4 EDUCATION DISCUSSIONS DUE IN 72 HOURS

Chapter 9

Leading for Differentiation

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify why differentiation is critical for 21st century school reforms.

• Understand how to be a change leader for schoolwide differentiation.

• Learn how leaders may work to resolve challenges to differentiation.

• Understand basic classroom principles for differentiating content, process, and products.

9

Fancy Collection/SuperStock

The success of education depends on adapting teaching to individual differences among learners.

—Yeuzheng, 4th century b.c.

Chinese treatise, Xue Ji

Introduction Chapter 9

Introduction Throughout the preceding chapters, we have emphasized the critical importance of applying principles of differentiation to (a) the changing landscape of 21st century schools, (b) leader- ship styles, (c) contemporary school reforms, (d) teachers’ collaborative learning, and (e) stu- dents’ learning needs. To address this last component—that is, the differing learning needs of students—this chapter focuses on how leaders may bring the vision of differentiation to all schoolwide practices. In particular, we examine specific supports that leaders may devise to assist teachers and staff with differentiation. We also consider barriers to differentiation and how leaders may overcome particular challenges on the journey to full schoolwide differen- tiation. The chapter concludes with a look at what school leaders need to know about prin- ciples of differentiation. Then, in Chapter 10, we will discuss how leaders may use advancing technologies to support differentiation. Finally, Chapters 11 and 12 will address critical school and classroom assessment issues and the importance of a school leader involving everyone in monitoring, evaluating, and reflecting on student data.

V O I C E S F R O M T H E F I E L D

When people do well with something, we often reward them by giving them more of that to do. Anita, a second-year elementary school principal, shares her concerns regarding her tendency to shift students with challenges away from teachers needing improvement and into the classrooms of master teachers. Was she punishing the master teachers or just making sure that the students had the best opportunities to learn?

I was sitting at my desk with a list of new students who needed to be placed in classrooms. But I couldn’t focus on the task at hand, as I was concerned about overworking my best teachers. Overall, I knew the teaching staff was good; as with most school staffs, there were a few superior teachers and a few individuals in need of improvement. For example, Anna is one of the best when it comes to helping kids learn to read. So, when a first grader is having trouble learning to read, that child is assigned to Anna’s room. Similarly, for the past two years, we have been able to reduce our retentions in first grade by promoting the students who were behind and assigning them to Bonnie and Jan’s classrooms. Bonnie and Jan work with those kids and have them on grade level by year’s end. In third grade, Barb gets all the students with behavioral issues. I can’t count how many kids she has helped avoid referrals for more restrictive environments. In the upper grades, not only does Pat have great classroom skills, but also parents adore her. If there are children with sensitive parents, into Pat’s room they go. And then there is Wally. His talents are many, but he is especially skilled with bright but reluctant learners. He seems to be able to connect with gifted students who are bored, frustrated, or angry about the general classroom experience. A year with Wally, and into the gifted and talented program they go.

I was aware of all the teachers’ strengths as well as the areas that needed improvement. I assign them students that played to their strengths. And yet I was concerned that I might be wearing out these teachers by continually assigning the challenges to them. Since they are good at these things, their “reward” seems to be more challenges to work with. While all that was happening, I had other teachers who were not getting or keeping challenges. And they certainly weren’t getting any better at working through these challenges. So, was I punishing people who do good work, or was I just doing what was best for the kids?

I certainly didn’t want my best teachers to get worn out and transfer to another school, so I started working on a solution—except there was no one answer. I remembered a graduate class I had

(continued)

Pre-Test Chapter 9

Pre-Test 1. Standards-based education stemmed from

a. more localized control of education.

b. demands for academic freedoms.

c. efforts to equalize education.

d. campaigns to make education safer.

2. The best way for novice teachers to see differentiation in action would be to

a. role-play differentiation scenarios.

b. observe others using differentiation.

c. write lesson plans for differentiation.

d. evaluate ideas for differentiation.

3. On a multiplication lesson, Mr. Lee teaches the whole class about the multiples of 5–10 and provides an activity for students to practice. During this time, he goes around the classroom, guiding students on the new lesson and giving extra guidance for students who are still struggling with the previous lesson. This strategy is an example of

a. teaching to the test.

b. teaching backward.

c. checking for understanding.

d. checking for gifted learners.

taken that focused on personnel issues; the professor had given us a framework to help analyze problems and possible solutions. I asked myself a series of three questions:

1. Is it a training problem? (Does the person know how to do what needs to be done?)

2. Is it an environment problem? (Is the individual rewarded for doing the wrong thing, even if that person knows how to do what needs to be done?)

3. Or is the person truly unable to perform appropriately, no matter the environment or training provided?

Using this framework and talking through possible strategies with Anna, Jan, Bonnie, Barb, Pat, and Wally, we were able to improve things for them as well as for the teachers in need and, most important, for the kids.

In some instances, I worked schedules so that these master teachers could use planning times to mentor their colleagues in need. I was fortunate to have two team leaders to coach those in need. When appropriate, I sent some teachers and their mentors to staff development. In some instances, we found that classroom assignments helped, because it is good to have the role model nearby for both kids and adults. I learned to hire more carefully and move quickly to dismiss or implement improvement plans when the new hire did not meet expectations. So, though there was no perfect solution, I, along with skilled and caring classroom professionals, was able to use different strategies to help in each situation.

Challenges to Improving Instruction in the 21st Century Chapter 9

4. In differentiated classrooms, students should compete with and be compared to

a. standards.

b. other students in their class.

c. other students in the school.

d. themselves.

Answers 1. c. efforts to equalize education. The answer can be found in Section 9.1.

2. b. observe others using differentiation. The answer can be found in Section 9.2.

3. b. teaching backward. The answer can be found in Section 9.3.

4. d. themselves. The answer can be found in Section 9.4.

9.1 Challenges to Improving Instruction in the 21st Century

As we have shared numerous times throughout this text, the educational environment in the 21st century is tremendously differentiated. In Chapter 5, we surveyed current educational reforms in the United States. In particular, we examined the standards-based movement that evolved in an effort to ensure that all children have an equivalent level of education. Prior to that movement, teachers had more choice over what content to teach, how long to teach it, and how to assess student learning. Students, even in the same school, often received vastly different educations. This situation was even more exaggerated in schools that had large populations of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students with varying academic abilities. According to Beecher and Sweeny (2008), the standards and accountabil- ity movement gained popularity in the 1990s and ushered in such changes as school report cards, school choice through vouchers and charter schools, and school takeovers. As we have shared throughout the text, the educational literature of the 21st century is replete with rec- ommendations to improve student learning via standards-based instruction, curriculum align- ment, data-based decision making, and other research-based initiatives—and yet, student achievement has not improved (Harris & Herrington, 2006).

