Action Research Update #2

Action Research Update #2!

During the month of January, I made the following progress on my action research. One part of the action research I conducted was that I contacted the school principals who agreed to be part of my action research during the fall semester of 2016. After initially reaching out to the principals, we then worked together to discuss my action research procedure. I informed the principals that I needed around five to ten participants from each school to participate in my study. During a scheduled faculty meeting, school principals briefly spoke to their staff members about the action research opportunity. After informing faculty of my action research, few faculty members from each school expressed interest in participating in my study.

Once I heard that teachers were interested in my study, I contacted the school principals again to inform them of the consent form process. Since some of the schools I am conducting my research at are a long distance from my location, I asked the principals if it would it be okay if I mailed hard copies of the consent forms to their school offices. I explained that if faculty members are interested in partaking in the study they could easily obtain a consent form from the office, sign the consent form and place it back in the folder in the school office. I would provide postage, a return address and an extra envelope. When the research deadline approaches I explained that I would simply need the school to mail the envelope containing the signed consent forms back to me. I believe mailing the hard copies of the consent forms would make it easier for the school faculty because they would not have to print the consent forms, then sign, then scan, then upload the signed forms and then email them back to me.

After I discovered the schools received the consent forms, I then started to gather prospective participant’s emails. Once I obtained the emails, I sent the participants a link to my survey that I created on Google Forms from my Western State email account.

On the survey, the first question I asked participants to answer was to include their name so I could match the name on the survey with the name on the signed consent form. I informed participants that their name and information would be kept confidential. I will continue to update the progress of my action research throughout the semester!

Article #7

Article #7

“The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges”

By Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L.

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013), authors of The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges begin their research by discussing the “impact of using a differentiated instructional approach to teaching second year students pursuing an undergraduate course in curriculum studies at a tertiary institution” (pg. 28). Joseph et al. (2013), divides their research into nine sections. The first section is the introduction section. In this section, Joseph et al. (2013) imply that the latest research indicates that although graduates from teacher education programs typically understand the notion of differentiated instruction, new teachers usually have a hard time incorporating process, content, and product differentiation in their classrooms (pg. 28). After discussing the difficulties of incorporating differentiation techniques in the classroom, Joseph et al. (2013), explain the chief components of differentiated instruction. Joseph et al. (2013), believe that student readiness, student interest, student learning profile, content differentiation, process differentiation, product differentiation, modelling differentiation are all key traits to develop a differentiated classroom (pg. 30).

Once the authors explain the introduction Joseph et al. (2013) then move to section two and explain the purpose of the study (pg. 31). The objective of the research was to understand the relationship between student achievement in a sophomore year undergraduate curriculum studies class and the utilization of differentiated instruction during a sixteen week semester (pg. 31). Section two also includes the three research questions that are the foundation of their research. Research question one asks, "What are the successes and challenges associated with the implementation of differentiated instruction at the tertiary level?" Research question two asks, "What is the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement in curriculum studies over a period of one semester?" Research Question three asks, "What are prospective teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction and its potential impact on their classroom practice?" (pg. 31).

After discussing the purpose of the study Joseph et al. (2013), move to section three, which explains the course overview (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013), explain that the curriculum studies class in the study is a required general education course for every student trying to earn their bachelor of education degree. The objective of the class is to help students think about important questions surrounding education such as “what should be taught, and who decides what should be taught?” (pg. 31).

Implementing differentiated instruction in a teacher education setting is the fourth section Joseph et al. (2013) discusses (pg. 31).  Joseph et al. (2013) believe that although differentiated instruction is becoming more widespread in many K-12 schools internationally, there has not been much research conducted about teaching differentiation to undergraduate education students (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013) believe differentiation instruction could be considered a novel method to utilize in the college setting (pg. 31). Joseph et al. (2013), provide a table chart that offers an explanation of the different strategies researchers of this study implemented to showcase differentiated content (topic), process (activities), and product (assessment) in a teacher education environment (pg. 31).

