Connecting Theory and Practice
As both a student and a (student) teacher, I have spent a lot of time this year thinking about how to connect what I learn in my classes at Penn with what I am doing in the classrooms in which I teach. At times this has been difficult; however, I find the literature on the subject of differentiation to be quite helpful. Having the language to talk about differentiation has allowed me to identify both the effective practices of my classroom mentors and the practices that I have employed, both successfully and unsuccessfully.
Theory
Carol Ann Tomlinson offers a framework for thinking about differentiation that I find extremely helpful. Her discussion of ‘Key Principles of a Differentiated Classroom’ outlines those things that must be in place in order for a teacher to be able to effectively differentiate. Tomlinson claims that a differentiated classroom is one in which:
1.) Assessment and instruction are inseparable
2.) Teacher adjusts the content, process, product, or learning environment in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile
3.) Flexibility is the hallmark
4.) Teacher understands, appreciates, and builds upon student differences
These key principles are the foundation for any successfully differentiated classroom (Tomlinson, 1999, p.48). Similarly, Hall, Strangman and Meyer define differentiated instruction as ‘instruction designed to recognize students’ varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests; and to react responsively,’ (Hall, Strangman, Meyer, p. 3). They outline the learning cycle and decision factors used in planning and implementing differentiated instruction with the diagram at right.
But just how exactly does one go about doing this? In their book, Tomlinson & McTighe offer a suggestion. They discuss the value of efficient instructional planning, and suggest that teachers cluster learner needs. They refer to this as “anticipatory planning,” or planning for key patterns in student learning. Anticipating the predictable barriers that students face, they claim, and planning ahead to address them, makes the teaching of a lesson much easier and more productive for the students (Tomlinson & McTighe,p. 94-95).
Hall, Strangman and Meyer offer similar suggestions through their discussion of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The UDL framework was inspired by the universal design movement in architecture, which calls for the design of structures that anticipate the needs of people with disabilities and accommodate those needs from the outset. The benefits of universally designed structures are then readily accessible to those with disabilities, but they offer unanticipated benefits for everyone. Wheelchair ramps, for example, end up benefitting not only people in wheelchairs, but also people with strollers, elderly people, and young children (Hall, Strangman and Meyer, p.7). Similarly, UDL calls for the design of a lesson or a curriculum with the needs of all students in mind. A UDL lesson or curriculum is innately flexible and accessible to all.
1.) Assessment and instruction are inseparable
2.) Teacher adjusts the content, process, product, or learning environment in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile
3.) Flexibility is the hallmark
4.) Teacher understands, appreciates, and builds upon student differences
These key principles are the foundation for any successfully differentiated classroom (Tomlinson, 1999, p.48). Similarly, Hall, Strangman and Meyer define differentiated instruction as ‘instruction designed to recognize students’ varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests; and to react responsively,’ (Hall, Strangman, Meyer, p. 3). They outline the learning cycle and decision factors used in planning and implementing differentiated instruction with the diagram at right.
But just how exactly does one go about doing this? In their book, Tomlinson & McTighe offer a suggestion. They discuss the value of efficient instructional planning, and suggest that teachers cluster learner needs. They refer to this as “anticipatory planning,” or planning for key patterns in student learning. Anticipating the predictable barriers that students face, they claim, and planning ahead to address them, makes the teaching of a lesson much easier and more productive for the students (Tomlinson & McTighe,p. 94-95).
Hall, Strangman and Meyer offer similar suggestions through their discussion of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The UDL framework was inspired by the universal design movement in architecture, which calls for the design of structures that anticipate the needs of people with disabilities and accommodate those needs from the outset. The benefits of universally designed structures are then readily accessible to those with disabilities, but they offer unanticipated benefits for everyone. Wheelchair ramps, for example, end up benefitting not only people in wheelchairs, but also people with strollers, elderly people, and young children (Hall, Strangman and Meyer, p.7). Similarly, UDL calls for the design of a lesson or a curriculum with the needs of all students in mind. A UDL lesson or curriculum is innately flexible and accessible to all.
Practice
The concepts of anticipatory planning and UDL seem pretty simple and even perhaps obvious, but putting them into practice is difficult.
One of my biggest challenges has been to figure out what to do in a classroom where some (advanced) students finish their work with twenty minutes to spare while others need one-on-one or small group support just to finish and understand a small portion of the assigned work. I have learned that I must always prepare for those students who are more advanced and will finish quickly by giving them meaningful extension work so that I can then differentiate the learning environment or process for students who need it by working one-on-one or in small groups. Given the needs of the particular students in my class, this has been the most important way that I have been able to differentiate.
The range of ability in my class is evident in a comparison between two pieces of student work. Both of these samples are fairy tale adaptations. The piece on the left is a rough draft that was abandoned. Despite this student's earnest effort to produce a written response, his had nothing to do with fairy tales--it is what he writes when he is left to work alone and doesn't know what else to do. The piece on the right is a different student's final piece. While I typed it, she wrote it with little to no help from me or my classroom mentor.
One of my biggest challenges has been to figure out what to do in a classroom where some (advanced) students finish their work with twenty minutes to spare while others need one-on-one or small group support just to finish and understand a small portion of the assigned work. I have learned that I must always prepare for those students who are more advanced and will finish quickly by giving them meaningful extension work so that I can then differentiate the learning environment or process for students who need it by working one-on-one or in small groups. Given the needs of the particular students in my class, this has been the most important way that I have been able to differentiate.
The range of ability in my class is evident in a comparison between two pieces of student work. Both of these samples are fairy tale adaptations. The piece on the left is a rough draft that was abandoned. Despite this student's earnest effort to produce a written response, his had nothing to do with fairy tales--it is what he writes when he is left to work alone and doesn't know what else to do. The piece on the right is a different student's final piece. While I typed it, she wrote it with little to no help from me or my classroom mentor.
What follows is a description of how I have put the relevant theory (discussed above) into practice in an effort to effectively reach and support each of the students in my class.