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed in 2001, educators and policymakers made an intensified effort to close the achievement gap, and high-stakes testing entered the education arena (Cronin, Kingsbury, McCall, & Bowe, 2005; NCLB, 2001). To meet the demands of these high-stakes tests, McTighe and Brown (2005) contended that states and districts have insti- tuted a variety of institutional practices that do not align with 21st century, evidence-based practices that are intended to promote authentic student engagement, understanding, and longitudinal achievement progress. They cited the following practices from NCLB as coun- terproductive: (a) excessively broad or overloaded written curricula that fail to articulate what is core or essential for deep understanding among all learners; (b) educators’ percep- tions that they must cover every mandated standard within this “mile-wide, inch-deep” curriculum, in case it appears on a high-stakes accountability test; (c) one-size-fits-all, work- sheet-based teaching activities that model test questions and familiarize students with test- ing formats, frequently interrupting the factual process of learning; and (d) adoption of a reductionist, “teaching to the test” approach to boost scores on standardized assessments

Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation Chapter 9

(McTighe & Brown, 2005, p. 234). Other researchers, after analyzing the groundbreaking Third International Science and Mathematics Study (TIMSS), concluded that the standards movement and high-stakes testing are not, in fact, closing the achievement gap (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1996; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). To solve this dilemma, McTighe and Brown (2005) affirmed:

A genuine balance between educational standards and individualized approaches to teach- ing and learning is both possible and necessary. We contend that standards-based educa- tion and differentiated instruction (DI) not only can coexist, but must function together as two sides of the same accountability coin. (p. 235)

Finally, the need for school leaders and teachers to have expertise in differentiated teaching practices is supported by the new Common Core State Standards, as well as by numerous other sets of standards for teachers and administrators (e.g., International Reading Association, Council for Exceptional Children, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, and National Council for the Social Studies).

9.2 Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation

To bring about the aforementioned reforms, school leaders need to direct the charge toward instituting whole-school models of differentiation. Whether you are a principal or a teacher- leader, you have a critical role to play in this new differentiated school environment. Because teachers in your school will be taking personal and professional risks, they will need guidance and support. Therefore, a leader first needs to create a school culture that invites teachers to accept a philosophy of differentiation. Such a philosophy has three characteristics: (a) respect for each student’s value, ability, and responsibility; (b) optimism that every student has the untapped capacity to learn what is being taught; and (c) active and visible support for student success (Hattie, 2012b).

Once this philosophy is in place, then, and only then, is a leader able to create a culture that supports a differentiated model for teaching and learning. To begin this process, leaders will need to do the following:

1. Develop a rationale. Think through the questions that others are going to have, includ- ing teachers and parents. Without clarity of vision, leaders will not get to high-quality differentiation.

2. Develop 3- to 5-year plan. Teachers need to be able to contribute to the discussion and share their ideas of what such a plan would look like. In leading this discussion, school leaders need to make certain that the final plan is one of sufficiently high quality. With a 3- to 5-year timeline, teachers should be able to see themselves growing and meeting progressively higher levels of sophistication with the model of differentiation. A good dis- cussion prompt might be, “What are we doing that isn’t serving our students?” or “What

Think About It

How might the philosophy of differentiation address 21st century reforms in schools?

Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation Chapter 9

can we can do better?” In such discussions, leaders need to convey to teachers that the school is moving toward full differentiation. In other words, “That we are going is not an option, but I want to hear your ideas.”

3. Communicate. All stakeholders (teachers, parents) need to understand where the school is headed and what to expect along the way. In addition, teachers need to understand that full differentiation of instruction for all students is an ideal and not something that is ever fully attained; however, all should be constantly moving in the direction of the ideal. Communication is especially critical when there is staff turnover. Leaders need to bring new teachers into the culture of differentiation right from the start or else the schoolwide reform model runs the risk of becoming dissipated. Make staff development around issues of differentiation mandatory for new teachers.

4. Pay attention to the quality of the curriculum. The quality of the curriculum and the quality of the differentiation go hand in hand. Leaders need to be constantly vigilant about what teachers are teaching by performing classroom walk-throughs and sitting in on teacher professional learning communities (PLCs).

Providing Schoolwide Supports for Differentiation

Once the school culture is supportive of the goal of full schoolwide differentiation, school leaders and teacher-leaders need to provide critical support for the teaching staff. Nearly all teachers want to do the right thing. However, efforts to do so may be thwarted by unin-

tended institutional barriers. Creating a supportive learn- ing environment is just as important for the teaching staff as it is for the student population. Following are some examples of specific practices:

1. Providing opportunities to see differentiation in action. Teachers are rarely allowed to see other teachers model differentiation. School leaders may choose to be cre- ative in scheduling opportunities for teachers to watch other teachers present differentiated lessons (e.g., dur- ing library time or PE, or even by instituting a school- wide “buddy program” in which students visit a student in another classroom, thus giving the home teacher released time for classroom observations). As challeng- ing as this strategy may be for school leaders, the pay- off will be great, since teachers will feel that time has been carved out to help them grow and learn.

2. Making multitext adoptions. School and district lead- ers often hamper differentiation efforts by single-text adoptions. Purchasing an array of texts may assist teachers who need to create differentiated lessons but who do not have the resources to do so.

3. Offering mini-grants. School leaders may wish to ear- mark some school funds for mini-grants to teachers who wish to innovate with differentiated instruction. Teacher-leaders may even decide to run the program at the school level and become involved with reading

© Getty Images/Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Thinkstock

▲ Having a variety of textbooks from which to choose content is just one way of differentiat- ing lessons. What are some obstacles teachers might face when trying to obtain multitext adoptions?

Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation Chapter 9

other teachers’ grant proposals and making award decisions. Many agree that awardees should be required to make a presentation at the end of the school year on their project, thus furthering the learning of others.

4. Supporting conference attendance. With shrinking school budgets, funding teachers’ attendance at conferences has been difficult. However, school leaders who find monies for teachers to attend conferences are repaid with higher motivation for differentiation change efforts. When teachers return from such advanced training opportunities, they can become wonderful advocates for moving the school differentiation efforts forward.

