Debra+S.+Strauss

Wiki

Debra Strauss CURR 680-3 10/27/08

This Wiki provides information and resources on the topic of differentiated instruction. It serves as an introduction to the instructional philosophy and its fundamental principles in an effort to inform non-teaching school staff in positions such as mine in the Child Study Team. It is also intended as a resource for teachers who may be familiar with the philosophy of differentiated instruction and who may use some of its techniques in their practice. For these professionals, this Wiki offers a clear definition intended to create a shared understanding of the philosophy and its core principles, and a consistent direction for implementation. Additionally, several of the articles were selected to address important teacher concerns regarding the use of differentiated instructional strategies, such as the approach’s compatibility with standards-based teaching and standardized testing and with grading practices. The value of the approach for all students including students of lower academic ability, and the commitment required to change instructional practices are addressed. A gradual approach is recommended.

**1.** Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing differences in inclusive teaching. //Journal of Learning Disabilities,// 37(6), 525-529.

Disability Studies in Education (DSE) views human differences, such as those impacting educational decision-making, as natural and expected. However, the authors assert that scientific determinism (the medical model) has led Western educators to treat those viewed as normal in body and mind as privileged. The goal of DSE scholars is to eliminate barriers preventing those defined as disabled from accessing opportunities available to those defined as non-disabled. As applied to education, students possessing the ability to learn as schools expect receive educational privileges over others who cannot. The DSE perspective is that differences among students must be accepted and embraced and that inclusive educational practices are essential for social justice.

Teachers’ concerns about the feasibility of servicing a wide variety of student needs simultaneously include that they lack necessary support resources, and that they are under pressure due to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the standardized testing movement. The authors address these concerns by pointing out that others besides labeled students require and benefit from modifications and accommodations to the general education curriculum, and that modifications and accommodations should not be separate from the “normal” curriculum and should not mean simplifying curriculum and diminishing expectations. The authors express the belief that NCLB hinders the use of differentiated instruction due to government support of “research-based” instructional programs, Schools are forced to rely on standardized programs and methods in an effort to increase test scores at the expense of addressing individual student need.

This article is an important resource because it provides a strong and persuasive argument for teachers (and others) supporting the valuable contribution of differentiated instruction in redefining and equalizing disabled and nondisabled students. The authors emphatically express that the educational philosophy of differentiated instruction makes opportunity and access available to all students and provides a step toward reforming schools, and ultimately (most importantly) the larger society. The provision of multiple avenues of student participation leads to student perception of difference as normal, and encourages caring relationships. Differentiated instruction promotes democracy, constructivist student-centered learning, caring, and a perception of difference as a natural occurrence.

The author examines the potential conflict teachers experience when they are trying to maximize student performance on high stakes tests and at the same time are attempting to attend to students’ individualized learning needs. Research is cited that seems to indicate that when teachers feel required to “teach to the test,” they use a more fact-based and less meaningful curriculum and their efforts toward differentiation are deferred. The author expresses that while differentiating instruction is complex, there are several core principles that can be compatible with standardized testing in a way in which each enhances the other. Each core principle is defined and related to standardized testing. A case study is presented to illustrate how students in a successfully differentiated classroom can realize enhanced learning reflected in high achievement on standardized tests. Strategies used include compacting, tiered lessons, ThinkDOTS, graphic organizers, RAFT, and anchor activities and task cards. The author acknowledges the conflict teachers experience when trying to address students’ individual needs while dealing with the pressures of high stakes testing. However, she asserts that student diversity requires differentiation, which she sees as compatible with the goal of high achievement on standardized tests.
 * ** 2. Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and high stakes testing: An oxymoron? //Theory into Practice,// 44(3), 254-261.

The primary importance of this resource for the school improvement plan lies in the fact that it responds to teacher concerns regarding whether they can attend to individual learning needs while endeavoring to improve student performance on the standardized tests required by NCLB. Additionally, the author provides a clear definition of differentiated instruction, outlines it’s fundamental principles, defines specific techniques, and offers an example of a teacher’s success in improving student performance on standardized tests while maintaining allegiance to the principles of differentiated instruction. This information presents a clear picture of differentiated instruction to non-teaching school support staff such as myself, as well as practical information for teachers to apply to their own practice. 192-202.
 * 3.** Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. //Theory into Practice//, 44(3),

While the focus of this article is on differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive settings, the authors address the larger issue of integrating all students who might be excluded for reasons such as poverty, racial or ethnic discrimination, or second language acquisition. They argue that while the United States shows commitment to inclusive education through laws such as No Child Left Behind, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Brown v. Board of Education, people still believe that disabled students, and others, cannot participate productively in mainstream environments. The authors see this viewpoint, and the educational practices that result, as the antithesis of democratic ideals.