Section five looks at the methodology of the study (pg. 32). The researchers used a varied research technique that included the utilization of classroom observations, questionnaires, student and teacher interviews, focus group discussions, students’ semester grades, and student reflections, to collect the relevant data from undergraduate students trying to earn their a bachelor of education degree. The entire population of the study consisted of four instructors along with 434 undergraduates from two teacher program campuses (pg. 32). In order to analyze the data, Joseph et al. (2013) arranged and organized the information to find patters and themes (pg. 33). Joseph et al. (2013) provide information about the students by using a table. The table illustrates that 81% of the students are female, 88% have 0-4 year of teaching experience, 43% are primary educators, 49% of students like to work in groups and 53% of students say they are visual learners.

After explaining the methodology section, Joseph et al. (2013) then move to section six, which includes the results and discussion (pg. 34). During this section, Joseph et al. (2013) include the experiences of the four instructors. For instance, teacher 1 named Stephen said the following about differentiated instruction, “after several years of teaching curriculum studies, the decision to differentiate instruction came as a breath of fresh air as it provided greater opportunities for me to meet the varying needs of learners in my class" (pg. 34). Teacher 2 named Marlene agreed with teacher 1 Stephen about differentiation when she said, "from an instructor’s point of view, the practice of differentiation is an excellent strategy” (pg. 34). However, Marlene did say that” the “process differentiation is very time consuming as it requires careful planning; and while differentiating product has many advantages for the learner, a considerable amount of time must also be spent constructing a rubric to assess students with diverse interests and learning preferences" (pg. 35).

Teacher 3 named Gerard said, "from my observation, differentiated instruction allowed for building relationships of sharing, trust and cooperation, which are vital in creating an effective learning community" (pg. 35). Teacher 4 named Leela felt like differentiated instruction was very useful because it “allows for critical and creative thinking. Students displayed their creativity through creative dramatic presentations, skits, and dance. The different modes of presentations included poems, songs, talk shows, drawings, charts and demonstrations which provided variation. These varied strategies readily appealed to different learning profiles and proved to be very effective" (pg. 36).

In addition, the researchers explained the success and challenges they came across during the time they were working with students using a differentiated classroom approach. One success of the differentiated classroom setting was an “increase student motivation in approaching academic tasks” (pg. 36). Another success of the differentiated environment was the” improved study habits and problem solving skills for students” (pg. 36). However, one challenge of the differentiated classroom was that it was often “a very time consuming exercise with long hours of planning, organizing and scheduling individuals and groups in a large class setting” (pg. 36). Another challenge to of the differentiated classroom approach was that it made it “difficult to cater to individual needs and preferences especially those individuals who prefer to work alone” (pg. 36).

Section seven looks at the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement (pg. 36). According to Joseph et al. (2013), grades collected from the class projects were utilized to understand the connection between measures of student successes in the curriculum studies class and use of differentiated instruction during a semester. Joseph et al. (2013) provide a number of tables that compare student’s grades over four assignments in the course. The tables comparing student’s grades illustrate that “students who were exposed to a differentiated instructional approach generally obtained higher grades than their counterparts who were taught in the traditional whole class instructional setting” (pg. 37).

After revealing the relationship between differentiated instruction and student achievement, chapter eight consists of students’ perceptions about differentiated instruction and its potential impact on their classroom practice (pg. 37). Students in the curriculum study course took a survey that asked them to discuss their views regarding differentiated instruction and its possible impression on their teaching instruction. For instance, survey statement said "I believe that all instructors should use differentiated instruction in their classrooms” (pg. 37). The data revealed that around 95% of students said they agreed with the statement whereas only 3% of students did not agree. Another survey item stated, "I plan to use differentiated instruction in my practicum classes sometime in the future"(pg. 37). Nearly every one of the survey participants at 99% said that they were interested in employing a differentiated instructional method in their upcoming practicum courses they will take at the university (pg. 37).

Section eight also includes a summary of the focus group findings and illustrates the awareness of the students’ understandings of differentiated instruction (pg. 38). One question the focus groups responded to was “based on your experience in the curriculum studies class, what do you see as the benefits of differentiated instruction?” (pg. 38). Students responded by saying “differentiated instruction was useful for me. It was effective. It afforded me the opportunity to work with people other than the regular ones that I work with. I felt confident because I chose the mode of evaluation” (pg. 38). Another question asked the focus groups to discuss “what the drawbacks are (if any) of differentiated instruction?” (pg. 38). Students responded by saying “the existing standardized assessment and other school practices and regulations may constrain effective use of differentiation” (pg. 38).