5. Developing multiage classrooms. Teachers of multiage classrooms intuitively know that they must differentiate instruction. School leaders need to survey teachers to see who would be willing to work in such an environment. It would be helpful to teachers who choose this option to pair up with at least one other teacher so that they each have some- one to turn to for support and ideas.

6. Promoting looping. In looping, a teacher continues for a second year with the same group of students. Needless to say, when teachers have students for two years, they do not need to go through the beginning-of-the-year learning curve of getting to know each child’s readiness, interests, and learning profile. (Adapted from Tomlinson & Allan, 2000)

Think About It

Considering the practices that school leaders may use to support differentiation in schools, which ones do you believe are the most important?

Articulating Evidence for Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction

In addition to actively providing a supportive environment for teachers, leaders need to be cognizant of the research that supports differentiated instruction. This knowledge is impor- tant because leaders may need to present to teacher or parent groups convincing arguments for establishing differentiated educational practices. Although many admit that the research on differentiated instruction is limited (Anderson, 2007; Hall, 2002), the research community is accumulating a growing body of research that does confirm positive results for full imple- mentation of differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms, or classrooms that have children of varying readiness levels and learning needs (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008). A three-year study in Canada provided research support for differentiated instruction in K–12 classrooms in Alberta. The use of differentiated instruction by teachers consistently gener- ated positive results across a broad range of groups, especially when the differentiation was delivered in small groups or with targeted instruction (McQuarrie, McRae, & Stack-Cutler, 2008). Other studies amassed in the 21st century show support for differentiated teaching practices:

• The achievement gap between Caucasian students and low-income students of color drastically diminished in math, reading, and writing in an elementary school that used enriched curriculum and differentiation with all students. In addition, achievement gains occurred across student groups, and attitudes about school improved as well (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008).

Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation Chapter 9

• Students in differentiated middle-school classrooms showed statistically significant achievement outcomes compared with students in a different treatment group and with students in a control group (Brighton, Hertberg, Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 2005).

• Five high-achieving urban African American first graders with weak writing profiles had differentiated writing instruction in their regular classroom. All five students dem- onstrated improved writing outcomes in writing output and use of a broader range of words (Geisler, Hessler, Gardner, & Lovelace, 2009).

• The effects of teacher use of differentiated instruction on the reading and mathemat- ics achievement scores of approximately 906 students were assessed, and effect sizes were calculated. Both the reading and mathematics achievement change scores were statistically significant (Hellman, 2007).

• First-grade students in Colombia whose reading instruction used the model of dif- ferentiating content, process, and product in response to student readiness, interests, and learning profiles over a four-month period had fewer oral reading errors, higher comprehension scores, fewer students scoring below grade level, and more students scoring above grade level than control students (Marulanda, Giraldo, & Lopez, 2006).

• Multiyear studies in an elementary school and a high school indicate positive and sustained achievement gains for students in all segments of the achievement spectrum and in a range of subject areas as a result of differentiated instruction. In both sites, a schoolwide emphasis on differentiation has continued for at least seven years, and achievement gains have continued over that period (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008).

Design Effective Staff Development for Differentiation

One of the most neglected components of whole-school differentiation efforts is having in place a plan for comprehensive staff development. If “teachers need to be increasingly effective in enabling a diverse group of students to learn ever-more complex material and to develop a wider range of skills” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, p. 2), leaders need to understand whether and how teachers make sense of and employ differentiated instructional approaches that intend to address the varied needs of students.

In Chapter 1, we introduced the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), one of the accrediting bodies for the preparation of teachers. Teacher knowledge and use of differentiated practices are deemed so essential that the newly released document Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Teacher Development emphasizes these practices in the first two standards:

Standard 1: Learner Development. The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.

Standard 2: Learning Differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.

Think About It

If a parent asked you to provide some research support for differentiated instruction, how would you respond?

Creating a School Culture That Supports Differentiation Chapter 9

As a change leader in 21st century schools, your task is to collaborate with others to ensure that teachers at your site have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage a differentiated classroom. Leaders need to differentiate the professional development opportunities at your school according to where particular teachers are on a continuum, from novice to apprentice to expert. Novices tend to see the problems instead of the solutions. These individuals need low-risk professional development activities—ones that will not expose their vulnerability to their peers. Examples of such activities include providing time for them to observe other teachers, either at your school or through watching videotaped model lessons. Apprentices already know how to differentiate instruction; above all, they need time to dialogue and plan with others. Leaders need to provide a forum for these teachers to voice what they have identified as a perceived need—for example, “I’m working on this, and I need this kind of sup- port.” Some apprentice-level teachers will need more guidance over a longer period of time than will others. Finally, teachers who are deemed to have reached a high level of expertise in differentiated teaching practices should be given leadership opportunities. These teachers could be asked if they would be willing to open their classrooms for other teachers to observe lessons or to serve as coaches for newly hired teachers.

Other principles of effective staff development practices that have been suggested for school- wide differentiation include the following:

1. Staff development should be built on a common vocabulary related to differentiation. School leaders need to use a common vocabulary for differentiation and should systemati- cally present that vocabulary to all teachers, just as teachers present students with needed academic language.

2. Staff development should attend to teachers’ levels of readiness (information, compre- hension, skills, commitment), interest, and preferred learning modes. As we learned from examining adult-learning principles (Chapter 8), teachers have varying levels of readiness, interest, and preferred learning modes, just as students do. School lead- ers need to be cognizant of these differences and adjust professional development to respect those differences. In effect, school leaders must “practice what they preach;” otherwise, staff development will seem inauthentic to teachers who are participating in the learning experiences. For example, if teachers are unacquainted with students’ backgrounds, staff development could assist in helping develop that understanding and demonstrate how to relate the content to students’ cultural backgrounds (Behar- Horenstein, 2010).

3. Staff development should offer options directly focused on particular needs of particular grade levels and subject areas. School leaders need to pay particular attention to this com- ponent, because every one of us has participated in staff development activities in which the content did not match our grade level or content needs. At best, teachers often feel the time was wasted. At its worst, they become cynical of the entire learning process, and that cynicism may be carried into future professional development experiences. Teacher-leaders who know the needs of teachers are well positioned to help plan school-level, learning- staff development for differentiation.