The education disabled students receive in segregated settings may consist of modified curriculum and instruction with diminished content, as serving to isolate and stigmatize students, and as depriving typical students of the experience of diversity. Differentiated instruction is viewed as part of the solution to the problem of how to provide optimal learning opportunities to a heterogeneous class in which disability is only one of the many differences students display. Various ways to differentiate instruction specifically directed to the needs of disabled students are described.

This is a valuable resource because while it places disabled students within the larger context of those who are excluded, it focuses specifically on meeting the needs of disabled students within a differentiated classroom. The authors describe ways to differentiate content, process, and product for disabled students and they advocate preplanning by scrutinizing the environment for disabling potential. They suggest a collaborative role for special education teachers and related services providers that does not require the student to be taken out of the mainstream class.


 * 4.** Brown, D. L. (2004). Differentiating instruction: Inclusive strategies forstandards-based learning that benefit the whole class. //American Secondary Education// 32(3) 34-62.

With classrooms consisting of students with an increasingly wide variety of needs, teachers must use strategies such as differentiating instruction to maximize student learning. The author, who believes that differentiated instruction benefits all students, presents an approach for a multilevel lesson planning system that addresses the needs of all students (from gifted and talented to severely disable) in the same class. She asserts that if students with disabilities are to attain higher levels of achievement in the general education standards, they must have access to this curriculum and their teachers must maintain high expectations of them.

The approach presented coordinates differentiated instruction, inclusion, and high expectations for achieving general education standards, and is characterized as manageable for teachers while making sure not to reproduce a tracking system. The model’s foundation is a general education lesson that involves active learning, links subject matter to student interests, and considers multiple intelligences and learning styles. The provision of added supports allows struggling students to achieve the general curriculum standards. Strategies and supports that address different levels of need (from gifted and talented to severely disabled) are offered.

This resource is relevant to the school improvement plan because the model provided includes a level of supports for students who are intellectually capable but able to perform at grade level only with supports. Students in this group include those with mild disabilities; those who are at-risk; those for whom English is a second language; those with limited prior knowledge, experience, and learning strategies; and those with behavioral difficulties. These are the types of students for whom the school improvement plan is intended. Specific supports defined include assistive technology; resource materials (manipulatives, visual aids, charts, outlines, picture cues, and audio taped books); personal assistance; and additional structure (prioritizing, giving examples and defining clear expectations, breaking down strategies, concepts, and skills, connecting material with prior knowledge, and working toward independence through systematic fading of supports).

**5.** George, P. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. //Theory into Practice//, 44(3), 185-193.

The author argues that while American policy-makers disagree about goals, strategies, and methods of accountability for public schools and while magnet schools, charter schools, and voucher systems threaten the survival of public schools, public school educators must concentrate on providing students with high quality, challenging educational experiences, integrating most students into the mainstream, and differentiating instruction. His rationale for heterogeneous classrooms is as follows. First, by learning in diverse educational environments, students are better prepared for real life situations in a democratic society. Second, heterogeneous classrooms can help prevent the racial and ethnic segregation of students that often results from homogeneous groupings. Third, diverse classrooms diminish the stigmatization of high or low achievers, and eliminate detrimental placement errors. Fourth, diverse classrooms maximize student growth potential. Fifth, heterogeneous classrooms highlight the importance and impact of effort and diligence. Sixth, Teaching talent and other resources tend to be more evenly distributed when students learn in diverse settings. Seventh, gifted students in regular classes, where differentiation provides challenge, may develop a more realistic and favorable self concept than they would in a homogeneous setting where they would compare themselves only to high achieving students. Eighth, heterogeneous classes, with flexible groupings, provide opportunities for all students to help and teach others. Lastly, as students interact with a wider variety of others, they develop a focus on similarities rather than differences.

The author asserts that within the heterogeneous class, differentiation of instruction is essential and his rationale is as follows. First, because every student is unique, each deserves and requires learning experiences adapted to individual needs, interests, and motivations. Second, gifted students are more likely to feel challenged, to experience struggle and success, to acquire advanced study skills, and to focus on areas of interest at school. Third, differentiated instruction offers a variety of approaches directed toward the individual needs of students with disabilities. Fourth, classrooms using differentiated instruction inspire self-direction and independent thinking in students. Fifth, in our time of “information explosion,” differentiated instruction promotes teacher roles of facilitator of learning and classroom manager, rather than the traditional role of information provider. Lastly, research on the learning process strongly supports differentiated instruction.

