Category Archives: Project Reflections

03/17/16

Practicum Reflection

March 3, 2016

Yesterday was such a productive day on practicum. First thing in the morning, my students watched the remainder of the movie, “Holes.” My SA finished reading the book last week, so as promised, she showed the movie to help the students visualize the events, characters and settings from the novel. After watching the movie, my SA conducted a discussion with the class. She began asking them to compare and contrast the book to the movie. Instantly, students were able to identify the differences. Students noticed that there were certain scenes in the movie that were never mentioned in the novel. Also, they recognized how the movie elaborated and altered the appearance of characters, which were very different to how the author described the certain characters in the novel. To my surprise, my students were able to point out the small differences to the props and small details. I enjoyed this discussion because I was able to see how my students were critically thinking. While a majority of them preferred watching the movie than listening to the book, the whole class agreed that reading the book gives more detail and context to the background of characters and events.

Relating to my inquiry, I witnessed differentiated instruction in my classroom. For quite a while now, my class has been working on their cursive writing. From practicing how to write letter-by-letter, they are now writing words and sentences depending on the student’s progress. However there are still a few students who have trouble printing, so their handwriting is not up to par to their peers. For differentiated instruction, my teacher has projected a YouTube video where it visually shows a step-by-step process of how to handwrite letters. She has also drawn dotted versions in books where students can draw over the lines. While the class is at different levels when it comes to handwriting as well as many other subjects, my SA has different approaches, different ways to instruct the diversity so that each student is learning the given subject/assignment at their own pace.

Another example of differentiated instruction was in P.E. During this period, I organized a plyometric relay for my class where students had to do 5 jumping jacks, 5 hulas on the hoops, and 5 burpees. In my class I have a student who has multiple sclerosis, so the burpees were going to be too difficult. Instead we told her to jump high on the spot 5 times. Differentiating this one move did not affect the other students, as they are all aware and accepting to accommodating to one another. Through this differentiation, the entire class was able to participate in a cardio filled activity.

I can see how differentiated instruction can make a major and minor difference to student engagement in lessons. If differentiation is not made I could see the decrease of engagement occurring subsequently. Teachers cannot teach the class as a whole that would be foolish. Instead, teachers must look at each student and increase engagement, learning, and motivation at their own pace.

03/14/16

Inquiry Synthesis

Where I Started:

Initially my inquiry reflection began as:

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

I realized during my Thursday visits that every classroom was filled with diverse learners. Not one individual was the same to the next. It became clear to me that educators have the power to truly help all learners excel in classrooms. Through my initially research, I noticed how differentiated instruction was a constant buzzword that kept popping up relating to my inquiry question. I found one article that really shifted my mind and inquiry to focus more on differentiated instruction and here is one quote that inspired me:

“Educators have to look at where the bar is set and where the students are when they enter classrooms. Some students will work all year with tutelage and barely make the bar; some can leap over the bar gracefully; and some were already over the bar before they entered dass. If we use the standards as our guide, we can teach all students equitably. The risk is our focus will shift to the standards and away from the child. With the tools of differentiated instruction, we can keep the focus where it belongs and take each student as far as he or she can go” (Levy, 2008, p.164).

Where I Am Now:

Now, my inquiry question focuses more on differentiated instruction since it encompasses technology, unique lessons planning, and personalized learning. So far, my inquiry question looks a little like:

All learners come at different academic levels, so how as educators can we treat, support and respond to them all equitably through differentiated instruction.

I am constantly researching how to differentiate my lesson plans, activities etc. for my practicum so that I am able to be consistent with my inquiry throughout. I found a great article by Barbara Taylor that really hones in on how to model differentiate instruction in the content, process and product. This article helped me understand not only how to differentiate, but it also delivered concrete examples on how to actually do it.

Where Am I Headed:

I believe I am headed in the direction where I will be continually researching and looking for new ideas to differentiate my lessons plans, activities, etc. I found that reading other teachers’ blogs, watching YouTube and TEDtalk videos are really helping me refine my inquiry as well as gives me ideas on how to take on differentiated instruction.

I have high hopes that through my incorporation of the differentiated strategies available on the Coquitlam SD 43 Redesigned Curriculum Planning Framework, I will be able to “engage all students…that is appealing, developmentally appropriate, and motivational” (Taylor, 2015, p. 17).

References:

Levy, Holli M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: helping every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing House: A Journal of Education Strategies, 81(4). P. 161-164.

Taylor, Barbara Kline. (2015). Content, process, and product: modeling differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record 51(1), p. 13-17.

Here is my synthesis on Prezi:

?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

 

Differentiation in Classroom

03/13/16

Increasing the Teaching Efficacy of a Beginning Special Education Teacher Using Differentiated Instruction: A Case Study

Unknown

This article follows a “beginning special education teacher who used pre-assessment, self-assessment and on-going assessment to implement the principles of differentiated instruction to become more responsive to her students’ needs in a systematic way” (p. 191). This teacher candidate’s “overarching structure was to address three interrelated areas: a) data collection, b) data-based planning, and c) use of differentiated instruction as a systematic approach to individualization” (p. 193).