4. Staff development plans should include school administrators and other district leaders who will work with teachers. Conversely, teacher-leaders who plan staff-development experiences for other teachers need to align with administrators who direct whole-school and district differentiation change efforts. Added to this area is the current emphasis on teacher evaluation through effectiveness ratings as part of the rollout of the Common Core State Standards.

Barriers to Schoolwide Differentiation Chapter 9

5. Staff development on differentiation should consistently emphasize high-quality curricu- lum and instruction at the start for meaningful differentiation. A recognized principle of differentiation is that educators should always remain committed to creating high expecta- tions for all students learning rigorous standards.

6. Staff development should be planned to ensure transfer of knowledge, understanding, and skill into the classroom. One of the most difficult challenges in differentiation is ensur- ing that all students have deep, meaningful curricular learning experiences. School leaders need to stress this nonnegotiable component of always starting with high-quality student work and then differentiating it.

7. Staff development offered by the school or district should be consistent and aligned with a district’s differentiation goals. Just as schools and districts have technology plans, they also need to have a master plan for differentiation. If such a plan is not in place, school leaders need to press district officials to design one.

8. Staff development that asks much of teachers must recognize teachers’ efforts. When teachers are working hard to improve and change the way they teach, school leaders need to recognize these efforts with extra pay or other incentives.

9. Staff development should emphasize models of teaching that have demonstrated success. Instructional strategies are the specific approaches that teachers use to ensure successful outcomes for student learning. Knight (2011) identified five high-impact instructional strat- egies that can help improve student learning and engagement: (a) thinking prompts (e.g., exciting and engaging video clips or works of art that stimulate dialogue), (b) effective ques- tions, (c) stories, (d) cooperative learning, and (e) authentic learning experiences. Further, Dean, Stone, Hubbell, and Pitler (2012) noted that cues, questions, advanced organizers, and nonlinguistic representations are among the most effective strategies in helping stu- dents develop an understanding of new material. (Adapted from Tomlinson & Allan, 2000)

Think About It

As a school leader, how could you best support the continued learning needs of your teachers regarding differentiated instruction?

9.3 Barriers to Schoolwide Differentiation Although differentiation holds much promise for 21st century schools, leaders routinely encounter barriers to implementing reforms involving differentiation. These barriers include political mandates from outside the school, as well as opposition within the school.

Federal, State, and Local Mandates

Not many will deny that the current environment of standards and accompanying high-stakes testing can serve as barriers to enacting meaningful differentiation practices. Valli and Buese (2007) claimed that the impact of federal, state, and local policies on teachers, including those policies related to the multifaceted requirements of differentiated instruction, often have adverse consequences for teachers. Among those stated are increased teacher anxi- ety about staying on schedule and covering the required curriculum in order to meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements. Other negative

Barriers to Schoolwide Differentiation Chapter 9

effects include a demanding workload, the lack of time for planning and collaboration with colleagues, and weariness with managing a large volume of student data. Although the demands of high-stakes testing remain on the horizon for the foreseeable future, school leaders need to provide both physical and emotional supports for teachers and to reassure teachers that all that is needed is their good effort as the school continues the journey toward full differentiation.

Barriers Within the School

School leaders need to be vigilant and to constantly reexamine schoolwide practices to deter- mine whether progression toward full differentiation is being unintentionally thwarted. Is there a norm for all classroom instruction to be geared toward student learning needs? Is retention as an intervention being overused? Is teaching tailored to the diverse backgrounds of its students? Are teachers well-informed and able to advance literacy among students with limited English proficiency? If any of these are identified at the school level as barriers toward differentiation, Behar-Horenstein (2010) asserted that school leaders may need to confront teachers about their instructional competence. Although this is not an easy task, it is essential in a differentiated school.

Another barrier to differentiation may be teachers’ lack of clarity about what students need to know, understand, and do (KUD). Teachers commonly “differentiate” by assigning less work to students who struggle with content and more work to students who grasp it readily. But it is not useful to do less of what you don’t understand or more of what you already know. Effective differentiation is most likely to occur when a teacher is (a) clear about a student’s sta- tus with specified KUDs, (b) able to plan to move students forward with knowledge and skill once they have mastered required sequences, and (c) able to “teach backward” to help stu- dents who lack essential knowledge and skill achieve mastery, even while moving the class ahead (Duke, 2010). In differenti- ating understandings, teachers are likely to be most effective when they have all students work with the same essential understandings but at varied levels of complexity and with different scaffolding based on each student’s current point of development.

Instructional norms in classrooms may also impede full dif- ferentiation. This instructional component, a number of researchers argue, can be more powerful in student learning than the curriculum. Wiliam (2011) noted, “A bad curricu- lum well taught is invariably a better experience for students than a good curriculum badly taught: pedagogy trumps cur- riculum. Or more precisely, pedagogy is curriculum, because what matters is how things are taught, rather than what is taught” (p. 13). Similarly, John Hattie (2009) reflected, “It is less the content of curricula that is important than the strate- gies teachers use to implement the curriculum” (p. 159).

District and school standards for teacher evaluation can also function as impediments for differentiation. Whether you are the principal or a teacher-leader, if you are involved in class- room observations, you may need to communicate that you value interactive, dynamic, and communicative classrooms.

Fuse/Thinkstock

▲ The additional planning, paperwork, and logistics required to fully differentiate instruc- tion may, in itself, present a barrier to dif- ferentiation. How does a collegial community help counteract this potential barrier?

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

Finally, logistics and paperwork play a large role in whether teachers feel overwhelmed and want to give up on differentiated instruction. Even more than in a traditional school, teachers who are working to fully differentiate instruction for all students need a collegial community surrounding them. School leaders must value making planning and learning time a priority and must support teachers through encouragement and creating venues for collaborative reflec- tion. As we discussed in Chapter 8, PLCs are a must-do reform for a differentiated school. Furthermore, in Chapter 12, we will detail ways that leaders may work to mitigate some of these existing obstacles. Specifically, we will examine such practices as the use of data-driven management procedures and action research.

9.4 What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation

School leaders and teacher-leaders alike need to know and understand what differentiation is and what it is not. Although definitions of differentiated instruction abound, many cite Tomlinson as one of the foremost authorities on the field. According to Tomlinson (2000), dif- ferentiation is simply a “teacher reacting responsively to a learner’s needs” (p. 4). Researchers at the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum define differentiated instruc- tion as a process to approach teaching and learning for students of differing abilities in the same class (Hall, 2002). Wormeli (2007) agreed and maintained that differentiation is primar- ily a professional mind-set. He posed a set of clarifying questions for educators. As you read through these plainly worded questions, reflect on the deeper commitment to change they ask of teachers and school leaders.

