Article #8

Article #8

“Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective”

By Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini

The following article entitled Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers' Perspective, by Theoula Erotocritou Stavrou and Mary Koutselini (2016), looks at differentiation through the educator’s viewpoint.

Stavrou and Koutselini begin their article with an introduction. During the introduction the authors explain that they believe that differentiation is not simply a teaching approach; instead differentiation can be a novel way of reflecting on education and instruction (pg. 2583). Stavrou and Koutselini (2016) ask “what is the best way of training and retraining teachers, so as to achieve conceptual change, which will then motivate them to engage consciously in the diversification of teaching techniques, as well as the acquisition of the necessary knowledge and skills required in their application?” (pg. 2582). In order to answer this question, the authors along with other researchers believe research needs to look at “how teachers understand, engage with and respond to diversity in their classrooms” (pg. 2582).

Based on research regarding differentiation in the classroom, Stavrou and Koutselini developed the following three research questions.  Question one asks, “What are the problems/challenges teachers facing in their effort to design and implement differentiated lessons in their class and how do they handle them in order to successfully teach in mixed ability classes?” Question two asks, “What is the effect of teachers’ active involvement in action research in their training and further professional development?” Question three asks, “To what extent can differentiated instruction and learning contribute to the improvement of students’ learning skills?” (pg. 2582).

After introducing their study and providing the reader with their research questions, Stavrou and Koutselini move to their methodology section. The authors explain that two teachers contributed in the action research. One teacher was a veteran teacher who taught over 21 years. The other teacher taught 10 years and earned a Master’s Degree in Special Education. The study consisted of a control group and an experimental group. The control group, which did not have any differentiated instruction, was made up of 81 students from four classes who were around 15 years old. The experimental group, which experienced differentiated instruction, consisted of 82 students from four classes who were also 15 years old. Both groups took pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

The authors explain that qualitative and quantitative obtained from the research data were utilized to look for “special learning conditions in classes and for a thorough analysis of the phenomena” (pg. 2582). Qualitative information consisted results from teachers’ lesson plans, teachers’ journals, student teacher interviews and classroom observations (pg. 2582). Quantitative information consisted results from pre and post-tests (pg. 2582).

After explaining the methodology section, the Stavrou and Koutselini then discussed the results. According to the analyzed data, teachers faced a number of challenges regarding differentiation. One difficulty was “the lack of a structured curriculum based on prerequisites, substantive and transformational knowledge and skills which can function together in every class and from class to class” (pg. 2583). Another challenge was the “teachers’ inability to sufficiently ascertain their students’ readiness even though they had studied the results of the pretest” (pg. 2583). Teachers also had a difficult time “designing appropriate activities in order to address students’ readiness, interests, learning style and incentives” (pg. 2583). In addition, “teachers’ had fear and uncertainty about their ability to successfully differentiate their lessons” (pg. 2583).

In order to surpass the challenges, teachers looked for solutions and tried to solve their differentiation issues. One way teachers worked to overcome their difficulties was to choose an assortment of different material that matched the students’ interests and readiness levels (pg. 2584). Another way teachers tried dot overcome their difficulties was that teachers taught various reading techniques and tried to improve metacognitive abilities (pg. 2584). In addition, to surpass their differentiation issues, teachers developed a plethora of different activities that focused on the students interests.  Examples of activities were having students develop speeches to use for a debate and to compose articles in a magazine (pg. 2584). Additionally, to combat their concerns with differentiation, teachers promoted a “non-competitive class” environment that allowed for students to understand how to work in groups and teams. Furthermore, teachers worked on helping students improve their cooperation skills by working on active listening skills and being aware of others viewpoints (pg. 2584).

After discussing ways teachers tried to solve their differentiation issues, Stavrou and Koutselini then discuss the contributions of teaching on learning. The authors believe that the strong interaction of instructors during the action research and the way instructors responded to students’ variances played a big part in the success teachers had with their instruction (pg. 2584). Prior to teachers getting involved in the action research about differentiation, students felt like the way teachers presented information was “useless” and students believed the way teachers presented the information either on the blackboard or in their notebooks was challenging to get through. However, once teachers focused on differentiating lessons, the significance of education changed for the students (pg. 2585).

Once teachers differentiated, students felt like the skills and techniques teachers used were actually “useful and permanent knowledge” (pg. 2585). In addition, students felt like the resources that were implemented during instruction were stimulating. According to the students in the study, differentiation made the educational setting imaginative and an environment of “acceptance, encouragement and the expression of personal interest” (pg. 2585). Students believed that this type of educational setting allowed them to work alongside their peers, to communicate, to discuss their viewpoints and talk about their differences. The authors explain that this educational setting inspired the all types of students to learn efficiently and effectively (pg. 2585).

After discussing the results, Shavrou and Koutselini then focus on the conclusion. During the conclusion, the authors summarize the article and reiterate the importance of differentiation.  Shavrou and Koutselini believe that differentiation provides teachers with many benefits. The authors explain that when teachers are able to change from theory to practice, they can obtain abilities that permit them to create and utilize differentiated lessons and feel self-assured and excited about their students’ achievements (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini believe that the data on student’s performance from the study illustrates how effective the teachers were with their differentiated instruction (pg. 2586). Shavrou and Koutselini end by saying that “it is obvious that learning is the outcome of quality teaching which is not based on what the teachers do, but on how and on what students are working on and how they feel” (pg. 2586).

Reflection

After reviewing Shavrou’s and Koutselini’s article, I feel as though this article was very informative. I liked that Shavrou and Koutselini considered differentiation from both the teacher’s perspective as well as the student’s perspective. I also liked that the authors explained that differentiation in not easy and that many teachers including the teachers in the study faced numerous difficulties when trying to differentiation. I also liked that instead of being discouraged by differentiation difficulties, the article explained that teachers actually attempted to solve their differentiation concerns.

I feel as though Shavrou and Koutselini did a great job at explaining what elements made up the qualitative data and how the qualitative data was analyzed. However, I think the authors could have improved upon explaining in greater depth how the quantitative data was utilized and analyzed.

Although the authors did use various heading throughout the article such as the introduction, methodology, results conclusion, I do feel like the article would have been a little more clear if the information was divided into more sections.

Finally, I believe  Shavrou did a very nice job with their concluding section of the study because they added a summary of the entire article which helped me the reader get a clearer understanding of the purpose and findings of the study.

Reference

Stavrou, T., & Koutselini, M. (2016). Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The Teachers Perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(11) pg. 2581-2588. Retrieved from http://www.hrpub.org/download/20161030/UJER11-19507726.pdf

Word Cloud created using key words from this article:

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.