While other resources address the “how” of differentiated instruction, this resource addresses the “why.” The author provides a strong, logical argument, supported by educational research and his forty years of experience in education, for his contention that the survival of the American public school requires heterogeneous classrooms using differentiated instruction. The dilemma he understands is that while many educators acknowledge the need for diverse classrooms with differentiated instruction, they know that substantial changes in teaching require significant amounts of time, energy, and support rarely available. With this awareness, the author asserts that public education must move gradually in the right direction without expecting teachers to reinvent their teaching over night. This is an important message for teachers to hear.


 * 6.** Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. //The Clearing House//, 81(4), 161-164.

The author contends that the current standards movement developed out of government intent to guarantee that all students receive an equivalent level of education. Prior to standards-based reform, teachers were given much more decision-making freedom, and this resulted in great educational variance, even within the same school. This variance had a particularly detrimental impact on students of low socioeconomic status and students with disabilities due to low teacher expectations for them. However, in the current standards-based system, the federal and state governments and school districts have set up standards that apply to all students regardless of differences such as socioeconomic status, disability, or the specific teacher.

Differentiated instruction addresses differences among students who all must meet a set of standards, and who will be evaluated using the same standardized test. It is a systematic approach that consists of strategies to help each teacher move students as far forward as possible from where they are in their education. While the standards make up the goals established for all students, how teachers assist students in reaching these goals differs depending on the student. Differentiation requires flexibility in content, process, and product. Differentiation of product requires attention to preassessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment. The differentiated instruction model requires student grouping to be based on various criteria depending on the teacher’s short-term goal aimed at meeting a specific standard. Students may be grouped heterogeneously or based on student needs, learning styles, or interests. Tiered lesson planning is advocated as a way to provide differentiation while attending to standards and curriculum.

This resource is particularly beneficial to non-teaching school staff such as myself. It offers an introduction to the philosophy of differentiated instruction and places it in the context of standards based reform. The author explains that while standards are the goals set for students, differentiated instruction addresses the various roads students must take to reach those goals. Key components of differentiated instruction, such as differentiation of content, process, and product and grouping practices are defined. A tiered lesson plan for a unit on reading nonfiction provides an illustrative example.


 * 7.** Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiation. //Educational Leadership//, 58(1), 14-18.

Differentiated instruction is presented as a proactive approach to improving student learning by meeting the individual needs of all students. The author was one of six teachers hired by her district to supervise the development of a differentiated instructional program. Five years of experience with this project uncovered key practices integral to successful use of this approach. First, peer collaboration is crucial for both teacher and student learning. Second, tasks and desired outcomes must be carefully aligned. Third, meaningful preassessment must be used to determine what students know at the outset. Fourth, flexible grouping strategies, one of the fundamental practices of differentiated instruction, are indispensable. Fifth, students must be encouraged to assume greater responsibility for their learning. Lastly, students must be offered choices in order to increase motivation and self-efficacy. Additional essential practices cited are effective classroom management and fair grading. Since the goal is to institute systemic changes as opposed to “add ons,” the author advises taking small steps, beginning the process in areas of confidence and competence, and accepting that long term commitment is required.

This resource emphasizes that differentiated instruction is not a “trendy quick-fix” but a change in teaching practices that requires long-term commitment from teachers and administrators. While the methods already exist, teachers need to learn how to use them. The author makes the important point that this needs to be a coordinated effort; teachers must be “on the same page.” Meeting the needs of a diverse population of students in the same classroom is portrayed as a complex mission involving successes and failures. Specific projects that elementary school teachers can use as a starting point in the process are provided.


 * 8.** Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. //Educational Leadership//, 58(1), 6-11.

The author examines the impact of standards-based instruction and high stakes testing on the overall quality of teaching and learning. She argues that we must first understand how standards-based teaching is or is not consistent with best practices before we can understand its impact on our ability to meet the needs of a diverse student population. To explore the relationship between standards-based teaching, best practices in teaching, and differentiation, the author questions whether the standards reflect the knowledge of experts in the relevant disciplines, whether the standards are being used as the curriculum, and whether teachers are rushing to cover the standards rather than organizing them into a curriculum that makes sense to students. She cites three negative cases in which teachers experience conflict between their goal of covering the standards and their desire to meet the needs of their diverse classroom populations.