• Are we willing to teach in whatever way is necessary for students to learn best, even if the approach doesn’t match our own preferences?

• Do we have the courage to do what works, not just what’s easiest?

• Do we continually build a large and diverse repertoire of instructional strategies so we have more than one way to teach?

• Do we stay current on the latest research about learning, students’ developmental growth, and our content specialty areas?

Think About It

How do you actively seek to understand your students’ knowledge, skills, and talents, and what do you do to adapt your instruction?

Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom

Perhaps more important than simply defining differentiation is understanding the character- istics that make a classroom truly differentiated. Many experts in the field (Anderson, 2007; Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008) assert that teachers and leaders must understand and embrace foundational characteristics that constitute a differentiated classroom. Following are some hallmarks of effective differentiation:

1. There is a strong link between assessment and instruction. As most educators agree, assess- ment is a key component in all 21st century school reforms. Teachers cannot differentiate

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

instruction without having assessment data with which to understand what each learner knows and does not know. In addition to summative assessments, formative assessments can allow teachers to gain important information while the lesson is in progress, which is essential to the process of effective differentiation.

2. The teacher is clear about learning goals. In effective differentiated classrooms, teach- ers are clear about what each child should know and be able to do. This process starts with setting clear goals, which will most likely be aligned with state standards or the new Common Core State Standards. However, sometimes the goals may be social in nature to fit the emotional learning needs of students.

3. The teacher groups students flexibly. Another hallmark of differentiated classrooms is the use of flexible skill groups, as opposed to homogeneous grouping structures. In flexible groups, students are in the group as long as necessary to learn the skill. Once all the stu- dents in the group have mastered the skill, the group disappears. In homogeneous group- ing structures, students are often in one group (low, average, high) for the entire year, regardless of their learning progress or individual needs.

4. The teacher uses time, space, and materials flexibly. The teacher in a differentiated class- room is open to new ways of arranging the classroom environment and flexible uses of time. Sometimes, another 10 minutes of instruction or practice may be all that it takes for some students to learn a new concept. Likewise, using classroom space in a variety of ways may allow for flexible skill grouping or may help accommodate individual areas and create ways for students to collaborate.

5. The teacher emphasizes individual growth as being central to the class’s success. Even though norm-based or standards-based assessment is a fact in most classrooms, a teacher in a differentiated classroom emphasizes the role of “competing with oneself” and cel- ebrates incremental learning successes with students. A teacher also needs to convey this paradigm shift with parents and emphasize that the goal is for each child to progress as much as he or she is able on challenging goals and standards. Parents will also want to know how their child is doing in relation to grade-level benchmarks. Again, it is the teach- er’s role to convey that information clearly and professionally, but not in a comparative way involving other students.

6. The teacher seeks specialists’ active partnership in the classroom. Teaching is hard. We all know that. For so many decades, the norm has been for teachers to carry the burden in a solitary manner, since asking for help was viewed as a sign of weakness. Now with PLCs (see Chapter 8) and Response to Intervention (RtI) becoming more prevalent in classrooms, however, teachers are no longer “lone rangers.” Teacher-leaders, too, can and do assist other teachers with expertise when needed. (Adapted from Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003)

Think About It

Which of the characteristics of differentiated instruction do you think are the most challenging for teachers?

Differentiating for Student Characteristics

What should teachers be looking for in students as they move into a differentiated model of teaching and learning? According to Huebner (2010), “Today’s classrooms are filled with

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

diverse learners who differ not only culturally and linguistically but also in their cognitive abili- ties, background knowledge, and learning preferences” (p. 79). Experts in the field of differ- entiation (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010; Anderson, 2007; Beecher & Sweeny, 2008) suggest that teachers and teacher-leaders need to understand that three main characteristics of students—readiness, interest, and learning profile—may need modification in curriculum and instruction.

Student Readiness Students vary in their readiness and background experiences for learning new material. Levy (2008) suggested that teachers need a wide array of flexible grouping strategies to meet students’ readiness needs. These strategies may include large-group instruction, small groups, and individual student conferences. For instance, consider the following scenario:

The teacher has taught the lesson, and a small group of students needs further instruction. The teacher pulls these students together for additional support. This grouping is based on ongoing, formative assessment. Another group comes into class knowing what has been taught. The teacher could pull these students together and take the lesson to the next level through more challenging activities. Ability groups are not stagnant; they change each time the teacher assesses the students.

Student Interest Attending to the varied interests of students is one of the most overlooked areas of differen- tiation. To do this, teachers often mistakenly believe they must have a complete knowledge of each student’s interests and so must locate books and materials that fit the needs of every- one. Although this approach certainly works, a more efficient way to accommodate students’ interests is to plan for a certain amount of choices within curriculum topics and units. And, here, technology is the teacher’s friend, because it allows limitless possibilities for students to connect their personal interests to the topic at hand. (See Chapter 10 for specific ways to use technology in the differentiated classroom.)

Learning Profile Learning profile refers to a student’s preferred way of learning. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) stated that a learning profile is “a preference for taking in, exploring, or expressing content” (p. 15). This preference may include aspects of gender, culture, learning style, or intelligence style. How students learn is as varied as the number of students in a classroom. Educators are able attend to learning style in many ways: (a) Gardner’s multiple intelligences, (b) Myers- Briggs Type Indicators, and (c) Dunn and Dunn learning styles model, among many other theorists’ work. The common denominator in all of these theories is the idea that we all learn in different ways and we each seem to benefit most when instruction is differentiated in some manner to accommodate these differences. Some children learn from lectures. Others learn better by reading. Still others learn best by actually doing something like a project or even a structured assignment.

Think About It

Which student characteristics do you routinely consider when planning lessons? Which ones do you think are more likely to be ignored?

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

Curricular Differentiation: Content, Processes, and Products

Many experts in the field of differentiation use Tomlinson’s original framework to design student learning experiences by changing aspects of the following: the content (what stu- dents learn), the process (how students learn), or the product (how students demonstrate their mastery of the knowledge or skills). McTighe and Brown (2005) supported Tomlinson’s framework and believed that teachers’ options concerning the range and diversity of learn- ing activities may be as varied in scope and design as is the range of student readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles. Figure 9.1 illustrates how, under Tomlinson’s model, content, process, and product can be differentiated according to students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile.

f09.01_EDU675.ai

Teachers can

differentiate

Content Product

Process

According to

Students’

Readiness Learning Profile

Interest

Figure 9.1: Differentiated Instruction graphic organizer

According to Tomlinson’s model, content, process, and product can be differentiated according to students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile.

