. Then the repetition of the essential questions will bear fruit and students will connect the questions to broad themes, or maybe single words in a text we are studying. Meaningful participation fosters self-confidence and encourages students to engage and participate in class with their peers. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the students engaged in the subject matter and high achieving. For these students, open-ended, essential questions engage them and they can draw on a considerable body of knowledge and synthesize, form and defend opinions.
In each of the above instances, the “low floor, high ceiling” framework allowed me to adequately challenge and interest highachieving students and to offer students with learning challenges an opportunity to work hard and experience genuine success. In all cases, I have seen evidence that success breeds success, and student enthusiasm and confidence has increased across all engagement levels. Just as important is the way in which these assignments enabled the students to appreciate one another’s gifts and fostered a sense of community and belonging in the high school classroom. In my teaching in particular, I have applied this strategy to ensure that I create a learning environment in my small Catholic school setting that meets the needs of all students, that adequately challenges the strongest and most engaged students and offers opportunities for growth and success to students with significant learning challenges.
Eileen Lapington, Ph.D. is the vice principal and senior instructor in history at the Cardinal Newman Academy in the Diocese of Richmond.elapington@cardinalnewmanacademy.org