Joseph et al. (2013) close their paper with section nine, the conclusion (pg. 39). The conclusion discusses a detailed summary of the action research and article. The conclusion also provides an overview of the importance of using differentiated instruction. In addition, the conclusion highlights the successes and difficulties of differentiation based on 4 teachers and 434 education students’ perspectives. Joseph et al. (2013) end the article by saying, “if (differentiation) adopted more widely, a differentiated instructional approach has the potential to revolutionize teaching and learning” (pg. 39).

Reflection

Overall, I thought the researchers and authors did a great job. I believe the article was very well organized and the authors did a nice job at dividing the article into 9 sections. If the sections were not outlined or as clearly headed and numbered, I believe the reader would have had a difficult time following all of the information presented throughout the article. 

I also liked that this article considered college students opinions that were in teacher education programs. By looking at undergraduate teacher student perspectives, the researchers were able to look at inexperienced teachers understanding and viewpoint of differentiation in the classroom, which is not very common in the research I have found up to this point.

After reading the article by Joseph et al. (2013), I was very impressed with the number of research methods the researchers used to study this topic. For instance, the researchers used “questionnaires, focus group discussions, teacher and student interviews, classroom observations, students’ semester grades, and student reflections” (pg. 32). Although, all of the instruments used to conduct the research gave a lot of great information about differentiation, the immense amount of information was a bit overwhelming to keep track of during the results and discussion section.

I really liked that the authors included tables into their article. I believe the tables allow the readers to see and better understand the quantitative and qualitative data the researchers received. However, I felt like some of the tables were a little confusing to understand. For instance, I felt like the table comparing students grades was well organized, but it took a while to take in all of the quantitative information from all four classes. I believe a more in-depth summary and explanation of the table with the student’s grades would have benefited the article.

I also like that the study highlighted not only the strength of differentiated instruction, but also the weaknesses as well. I believe including both the successes and challenges helps the reader understand differentiation from two perspectives.  In addition, I like that the study acquired viewpoints from four experienced teachers and 434 undergraduate students getting ready to be teachers. This quality sample size is more representative of the population.

Reference

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. International Journal of Higher Education. 2(3) pg. 28-40. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067355.pdf

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

Action Research Update

Action Research Update!

As you can see from my previous blog posts, I have read and reviewed a number of articles and texts. These literature reviews have helped me build my action research proposal and the material has helped me have a better understanding of differentiation in the high school setting in general. A couple months ago I submitted my action research proposal to my HRC department at my university and I recently learned that my action research proposal was approved! To continue developing and enhancing my research, I will continue to read, summarize and reflect on further literature relating to the differentiated classroom. So far this semester, two articles I have discovered that I am planning on reviewing are entitled, The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges, by Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., Ramsook, L. (2013), along with an article called, Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective by Stavrou, E. and Koutselini, M. (2016).

In addition to the literature reviews, I will also be conducting my action research. My action research will require me to reach out to teachers at various high schools in Colorado to interview and survey teachers about their perspectives on differentiation. The interview I created includes ten open ended questions that will hopefully provide me with a lot of qualitative data. The surveys I created include around 20 questions that I hope will give me a lot of quantitative data. After I conduct my action research, I will then analyze the data and look for common themes and patterns to help me and the education field have a better understanding of differentiation strategies in the high school setting. I will share my progress and findings on my blog!

Article #6

Article #6

“The Highly Engaged Classroom”

By Marzano and Pickering

According to Marzano and Pickering (2011), authors of The Highly Engaged Classroom, student “engagement is a central aspect of effective teaching. If students are not engaged, there is little, if any, chance that they will learn what is being addressed in class” (pg. 1).  Therefore, Marano and Pickering highlight the importance of student engagement.