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

Content Differentiation Content is what we teach. Tomlinson and Eidson (2003) believed that teachers should keep the content steady and should modify, as much as possible, how students gain access to the curriculum. In other words, differentiated instruction allows for variation in content with- out losing sight of the rigorous learning to which all children are entitled. Various experts (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Gregory & Chapman, 2002; Wormeli, 2007; Tomlinson, 1999) list a number of effective strategies for tailoring the content to maximize student achieve- ment: (a) learning centers, (b) tiering, (c) anchor activities, (d) compacting, and (e) learning contracts.

Learning Centers. A learning center is a collection of materials, designed purposely with a goal in mind. Gregory and Chapman (2002) asserted a center should always have a set purpose. It might be for remediation or curriculum enrichment, or it might allow students to follow specific interests or learning styles. Centers should stretch students’ thinking and not merely be for their enjoyment—as in only to provide games. Centers may be differentiated by using open-ended activities that students of varying abilities may complete. For example, students can use “speech bubbles” to add dialogue from a class literature selection.

Tiering. Tiered instruction is one way to stay focused on the standards and curriculum while maintaining maximum flexibility as it aligns complexity to students’ readiness levels and learn- ing needs. Tiered instruction also allows all students to focus on essential concepts and skills, while still being challenged at the different levels on which they are individually capable of working. In designing tiered lessons, the teacher creates different kinds and degrees of instructional support and structure, depending on each student’s level. Ideally, tiered-learning tasks engage students slightly beyond what they find easy or comfortable in order to provide genuine challenge and promote their continued learning. If the preceding explanation of tiered instruction fits the differentiated needs at your school for both teachers and students, the following list may help guide you in effecting this change:

1. Ensure that group membership is flexible. The word tiered is not a euphemism for stag- nant, low-middle-high groups that label who can learn and who is not learning.

2. Ensure that tiered assignments denote all children as able to learn the same essential skills in different ways. The makeup of students working at each tier varies with the content, assignment, and quantity of tiers.

3. Plan the number of levels most appropriate for instruction. Different quantities of tiers are needed for different curricula areas, concepts, and skills in relation to different learn- ers’ needs. Sometimes, two tiers are sufficient; at other times, three to five or more work better to match the wide range of learners. Changing the number of tiers is also a way to vitalize flexible groupings and ensure that students are not always in the same group.

4. Recognize that complexity is relative. The complexity of a tiered assignment is relative because it is determined by the specific needs of the students and because learners’ readiness levels vary in different curricula areas. In classes with below-grade-level learners, the lowest tier would respond to those students. In classes in which all students are at or above grade level, the lowest tier would respond to grade-level or even above-grade-level readiness.

5. Promote high-level thinking in each tier. Students’ background and readiness levels should not limit the range of thinking opportunities provided through tiered assignments. Avoid always allocating simple thinking tasks for students with the fewest skills. All students need opportunities to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information.

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

6. Provide teacher support at every tier. Every tier requires teacher modeling and support for students working at that tier. All learners benefit from a teacher’s instruction, interac- tion, guidance, and feedback—even gifted children whom some educators perceive as always making it on their own. (From http://iss.gstboces.org/ctice/trainings/di/strategies/ tiered.htm)

Anchoring Activities. Anchor activities are ongoing activities that students work on inde- pendently and that can be done throughout a unit of study. These activities are helpful when differentiating instruction, because when students finish assigned work, they can con- tinue work on anchor activities, leaving other students to finish the assigned work at their own pace. Anchoring activities also allow teachers to work with small groups or individual students.

Compacting Curriculum. Curriculum compacting is a process that streamlines and modifies the grade-level curriculum by eliminating material students have previously learned. This dif- ferentiation strategy was first proposed by Joseph Renzulli (Renzulli & Smith, 1979) because many high-ability or high-achieving students begin the learning activity with prior knowledge or mastery (Gregory & Chapman, 2002). With compacting, students who demonstrate high levels of achievement are provided with time for differentiated enrichment or acceleration activities. In the curriculum-compacting process, teachers pre-assess students to gain infor- mation about their level of knowledge related to the subject. According to Reis and Renzulli (n.d.), the following eight steps are involved in curriculum compacting:

1. Identification of the relevant learning objectives in a particular subject area or grade level

2. Identification of students who may possess mastery of these objectives

3. Development of some means to pretest students on one or more of the objectives prior to instruction

4. Pretesting students

5. Streamlining practice, drill, or instructional time for students who have demonstrated mas- tery of the material

6. Individualization of instructional options for students who have not yet mastered all of the specified objectives, but who are capable of mastering the objectives more quickly than other classmates

7. Development of enrichment or acceleration options for students

8. Development and maintenance of records of this process and the instructional options available to students whose work has been compacted

Using a Learning Contract. A learning contract is an agreement between a teacher and student (or group of students). Before creating the contracts, teachers must determine the concept(s) and essential question(s) students should be able to answer because of the learn- ing. A learning contract includes information about the learning that will take place, the proj- ects and assignments students will complete, and information about the types of assessment that will be used during the contract (rubrics, checklists, periodic quizzes, tests, etc.).

Use of learning contracts helps students become more active participants in their own learn- ing. Teachers should build choice into the contracts or have students help in developing their own learning contracts.

What Change Leaders Need to Know About Differentiation Chapter 9

Process Differentiation Process includes our choice of pedagogy—or how we teach. How we teach is also influenced by how students learn—or their learning profiles (discussed in the previous section). In addi- tion, process differentiation includes our decisions for delivery of instruction—whole class, small groups, or individual tutoring. Digital delivery systems are also included in this category (see Chapter 10 on technology).

Small-Group Activities. The activities we provide for student learning must address differ- ing student abilities, learning styles, and interests. By grouping students who are kinesthetic, linguistic, and artistic into separate groups, students can demonstrate three distinct ways to solve problems and show how they came to a solution.