To illustrate this TC’s process, she first wrote about the students’ strengths and challenges, they engaged in their own self-reflection regarding their current practices in the classroom. Second, the information was then used to plan how she was going to use differentiated instruction practices and integrate on-going assessments into the data-based planning process. Third, she implemented the principles of differentiated instruction in her inclusive first grade classroom, using on-going data to inform decision making in a cyclical process (p. 194).

By using this cyclical process, this particular TC was able to respond to her students’ needs in a systematic way. In other words, she was able to understand each of her students’ needs, then differentiate for them in a structured, planned, and routine way. I realized consistency is key when differentiating for your students. If a teacher is inconsistent in the way they differentiate for their students, the message can become lost in translation. I see the importance in knowing your students’ strengths, challenges but also understanding your students’ own self-reflection could provide crucial information in finding different paths in differentiating successfully. I can relate to this article in a big way since the teacher in the this case study was a TC like me. She was able to implement her inquiry in her classroom and truly find answers and adaptions throughout her practicum. I find hope and inspiration in how she “successfully broached the research to practice gap using differentiated instruction as an effective way to meet the needs of all of the children within an inclusive setting” (p. 198).

Earnest, James M., Heckaman, Kelly A., Thompson, Shirley E., Hull, Karla M., & Carter, Shannon W. (2011). Increasing the teaching efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: a case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), p. 191-201.

03/9/16

Content, Process, and Product: Modeling Differentiated Instruction

diNew

Barbara Taylor’s article “Content, Process, and Product: Modeling Differentiated Instruction,” gives great insight on how teachers, especially teacher candidates like myself could differentiate instruction through these three steps: content, process and product. In detail, Taylor explains how teachers generally differentiate “content—the “what” of instruction; process—the “how” of instruction; and product—the “evidence” of instruction” (p. 14).  Furthermore, teachers also “differentiate by levels in the class: below target, on target, and above target” (p. 14).

Differentiating content means that teachers can vary the level of complexity. To further illustrate how to differentiate content, Taylor discusses how in “an English class, students can read textbooks or other literature at different reading levels addressed to their specific needs. Because most classes have only one set of textbooks at grade reading level, the teacher must provide other reading materials at various levels” (p. 14).

Differentiating process means that teachers can vary the learning activities based on the students’ interests or learning styles. “For example, in a history class, students could conduct Internet research, interview community members, draw maps, or construct models. While all students have similar content to cover, they may choose from an array of activities or processes that are of interest to them or that address their various learning styles” (p. 14).

Differentiating product means that students have a choice in how they demonstrate what they have learned. “For example, in a science class, students can write a paper, conduct a lab and report the procedures and results, or present a PowerPoint® on the topic” (p. 14). Taylor explains that any one of these aforementioned choices also can be used to differentiate target levels as well. “For example, everyone in the science class can conduct a lab, but the requirements for writing the procedures and results can be varied for each target group” (p. 14).

This article is simple yet powerful in how I can differentiate instruction in my diverse classroom and any diverse classroom for that matter. The article speaks on not just how to differentiate the content, it also gives concrete examples on how teachers can differentiate process and product. I think it is so easy to just differentiate one out of the three aspects, but in order to equitably respond to all diverse students, teachers like myself, need to take into consideration of the students’ level (whether they are below target, on target, and above target), students’ needs, interests and learning styles. By doing so, I will be able to be in the right mindset to thoughtfully and critically differentiate the content, process, and product for each student so that each student is provided with multiple paths to a learning goal. Additionally, differentiating instruction in the content, process and product, teachers “can engage all students…that is appealing, developmentally appropriate, and motivational” (p. 17).

Taylor, Barbara Kline. (2015). Content, process, and product: modeling differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record 51(1), p. 13-17.

03/3/16

Alone, Confused, and Frustrated: Developing Empathy and Strategies for Working with English Language Learners

Chalk drawing of a group of stick figures with speech bubbles stating hello in different languages. (Japanese,French,Greek,Chinese,English,German,Spanish, Italian)

In Washburn’s article, “Alone, Confused, and Frustrated: Developing Empathy and Strategies for Working with English Language Learners,” it discusses extensively on the feelings, attitudes, and behaviours ELL (English Language Learners) face daily in their classrooms. Much like what the title suggests, many ELLs undergo many negative feelings and emotions due to language barriers. According to Washburn’s experiences with ELLs, many “reported being frustrated, feeling lost, feeling stupid or dumb, and being overwhelmed” (p. 248) when working in classroom where there were no differentiation. In addition, the ELLs were often confused, “felt left out, out of place, excluded, or alone” (p. 248).