The text is composed of six chapters dealing with strategies to engage students of all learning types. The first chapter entitled research and theory looks at four topics that constitute their model of student attention and engagement (pg. 3). The four topic presented are student emotions “how do I feel?”, student interest “am I interested?”, perceived importance “is this important?” and perceptions of efficacy “can I do this?” (pg. 15). Chapter one then provides a model of engagement and attention, and then discusses transforming research and theory within the classroom (pg. 20). The end of each and every chapter in the text has a section allowing teachers and students to analyze their strengths and weaknesses (pg. 20).

Chapter two focuses solely on the student’s emotion and looks at “how do I feel?” (pg. 21). According to Marzano and Pickering, three factors effect students feelings at school which include the student’s energy levels, the attitude of the instructor, and the student’s view of recognition by teachers and peers (pg. 21).This chapter talks about implementing effective pacing methods, integrating physical activity and illustrating intensity and enthusiasm (pg. 30). The chapter discusses the importance of using humor, constructing up-beat student and teacher and peer relationships. The chapter ends by suggesting exercises teachers can use in their classrooms to meet each students emotional needs (pg. 53).

The third chapter entitled “am I interested?” looks at student interests. Marzano and Pickering explain that “students will attend to activities in the classroom if they are interested” (pg. 57). In order to get students interested in what they are learning, chapter three suggests teachers should employ games and trivial competition such as hosting vocabulary or review games like Jeopardy. In addition, teachers can get students interested by starting friendly debates or presenting unusual information by using outside resources such as PBS and Edutopia for ideas. Marzano and Pickering also propose using questioning to increase response rates by calling on students randomly or through a response chain (pg. 65).

Chapter four asks the question “is this important?” based on students perceived importance. Marzano and Pickering warn that “if students do not perceive classroom tasks as important, engagement will be muted or nonexistent” (pg. 87). This chapter provides ways to connect to students. For instance, chapter four suggests that teachers should connect to students’ lives by implementing comparison tasks or analogical reasoning tasks (pg. 90). In addition, Marzano and Pickering propose that teachers link to the students’ life’s ambitions by promoting personal projects to engage students (pg. 92). Chapter four also recommends teachers work towards encouraging application of knowledge by developing cognitively challenging tasks presenting real-life content (pg. 105).

The fifth chapter is entitled “can I do this?” This chapter focuses on self-efficacy, which is a student’s confidence in their capability to succeed in a particular situation or achieve a certain task. Marzano and Pickering believe self- efficacy may be the most significant element affecting student engagement (pg. 117). Chapter five also discusses ways for teachers to track and study student development by providing ideas to follow academic achievement over a specific amount of time (pg. 119). Next, Marzano and Pickering talk about ways for teachers to use effective verbal feedback and specify what type of feedback to avoid and what type of feedback to employ (pg. 124). This chapter also discusses the examples of self-efficacy through the use of stories, quotations (pg. 127). The chapter concludes by explaining ways to teach self-efficacy by having students recognize their personal theories (pg. 137).

Chapter six discusses “planning for high engagement?” Marzano and Pickering explain that high student engagement does not occur instantly; instead, teachers need think about engagement techniques to employ before each unit of teaching (pg. 147). The sixth chapter discusses daily strategies which include effective pacing, implementing effective feedback and constructing school relationships (pg. 148). The chapter also discusses opportunistic strategies such as implementing physical activity, using games and friendly competition, using humor, presenting unusual information, connecting to student’s lives and teaching self-efficacy (pg. 151). Chapter six ends by highlighting extended strategies and presents a summary (pg. 155).

The book concludes with an epilogue that includes an appendix that consists of answers to teaching exercises throughout the text (pg. 159). In addition, the appendix includes an explanation of what is an effect size regarding meta-analysis and research (pg. 183). Moreover, the appendix includes sample of unusual information teachers of a variety of subjects such as math and social studies should be aware of regarding student engagement (pg. 187). The appendix ends with a section on planning questions to help teachers monitor their daily and opportunistic strategies (pg. 202). The appendix also contains many charts and assessments for teachers to implement to monitor student engagement (pg. 205). 