Product Differentiation The product is the way students demonstrate what they have learned; it must reflect stu- dent learning styles and abilities. (See assessment in Chapters 11 and 12). In 21st century classrooms, students should gain the skills needed to succeed in college and the world of work. In Chapters 1 and 5, we discussed the 21st century skills and the four Cs—criti- cal thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity. The new Common Core State Standards are also intended to provide students with deeper levels of learning. Therefore, in all classrooms, the assessment paradigm has vastly changed classroom practice. For lead- ers in differentiated classrooms, these shifts are most noticed in the products that students will produce to demonstrate knowledge and skills. In differentiating products, McTighe and Brown (2005) supported the use of culminating performance assessment tasks and projects. He asserted:

Specifically, such “respectful tasks” allow students to engage in independent decision- making, problem solving, investigation, experimental inquiry, creative expression, and related forms of higher-order thinking processes. By engaging in real-world tasks and proj- ects, students learn to become increasingly independent and self-expressive through a variety of media and modalities. (p. 238)

Furthermore, McTighe recommended that performances of understanding be structured using the features suggested by the acronym “GRASPS” and should include (a) a real-world goal, (b) a meaningful role for the student, (c) authentic (or simulated) real-world audience(s), (d) a contextualized situation that involves real-world application, (e) student-generated culminat- ing products and performances, and (f) consensus-driven performance standards (criteria) for judging success. Performance tasks having these features provide meaningful learning targets for learners, worthy performance goals for teaching, and the kind of evidence needed to assess true understanding (p. 239).

In addition to the teachers’ assessment, McTighe asserted that the more actively the learner is involved in understanding and applying the evaluation criteria, the greater his or her inter- nalization and ownership of those criteria will be. A natural way of promoting student self- assessment and reflection is realized through the posing and investigation of questions such as the following:

• What do you really understand about . . . ? What is still confusing?

• How could you improve . . . ? What would you do differently next time?

• What are you most proud of? What are you most disappointed in?

• What are your strengths in . . . ? What are your deficiencies in . . . ?

Case Study in Educational Leadership Chapter 9

• How does what you’ve learned connect to other learnings?

• How will you make use of what you’ve learned? (McTighe, p. 242)

Table 9.1 displays classroom examples of students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile with various aspects of curricular differentiation practices of content, processes, and products.

Table 9.1: Examples of differentiation based on students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile

Components of Differentiation

Readiness

Interest

Learning Profile

Content A middle-school teacher uses digital video images of Civil War sites in the United States to support the understanding of students who have never traveled outside their Los Angeles neighborhood and who need to develop deep understanding and academic language.

An elementary teacher uses examples of cookie recipes to illustrate the concept of fractions.

When teaching about earthquakes, a teacher allows students to read a text, watch a video, or interview someone who has experienced an earthquake.

Process Based on preassessment measures, a kindergarten teacher begins a unit on counting by having some children practice counting to 10, some by counting to 20, and some by counting to 100.

In learning about the customs of people in different countries, students are allowed to choose a nation to study.

Primary students need to learn the states of matter (solid, liquid, and gas). A teacher first shows them a video; then lets students move like a solid, liquid and gas; and finally has students create songs about the different states of matter.

Product A primary teacher asks students to create an animal using various geometric shapes. Some students are instructed to create the animal and come to the teacher to help identify the shape names. Others must label each shape. Still others must use only shapes that have certain charac- teristics (shapes that can make other shapes—like two triangles that make a square).

Students are introduced to a project-based learning unit on environmental awareness. In teams, they are allowed to choose what aspect of the project they will complete.

After reading a core litera- ture book, a teacher allows students a choice in how they wish to summarize the main point (e.g., in writing, using visual or performing art, using digital media, making an oral presentation).

9.5 Case Study in Educational Leadership Sheena and Nikki stood at the door of the classroom. Only one day to go before the start of the school year, and they hoped that they were ready for the new group of students. It had been quite a process to rework the way their classrooms were originally going to operate.

Case Study in Educational Leadership Chapter 9

Less than a month before school was to start, the principal had called them into the office to tell them that due to population changes, the district had redistributed some of the bus routes over the summer. With the redistribution, Hazelwood Elementary School was going to have at least 20 new students who had individualized education plans (IEPs). Most of those students had been in collaborative teaching settings, but Hazelwood had only one classroom that regularly operated like that.

Originally, Nikki had been slated to teach a resource setting, bringing students into her room for specialized skill support. The principal asked Nikki to consider working with Sheena col- laboratively to serve students who were able to be in the classroom with the correct support. A different teacher was moving from another school with the redistribution and would cover the resource room.

As a second-year teacher, Sheena had served only two students with IEPs in the past, and those students had been pulled from her class for their specific skill challenges. So she wasn’t all that familiar with the idea of differentiating in her classroom. Her immediate reaction to having to create a differentiated classroom was panic mixed with a little bit of fear.

Nikki had been teaching for four years and had been both a collaborative and resource room teacher. Her first experience in helping a general education teacher differentiate the classroom had been a negative experience. One thing she had learned was that teachers often overreact to what differentiated classrooms have to be or look like. Most differentiated requirements were simple and almost unnoticeable in a classroom with effective teachers.

Despite initial concerns, the two teachers liked each other’s styles, so they agreed and quickly went to work. Using best practices from the Differentiated Instruction Guide for Inclusive Teaching, they completed their own teaching inventory. The inventory outlined how each of them liked to organize, teach, grade, and interact with students and parents. With that infor- mation, they were able to identify areas that might be problematic. For example, Sheena had students turn in homework at a variety of different times, depending upon the situation for the day. Nikki had students turn in homework as soon as they walked in the door. This inven- tory process helped them work out some potential pitfalls and plan better for the students.

Next they collected the IEPs for the students who were assigned to the classroom. Nikki gave Sheena a tutoring session on how to read and implement goals from the IEPs. They then cre- ated a summary of the types of goals and areas of disability that would be part of the class- room. Here is what they discovered about the students:

• A total of nine students had IEPS with a variety of goals.

• All of the students had goals in the areas of following directions and organization.

• Two students had additional goals in the area of social interactions and language pragmatics.

• One student had sensory integration goals related to textures and sounds.

• Four of the students had processing speed challenges and writing goals.

• Two students had physical challenges of mobility.

With this information in hand, Nikki and Sheena front-loaded the learning environment with simple “differentiations” that they hoped would look and seem natural in their collaborative room. They set up the classroom as follows.

