Today in my small group discussion, we discussed Carol Ann Tomlinson’s article, “Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction.” In this article, it follows three particular teachers, Mr. Appleton, Mrs. Baker and Ms. Cassell, and their different teaching styles.

I was thoroughly satisfied with how well the discussion went. Prior to the discussion, I made a lesson plan and had some guiding questions in order to generate a fruitful discussion. As a group we dissected each teacher and their teaching styles. We also talked about the strengths and weaknesses to the article.

When looking more closely at each teacher’s teaching style, we noticed how Mr. Appleton’s approach was very familiar to how the majority of our high school and undergrad was taught. Mr. Appleton was like the typical traditional teacher who focuses on textbook reading, note taking, and worksheet answering. Furthermore, if his students do not finish their worksheets in class, they will have to finish it for homework. Mr. Baker’s main form of instruction is lecture style, where he discusses the topic, expects his students to take notes on his lectures and then give quizzes and tests based on their notes, their textbook and a study sheet he hands out before the test (which clearly spells out what will be on the test).

With Mrs. Baker, as a group we liked her some of her ideas, like bringing in physical objects (pictures, videos/clips, architecture, food, wardrobe, stories/myths) to further the learning of ancient Rome. For a final project, Mrs. Baker gives her students 10 options to choose from like a poster, travel brochure, poems, create paper dolls, build architectural models, or make a map. We found her approach was fun but lacked focus.

Ms. Cassell on the other hand, “planned her year around a few key concepts that will help relate to, organize, and retain what they study in history.” “She has also developed principles or generalizations that govern or uncover how the concepts work. Further, for each unit, she has established a defined set of facts and terms that are essential for students to know to be literate and informed about the topic. She has listed skills for which she and the students are responsible as the year progresses. Finally, she has developed essential questions to intrigue her students and to cause them to engage with her in a quest for understanding” (p. 6). We found that Ms. Cassell’s approach really mirrored differentiated instruction. Her style had focus but enough room for flexibility.

In our group discussion, we found this resource very interesting and helpful by looking at the three teachers. At first, we thought Mrs. Baker’s teaching style was somewhat differentiated but after reading Ms. Cassell’s approach, realized Mrs. Baker’s style was not differentiated, instead hers lacked “a clear vision of the meaning of her subject, of the nature of her discipline and what it adds to human understanding, and of why it should matter to a young learner to study old times” (p. 6). When developing our unit plans and lesson plans, we have taken the same approach as Ms. Cassell in backward making. Other members in the group also suggested we incorporate Mrs. Baker’s diverse choice in projects, but ensuring all our units, lessons, and assignments have purpose and are align with our vision, big idea, and/or essential question.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership: Personalized Learning, 57(1). p. 1-8.

Inquiry question:
All learners come at different academic levels in a classroom setting, so how as educators can we treat, support and respond to them all equally (considering different lesson plans, curricula, technology and personalized learning)?

Flipped classrooms invert traditional teaching methods, delivering instruction online outside of the class and moving “homework” into the classroom.

On the website below, I have found a really neat infographic that not only illustrates what flipped classrooms should look like, it also looks at the beginnings of it, and the positive results of this particular new method.

https://www.knewton.com/infographics/flipped-classroom/

Flipped classrooms have been all the rage in the education field today. With technology advancing daily, and children becoming more and more technologically literate, flipped classrooms have become more feasible than ever. Through Khan Academy in particular, teachers are able to assign videos, lectures, tutorials, assignments on subjects from arithmetic, physics, finance to history, which further enables student learning in the classroom. In connection to my inquiry question, flipped classrooms can promote learning inside and outside the classroom for all diverse learners. Students can utilize technology at home as a form of homework, then apply what they learned in classroom activities, which in consequence endorses mastery and collaborative work.

I can see myself using this flipped classroom concept in older grades. Some limitations I see in this concept is the issue of technology available in students’ homes. If some students in my class have access to technology and the internet then I could see the flipped classroom method working. But if not, it can cause more issues that go beyond learning. Flipped classrooms relate to my inquiry as it is a way teachers can implement differentiated instruction to students who are visual learners. Teachers can assign lectures, informative videos etc. to students to watch at home (possibly take notes) then explore the topic further in class through maybe hands-on experiential learning.

Strayer, J. F. (2011). Flipped Classroom. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from https://www.knewton.com.

Inquiry Question: All learners come at different academic levels in a classroom setting, so how as educators can we treat, support and respond to them all equally (considering different lesson plans, curricula, technology and personalized learning)?

Differentiated instruction has been a constant buzzword throughout my inquiry research. Even through my experience in my practicum classroom, differentiated instruction has been prevalent in motivating and encourage all students.

In the article, “You Get to Choose! Motivating Students to Read Through Differentiated Instruction” by Kathryn L. Servilio, Servilio promotes a 7 step guideline for integrating student choice with differentiated instruction. This 7 step guideline for the “You Get to Choose” reading program aids in motivating and engaging students with disabilities in academic areas, specifically in reading.

Step 1: Identify student needs and learning styles within your classroom.
-Identify the students’ goals, objectives for reading within the program and strategies that are already in place and are successful
-Utilize Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Myers Briggs Type Indicator, or Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Model to determine how all of the students learn

Step 2: Assess current student achievement
-Examples: End-of-quarter grades, portfolio assessment, scores on past curriculum reading assessments, oral assessments, or everyday assessment of reading and comprehension
-Determine how one will administer the assessments and the amount of points one will assign for each activity

Step 3: Select empirically based strategies for reading, comprehension and personal connection
-Use ideas in published articles for strategies that have been already identified and research as they are likely to be more successful
-When gathering strategies, teachers should sort them into categories based on 3 components: reading strategies, comprehension strategies, and personal connections
-Also begin to think which strategies work best with certain learning styles or intelligences

Step 4: Differentiate the material for the students with special needs
-After categorizing specific strategies to corresponding learning styles/intelligences, it should be fairly easy to choose activities for students
-However, keeping in mind that the materials for the students with disabilities then need to be further differentiated for individuals with specific disabilities
-Individualized method of meeting all the students’ academic needs at their level

Step 5: Provide options for student choice
-Design activities that offer the students a choice
-Reading: Have students read certain chapters individually or with partners/groups, or listen to assigned chapters on tape
-Comprehension: Write down questions you asked yourself as you read, summarize what you read, complete an advanced organizer on the events in the chapter
-Personal connection: Research on the computer and create a portrait of the character and respond to the portrait on how that person has affected your life, draw a picture and label what you think of all the characters (label the page numbers where you got your information that led you to believe that)

Step 6: Conduct the assessment
-If a teacher decides to use the portfolio assessment, then the teacher must use a checklist of activities each day to mark what the child has chosen

Step 7: Evaluate student performance
-Important to evaluate how well the students performed but also how the students’ felt about the program
-Students need to become comfortable with this program, since they may not be used to this approach in the past
-Ensure teachers use at least two books when using this 7 step guideline, as that will provide a well-rounded picture of the implementation of the program

Servilio strongly believes in that this 7 step program truly increases student engagement and learning for all students when it comes to reading. For me through this article, I learned how to approach differentiated instruction through steps 1, 3 and 4. I also learned that differentiated instruction should not be a easy way out for students in completing assignments and tasks, instead when differentiating teachers “should focus on the level of learning that will challenge the student” (p. 7).

Servilio, Kathryn L. (2009). You get to choose! motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), 2-10. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967752.pdf