Reflection

I found this text to be very beneficial for helping teachers understand techniques to better help students succeed. I really like how the chapters of the book are based on the first four topics presented in the beginning of the text. The four topics which are based on student emotions, student interests, student perceived importance and students perceptions of efficacy help the teacher understand and realize each student is different and each student has diverse needs. Therefore, I feel as though and the methods presented in Marzano’s and Pickering’s text make differentiation in the classroom more realistic. Although some of the strategies can be complex, Marzano and Pickering do a great job at providing many real life classroom examples, classroom exercises and charts to explain the techniques in great detail. I plan to use this text to help me formulate my questions for my research study on differentiation in the classroom. I also felt like the summary section near the end of every chapter was very beneficial in helping the reader make complete sense of the readings. The analyzing your strengths and weaknesses at the end of each chapter was also helpful because by using a self-assessment scale, it allows the reader which is the teacher to rate their teaching strategies from a 0 (not using), 1 (beginning), 2 (developing), 3 (applying), 4 (innovating) (pg. 110).

Reference

Marzano, R. & Pickering, D. (2011). The Highly Engaged Classroom. Bloomington, IN:

Marzano Research Laboratory.

Article #5

Article # 5

 "Examining Differentiated Instruction: Teachers Respond"

By Brenda Logan

According to Logan (2011), author of Examining Differentiated Instruction: Teachers Respond, "today's classrooms are more diverse than ever" (pg. 1). Logan introduces her paper by explaining that 21^st century classrooms are “defined by diversity” and states that “by 2035, students of color will be a majority in schools with increasing populations of children of immigrant and migrant families” (pg. 2).

After introducing her study, in order to find ways to differentiate for these diverse students, Logan starts talking about the review of literature she has conducted. The first literature Logan reviews surrounds the major principles of differentiation (pg. 2). Logan refers to many articles and principles dealing with differentiation including work from Tomlinson (1999). Logan explains that according to Tomlinson “teachers ought to focus on the essentials in learning, ought to attend to student differences, should collaborate with students on learning and should not separate assessment from instruction” (pg. 2).

Once Logan discusses the major principles, the second literature Logan reviews looks at the essential components of differentiation (pg. 2). Logan again refers to Tomlinson who classified three components of differentiation which include content, process, and products (pg. 3). Logan then refers to Langa & Yost (2007) authors of Curriculum Mapping for Differentiated Instruction, who suggests three different components of differentiation which are students readiness level, students interest level and students learning profile and then suggests ways to modify content, process and content (pg. 3).

The third literature Logan reviews deals with suggestions for implementing differentiated instruction. Logan refers to many authors and articles surrounding differentiation and suggests easy ways to differentiation. One suggestion Logan makes based on the literature reviews is for teachers to collect profiles of every students such as “learning preferences, family structure, hobbies, interests, and assessment scores” (pg. 4). In addition, Logan suggests that teachers need to take the time to reflect, evaluate and analyze differentiation. Finally, Logan says that in order to make differentiation manageable, teachers need to “build upon personal strengths and talents” (pg. 4).

The fourth literature Logan reviews considers the myths, clichés, and barriers within differentiated instruction. One cliché from the literature review was that “differentiation is just another phase and the pendulum will swing the other way soon because the emphasis on testing will not last forever” (pg. 4). One barrier is that teachers do not have the time to differentiate and that teachers do not have access to the professional development resources or administrative backing necessary for differentiation (pg. 5). One myth was that “the differentiated classroom has to do with dividing the class groups into bluebirds and redbirds (pg. 5).

The fifth literature Logan reviews looks at research studies and theories supporting differentiation. During the first part of this section of the literature review, Logan discusses how differentiation instruction was utilized within the classroom with a number of different content areas such as math, reading, science, social studies, along with different grade levels including, elementary, middle, and high school (pg. 5).

After discussing the five areas of literature reviews regarding differentiation, Logan then sums up the research. During this section, Logan states that “little research has been completed on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction” (pg. 7). Logan feels like there is a “need to add to the body of research about the factors that encourage and discourage teachers in attending to student differences” (pg. 7).

Next, Logan discusses the methods section. Logan explains that the purpose of her study is to learn what teachers identify as chief elements of differentiated instruction (pg. 7). In this section, Logan states her two research questions which are “will teachers agree on what is essential to differentiating instruction in the classroom and will teachers agree with the myths surrounding the practice?” (pg. 7).