According to the author, the problem of integrating standards and best teaching practices is due to a misinterpretation of the use of standards, and when both are aligned, students’ individual needs are not ignored. She explains that a standards-based curriculum addresses what to teach whereas differentiation addresses how to teach. Differentiation informs the teacher on how to teach the same standard to various learners. Three positive cases are cited in which teachers align standards-based teaching with high quality instruction and an organized, manageable curriculum. The author asserts that standardized teaching practices fail students when compliance with meeting standards is attended to at the expense of teaching individuals.

This resource is essential to the school improvement plan because it confronts the conflict teachers experience between covering the standards and meeting the needs of diverse learners. Due to time constraints, teachers may be tempted to teach all students in the same way or to try to reduce the diversity in the classroom. Other resources provide support for heterogeneous classrooms. However, this article contends that by instituting standardized teaching methods, teachers are missing the needs of some of their students. Regardless of the pressure to cover standards and the discomfort of change, differentiation is necessary in order to meet the needs of a diverse student population.


 * 9.** Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice. //Theory into Practice//, 44(3), 262-269.

This article examines the relationship between differentiated instruction and grading. The author argues that differentiated instruction (the philosophy that students are most successful when teachers address differences in ability, interests, and learning styles) is compatible with grading that communicates high quality information to parents and students that they can use to enhance student learning. In differentiated instruction and in high quality grading, teachers attend to developing a clear understanding of what students should know, understand, and be able to do by the end of a learning segment. Both differentiated instruction and high quality grading emphasize the importance of preassessment and ongoing assessment to maintain teacher and student awareness of progress. Both emphasize the use of formative assessment data for making decisions regarding instructional adaptations. Both stress that summative assessment must correspond to predetermined goals and preplanned criteria for success. Both seek to eliminate barriers to success, one by providing various ways for students to learn and the other by providing multiple ways for students to show achievement.

The author questions why given the consistency between differentiated instruction and grading, many teachers perceive a conflict. To address this issue, the she examines three essential questions, “What does it mean to be fair in a classroom?” “What role does grading play in motivating academically diverse learners?” and “How might reporting of grades work so that they both communicate accurately and contribute to positive student motivation?” Finding that issues pertaining to fairness and motivation do not reveal inconsistency between differentiation and grading, the author examines whether the problem has to do with how grades are reported, and suggests reporting systems that can communicate multiple messages about a student’s academic achievement.

It is important to derive from this resource that differentiated instruction and high quality grading are compatible. If teacher concerns about grading are barriers to the use of differentiated instruction, the analysis presented in this article and the suggested method of reporting grades that provides multiple types of useful information to parents and students, should put these concerns to rest. Teachers can gradually modify their instructional and grading practices to meet the needs of a diverse group of students.


 * 10.** Wehrmann, C. S. (2000). Baby steps: A beginner’s guide. //Educational Leadership//	58(1), 21-23.

In an effort to effectively teach gifted and talented students in a heterogeneous middle school language arts classroom, the author took “baby steps” in adopting differentiated instruction. Her rationale for doing so is that students possess a variety of needs and interests and therefore, require a range of learning alternatives. The author explains that teachers can differentiate content, process, and product in order to conform to student learning preferences.

The author offers the following suggestions to make differentiation manageable for busy teachers and for meeting the needs of gifted and talented students. First, include differentiated activities gradually to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Second, differentiate by providing a variety of activities, not by requiring students to do more or less of an activity. Third, when possible, offer high level work to all students, not just to gifted and talented students so that all receive the message that they are capable of achieving at a high level. Finally, engage students by creating assignments that are directed toward their passions. Several specific examples of differentiating content, process, and product for gifted students are provided. The author acknowledges her initial fear of differentiation, but she reports successful implementation due to taking a gradual approach.

It is important to derive from this resource that implementing differentiated instructional practices is a gradual process that is best approached in a step by step manner and that is worth the time and effort required. Also, while the school improvement plan focuses on meeting the needs of lower performing students in the general education classroom, it is important to remember that the differentiated instructional practices that benefit these students benefit all members of the class. This article focuses on meeting the needs of gifted students in a heterogeneous class, another group of students whose needs are not met by a “one-size-fits-all teaching approach.

Additional Resources

Books

Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2001). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to teach	and reach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Web Sites

//Strategies for Differentiating// http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiatingstrategies.html

//How to Plan for Differentiating Instruction// http://www.teach-technology.com/tutorials/teaching/differentiate/planning/

//Differentiated Instruction Resources// http://www.differentiatedinstruction.com/DIResources.htm

//Professional Development Workshops/Kits// http://www.ascd.org

//Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades. Eric Digest// http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/elementary.html