It is obvious that these scenarios happen often in classrooms with all students, especially ELLs. Due to language barriers and no differentiation (from the teacher), many students end up falling through the cracks and feel so low in their ability and self-esteem. Students often end up losing their inquiry, passion, engagement because they are usually bored or tune out the lesson. Differentiated instruction is key when working with ELLs. Teachers must actively try to incorporate experiential learning activities where the said students “can stimulate thinking about strategies for improving communication across the language barriers” (p. 248). Differentiation can also come in the form of “teaching more slowly and providing translations” (p. 248) for learners so that students are able to illustrate words, phrases, and grammatical concepts in their minds or in their L1. Body language, pictures, and place also play a key role in the aiding ELLs in the classroom. Differentiated instruction can also be simple like “be more patient, look for extra materials, try harder to pronounce a strange name, wait a minute longer for a student to comprehend and formulate an answer, or take an extra five minutes to look up a word in another language” (p. 250). When teachers are putting in the effort in differentiating instruction, ELLs are given an equal opportunity to be engage and fully understand what is being taught in the classroom as their peers.

I have been blessed to have worked with so many ELLs in my tutoring job. I as well agree with Washburn when he states so eloquently that it would be a great wish that “all teachers were required to study a foreign language, not so much to achieve a high level of proficiency (although that would be good) but because they study of a foreign language reduces us all, on occasion, to the often frustrated and confused state that ELLs experience” (p. 250).

Washburn, Gay N. (2008). Alone, confused and frustrated: developing empathy and strategies for working with english language learners. The Clearing House, 81(6). p. 247-250.

image001

02/29/16

PLN Facilitation Workshop

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.

02/28/16

Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction

This article by Holli Levy is very concise and illustrates beautifully how every single teacher who has entered a classroom has differentiated instruction in one way or another. Through Mrs. Johnson’s example, Levy makes it so relatable for every educator, because in every classroom there are so many diverse needs, strengths, weaknesses etc. Instead of teaching one’s students at the same pace, Levy states that the greatest challenge “is to meet each child where he or she is and move each forward in his or her learning as far as possible” (p.161).

Differentiated instruction, aligns with personalized learning, and many teachers really have differentiated instruction one way or another. Levy believes when a teacher gives a student more time to finish an assignment, allows children choice in what they read, or gives different types of assessments, those are all forms of differentiated instruction. “Differentiated instruction is a set of strategies that will help teachers meet each child where they are when they enter class and move them forward as far as possible on their educational path.” (p. 162).

“Educators have to look at where the bar is set and where the students are when they enter classrooms. Some students will work all year with tutelage and barely make the bar; some can leap over the bar gracefully; and some were already over the bar before they entered dass. If we use the standards as our guide, we can teach all students equitably. The risk is our focus will shift to the standards and away from the child. With the tools of differentiated instruction, we can keep the focus where it belongs and take each student as far as he or she can go” (p.164)

From reading this article, I not only resonated with Mrs. Johnson’s example, the different strategies Levy presents really made me think deeply on how I should differentiate my unit plans and lessons. The more and more I read and research on differentiated instruction, I realize how this concept can really shift the whole idea of meeting the needs of each student and truly motivate student learning, understanding, and prospering. Levy’s strategy on grouping for student needs, learning styles, and/or student interests really intrigued me and gave me clarity on how I should set my classroom/groups for certain lessons, assignments, and tasks.

Levy, Holli M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: helping every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing House: A Journal of Education Strategies, 81(4). P. 161-164.differentiated instruction

02/25/16

Practicum Reflection

January 21, 2016

During my Thursday visits as well as the 2-week practicum, I have had the privilege to observe my SA read countless Read-Alouds to the class. My SA has read nearly 5 classic chapter books while also reading the Magic Tree House series daily. I have noticed the emphasis she puts on auditory learning for the students, which I realize is an important skill all students should have. While visual learning is just as important this day in age, children are slowly losing the skills in listening for cues, inferences, information and instruction.

In an action packed day plan, my teacher always finds the time to read at least a chapter from a classic novel and another chapter from the Tree House Series. For the grade 3 students, they are extremely captivated with the story and spend their time either working on other work, or expressing their thoughts in their doodle books while listening to the stories.

My SA just finished reading the novel, “Frindle” by Brian Selznick to the class. The students were assigned to create a board game, painted illustration or make a skit on one of the events from the novel. Also, students had the choice of working individually or with a partner or group. Once the instructions were given, my students jumped up instantly getting into partners and groups. Not one student ended up by himself or herself. Many opted for the painting and board games, but what I loved the most was the options (of different modalities) my SA gave them.

From my Thursday visit, I realized how I must incorporate some Read-Alouds in my 10-week practicum, which will definitely allow my students to expand in their auditory learning, but also give them the opportunity to extend their learning in activities/assignments/projects in many different modalities they chose. Giving students choice on how they want to express and approach their learning, links greatly to my inquiry question. My SA used differentiated instruction to treat, support and respond to all the diverse learners in the classroom.

02/25/16

Flipping the Traditional Classroom on its Head

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.

02/25/16

Differentiated Instruction Through Reading

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