Then, Logan explains the participants and setting of the study. For this study, Logan surveyed 141 teachers. Of the participants, 38 were male while 103 were female. Participants taught anywhere from 1 year to 35 years. All content areas were included in the study such as math, art, band, Spanish, special education and technology (pg. 8).

After discussing the participants and setting, Logan explains the research instrument. Logan’s study was based on a qualitative survey that was developed using data obtained from the literature reviews. The survey consisted of 16 questions dealing with the essential principles, the essential components, and the myths of differentiated instruction (pg. 8). The survey questions consisted of a Likert-type scale which asked participants to circle whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and not sure (pg. 8).

Logan then goes into the analysis and results section. Logan explains the process of going through all of the data obtained from the surveys. Logan then goes through each question asked on the survey and explains what percentage of teachers agreed or disagreed with the questions asked (pg. 9).

Next, Logan presents the discussion portion of the paper. In this section, Logan says studies need to understand why teachers are not agreeing or disagreeing regarding differentiation. Logan also suggests that the problem of differentiation lies with the public school and that public schools need to spend more time training teachers. Logan stresses that "professors must, as much as possible, engage in professional conversations about differentiation by agreeing to serve as mentors to first-year novice teachers and by offering workshops on college campuses and at school sites" (pg. 10).

Logan ends the paper by stating that differentiation helps students reach their summits and potential. Logan feels as though schools have an obligation to modify to the evolving needs and stages of students (pg. 11). Logan believes teachers need to "move away from a pedagogy of scarcity to a pedagogy of plenty" (pg. 11).

Reflection

After reviewing Logan's (2011), article on Examining Differentiated Instruction: Teachers Respond, I had a new outlook on differentiation. Before reading this article, I did not really consider the clichés, myths, and barriers to differentiation. However, after reading her article I began to realize all of the different perspectives teachers have regarding differentiation.

I found Logan's article to be very well organized. For instance, she did a nice job at separating each section of the article using bold headings. I found her review of literature section to be very detailed and insightful.

I think Logan could have highlighted her research questions a little more in the article. Her research questions were not mentioned until the middle of the article in the bottom of the methods section. Although Logan did a nice job discussing her findings, I think Logan could have talked a little more about the strengths and weaknesses of her study along with additional ideas for future research.

I believe Logan's teacher survey regarding teacher's perspective of differentiation was very well planned and easy to understand. When I conduct research, I may use Logan's type of research format by creating a 15 questions survey based on the literature review I have conducted over the semester and using a Likert scale to obtain teachers responses regarding differentiation in the classroom. Logan did a great job at providing detailed information about the data she received from the surveys.

Reference

Logan, B. (2011). Examining Differentiated Instruction: Teachers Respond. Research in Higher

Education Journal (13). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068803

Article #4

Article # 4

“The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners”

By Carol Tomlinson

Tomlinson (2014), author of a book entitled, The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, is a well-known figure regarding differentiation. Tomlinson’s text consists of ten chapters. Tomlinson’s first chapter asks the question, “what is a differentiation classroom?” (pg. 1). To answer her question, Tomlinson talks about the hallmarks of differentiation and then provides portraits from different schools and grade levels by giving differentiation examples from primary school, elementary school, middle school and high school (pg. 12).

The second chapter looks at the underpinnings of differentiation (pg. 14). During this chapter Tomlinson, considers the nature of differentiation classrooms. For instance, Tomlinson provides a chart that suggests “differentiation is a teacher’s proactive response to learners needs shaped by mindset and guided by general principles of differentiation” (pg. 20).  Moreover, in chapter two Tomlinson compares the traditional classroom to the differentiated classroom and explains the three pillars that support effective differentiation by using a graph illustration. Tomlinson ends the chapter by discussing the philosophy of differentiation (pg. 26).

Tomlinson’s third chapter considers rethinking how we do school—and for whom (pg. 29). In chapter three, Tomlinson looks at changes in education and suggest that humans learn best with moderate challenge (pg. 33).  Tomlinson then talks about current knowledge about learning and teaching and suggests ways to strive for equity and excellence (pg. 37). In chapter three, Tomlinson also has the reader think about the students they teach and consider what they know versus what they do and provides a chart distinguishing understanding versus reality in education practice (pg. 43).

In chapter four, Tomlinson talks about learning environments that support differentiated instruction (pg. 45). During chapter four, Tomlinson discusses teaching as a learning triangle and explains that the teacher, student and content make up the triangle (pg. 48). Tomlinson also gives many characteristics that support a healthy classroom learning environment. For instance, one example of a healthy classroom setting would when teachers strive for joyful learning and promote student independence (pg. 57).

The fifth chapter looks as good curriculum as a basis for differentiation (pg. 60). Tomlinson starts this chapter by talking about how to stay away from “hazy” lessons which are a vague idea of what students should do that day and focus on two essentials for durable learning which are engagement and understanding (pg. 63). Tomlinson then talks about levels of learning and explains subjects are built upon concepts and principles (pg. 66). Next, Tomlinson discusses how to address standards in a meaningful manner (pg. 66). Tomlinson concludes chapter five by explaining how curriculum, assessments and instructions are connected (pg. 77).

Chapter six looks at teachers at work building differentiated classrooms (pg. 80). In chapter six, Tomlinson uses a chart to explain how differentiation is made up of the questions “what”, “why”, and “how”. Next, she talks about how to differentiate using fact or skilled centered instruction by giving many differentiation examples used in different grade levels and subjects. (pg. 85).Then, Tomlinson explains how to differentiation based on concept or meaning based instruction (pg. 92).

Tomlinson’s seventh chapter considers instructional strategies that support differentiation (pg. 102). Tomlinson starts chapter seven by defining stations, which are various spots in a classroom where “students can work on different tasks simultaneously” and then explains importance of stations and differentiation (pg. 107). Next, she talks about agendas and says agendas are “personalized list of tasks a student must complete in a specified time” and explains why agendas are beneficial (pg. 109). Tomlinson then discusses complex instruction which deal with academic, culturally, and linguistically diverse classrooms and provides examples of complex instruction tasks. Tomlinson ends chapter seven by explaining orbital studies which are “independent investigations” done in about six weeks and are important because they help find similarities and differences among students (pg. 116).

Chapter eight focuses on additional instructional strategies to support differentiation (pg. 122). This chapter includes ideas for centers which “differ from stations because they are distinct” and explains how teachers can use centers identify learning goals (pg. 123). Entry points are also discussed in chapter eight. Tomlinson explains that entry points are a great tool to use to differentiate for students with different intelligences preferences or strengths and she provides a diagram to help show the importance of entry points (pg. 130). Next, Tomlinson talks about tiered activities which are based on student readiness and help all students learn the same ideas and skills through different readiness approaches (pg. 133).  Tomlinson ends the chapter by discussing a plethora of strategies that invite differentiation such as small group instruction, choice boards, and literature and discussion circles (pg. 148).

The ninth chapter asked “how do teachers make it all work?” (pg. 151). During chapter nine, Tomlinson discusses images of school teachers have and then gives teachers ideas about how to start differentiating in their classrooms (pg. 152). Tomlinson then talks about settling in for the long haul and making practical considerations regarding differentiation (pg. 160). Tomlinson ends the chapter by stressing the importance of developing support systems to help teacher’s differentiation (pg. 166).

Tomlinson’s final chapter discusses education leaders as catalysts for differentiated classrooms (pg. 170). In chapter ten, Tomlinson talks about how important it is for teachers to experience and research differentiation and embrace school change (pg. 171). Towards the end of the chapter, Tomlinson offers a word of advice to beginning teachers and says “we must help all educators move towards teaching that meets individuals at their points of readiness, interest, and learning profile (pg. 181).

Near the end of the text, Tomlinson talks about a final thought about differentiation and then provides an appendix that includes “Tools to Guide Planning for Differentiated Instruction” along with a bibliography for further research (pg. 184).

Reflection

I chose to review the Tomlinson text because I have found her name appear in a lot of previous articles I have read regarding differentiation in the classroom. This text is a great tool for teachers to use it they want to learn the value of differentiation and build on their differentiation teaching methods. The book is divided into ten well organized chapters that include many examples of differentiation in the classroom. In addition, Tomlinson starts each chapter with a quote that deals with the topic of that chapter which helps the reader reflect on differentiation through the perspective of another teacher. I found the charts, diagrams and graphs to be really helpful in understanding the concepts presented throughout the text.

Reference

Tomlinson, C. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Article #3

Article # 3

“Rethinking Differentiation—Using Teachers’ Time Most Effectively”

By Kim Marshall

Marshall (2016), author of Rethinking Differentiation—Using Teachers’ Time Most Effectively, starts her article by asking the following questions regarding differentiation, “Are we overemphasizing, overthinking, and overusing differentiation when a different approach can focus on learning, harness teacher teamwork, and reach all children without exhausting teachers?” (Marshall, 2016, pg. 8).

Marshall refers to Tomlinson’s (2010) work who is an expert in the field of differentiation. Tomlinson explains differentiation by saying, “Differentiation is effective attention to the learning needs of each student. The purpose of developing a differentiated classroom is to make sure there’s opportunity and support for each student to learn essential knowledge and skills as effectively and efficiently as possible. The key is getting to know each student and orchestrating the learning environment, curriculum, assessments, and instruction so all students learn what’s being taught” (Marshall, 2016, pg. 8).

After discussing Tomlinson’s work on differentiation, Marshall then begins her critique of differentiation. In her critique, Marshall talks about a provocative article from 2011 by Schmoker found in Education Week who suggested that “there was no credible evidence that differentiation works”. According to Schmoker, differentiation is based “largely on enthusiasm and a certain superficial logic” (Marshall, 2016, pg. 9).

Then, Marshall goes into reframing the issue regarding differentiation and suggests that “differentiation is just one of a number of factors in effective instruction” (pg. 10). Marshall then says that teachers should consider two questions before they begin to differentiate which are, “what are students supposed to be learning?” and “are all students mastering it?” (pg. 10).

After asking these two questions, Marshall then introduces the idea of phases of differentiation. For phase one, Marshall talks about planning units and lessons and warns teachers not to overthink or overwork during this phase. For phase two, Marshall discusses delivery instruction and explains that it is important to assess students while they are learning (pg. 12). During phase three, Marshall explains the importance of following up after instruction by looking over assessment data during learning and “examining what student’s had problems with and why” (pg. 13).

Once Marshall discusses the three phases, she then focuses on the results (pg. 13). In the results section, Marshall says that “every day, teachers face the challenge of reaching students with a wide range of abilities and needs. When those needs are not met, the achievement gaps with which student’s enter school get wider and wider” (pg. 13). Marshall sees the need of differentiation, but also explains that differentiation is not always the best approach. Marshall ends by suggesting that the best approach is to have principals take charge and help the teachers focus on the following two questions: “what are students supposed to learn” and “are all students mastering it?” (pg. 13). Although this might be a lot of work, Marshall believes it will be effective work that will pay off for everyone in the school.

Reflection

I chose to review this article by Marshall because her research focused more on the teacher’s perspective regarding differentiation. In addition, Marshalls article title really caught my attention because her title reads, Rethinking Differentiation—Using Teachers’ Time Most Effectively. I never really spent a lot of time reflecting on my opinion of differentiation until I saw this title. Marshall also asked many great questions that made me think even more about differentiation such as “Are we overemphasizing, overthinking, and overusing differentiation when a different approach can focus on learning, harness teacher teamwork, and reach all children without exhausting teachers?” (pg. 8). In addition, instead of instantly saying that differentiation is the key to helping students succeed, Marshall decided to include information and ideas from other sources such as from Mike Schmoker to illustrate that differentiation “seemed to complicate teachers’ work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials” (pg. 9). I also liked how Marshall organized her article by using a lot of bold headings and including bold boxes that consisted of thought provoking quotes regarding differentiation. Finally, I liked that Marshall ended by suggesting more effective approaches to differentiation.

Reference

Marshall, K. (2016). Rethinking Differentiation—Using Teachers’ Time Most Effectively. Phi

Delta Kappan, 98. Retrieved from http://pdk.sagepub.com/content/98/1/8.short