Case Study in Educational Leadership Chapter 9

At the door was a small table. On the table was a bright green basket with the sign: “HOMEWORK Turn it in here before you go to your seat.” A picture accompanied the sign, showing a student turning in a piece of paper to the basket.

Next to the basket were craft sticks with each student’s name and a small round can that had the sign: “Check In! Put your name in the Can of Stars!”

On the nearest wall were enough cubicles for each student in the room. The nameplates were blank. The students would make their own nameplate on the first day of school.

The desks were grouped in fours, with each group facing into the others, but not touch- ing, leaving room to travel from one area to another. Each desk had a name card already holding student names, a tape with the number line and ABCs, and a “point” card that the teachers would use to put stars when students were on task.

The white board had the schedule for the first day written in different colors. On the desks, the same schedule was written on small cards, color-coded like the schedule on the board.

In addition, on the white board were three large color-coded circles: red, yellow, and green. There were also the same color dots on each desk. The teachers would use these colored circles to communicate with students. For example, the circles could be used when stu- dents were doing individual work and when teachers were checking their work. Students would hold up a dot to indicate where they were in their learning: Red means “STOP! I need your help!” Yellow means “I think I have it, but CHECK IN with me please!” Green means “I understand it, GOOD to go!”

In the front corner of the room were two teacher desks, also facing each other but without touching. In another corner were bookshelves with books of different reading levels, a shelf with noise-canceling headphones, beanbag chairs, two small round balls large enough for students to sit upon, and blank writing journals. The last corner had a semicircular table with four chairs and one empty space on one side and a teacher’s chair on the other. The sign above it read, “CREATIVE MINDS WANTED HERE!!!!” The sign also showed an arrow pointing toward the table.

Nestled against one wall was a bank of three laptop computers and a printer. On the walls were a variety of positive charts and challenges for students. For example, one area had each student’s name on it with spaces for stars that could be earned for projects. Students could earn stars for showing effort, asking questions, doing group work, and staying on task as an individual and as a group.

The two teachers knew there would be adjustments, not just during the first few weeks but also throughout the year as students gained new skills or became challenged by new concepts and tasks. Some changes would occur on the spot, while others would take plan- ning. With the collaborative model they had set up, however, they would have time every week to review, adjust, and design new ideas as needed.

As they left that day, Sheena commented on how much easier it had been to get the first differentiations set up than she had envisioned. Nikki felt like this time, she was headed for a positive collaborative teaching experience.

Post-Test Chapter 9

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What steps did Nikki and Sheena take to prepare for the teaching-learning situation? How did

they demonstrate effective teacher-leader skills when presented with a sudden challenging change in their professional situation?

2. Differentiations can be in a variety of areas (e.g., organizational techniques, visual or verbal cues, changes in time requirements, alternative written formats, assistive technology). Identify at least one differentiated circumstance to match each student goal listed for the students with IEPs.

3. Identify at least three other methods to differentiate for the student goals that were not men- tioned in the case study.

Summary This chapter offered both the moral imperative and the needed practical strategies for leaders to adopt differentiation practices in schools. It also identified why differentiation is critical for 21st century school reforms, as well as the theoretical underpinnings and research support. In addition, differentiated practices were described to help leaders better understand what is being asked of teachers. The chapter concluded by affirming that school leaders must value their role as a change leader for differentiation.

In Chapter 2, we discussed the importance of the values that school leaders hold. In a dif- ferentiated school, a leader’s values may be scrutinized even more closely. For example, par- ents may object when their child is graded against standards that are different from those used for another child. Or a student who meets expectations for one task may fall short on a criterion-referenced test. Benjamin (2010) asserted that “such gaps raise questions that you may have to answer publicly. To do so, you must be clear on the values that support differenti- ated instruction as a means of allowing all children to learn within their own learning zones” (p. 59).

Post-Test 1. Standards-based education stemmed from

a. more localized control of education.

b. demands for academic freedoms.

c. efforts to equalize education.

d. campaigns to make education safer.

2. The best way for novice teachers to see differentiation in action would be to

a. role-play differentiation scenarios.

b. observe others using differentiation.

c. write lesson plans for differentiation.

d. evaluate ideas for differentiation.

Post-Test Chapter 9

3. On a multiplication lesson, Mr. Lee teaches the whole class about the multiples of 5–10 and provides an activity for students to practice. During this time, he goes around the classroom, guiding students on the new lesson and giving extra guidance for students who are still struggling with the previous lesson. This strategy is an example of

a. teaching to the test.

b. teaching backward.

c. checking for understanding.

d. checking for gifted learners.

4. In differentiated classrooms, students should compete with and be compared to

a. standards.

b. other students in their class.

c. other students in the school.

d. themselves.

5. Analysis of the Third International Science and Mathematics Study (TIMSS) determined that standards and accountability were

a. not focused on the achievement gap.

b. not closing the achievement gap.

c. beginning to close the achievement gap

d. expanding the achievement gap.

6. When Ms. Pandis models differentiation of instruction in professional development, she is enacting Tomlinson and Allan’s (2002) claim that leaders should

a. offer options based on grade and subject areas.

b. attend to teachers’ levels of readiness and interest.

c. emphasize high-quality curriculum and instruction.

d. recognize teachers’ efforts.

7. Which of the following was not mentioned as a negative effect on teachers due to federal, state, and local mandates regarding education?

a. Increased stress and anxiety

b. Increased financial hardship

c. Increased workload

d. Increased student data management

Key Terms Chapter 9

8. Mr. Holowitz develops different levels of instructional materials for students of different ability levels. While all students are learning about World War II, students who struggle more have more basic-level readers and worksheets, while the more advanced students are given above-grade-level readers and worksheets. This system would be called

a. tiering.

b. anchoring.

c. compacting.

d. contracting.

Answers 1. c. efforts to equalize education. The answer can be found in Section 9.1.

2. b. observe others using differentiation. The answer can be found in Section 9.2.

3. b. teaching backward. The answer can be found in Section 9.3.

4. d. themselves. The answer can be found in Section 9.4.

5. b. not closing the achievement gap. The answer can be found in Section 9.1.

6. b. attend to teachers’ levels of readiness and interest. The answer can be found in Section 9.2.

7. b. Increased financial hardship. The answer can be found in Section 9.3.

8. a. tiering. The answer can be found in Section 9.4.

Key Ideas • Differentiation is a critical component for 21st century school reforms.

• Leaders need to be able to articulate the theoretical underpinnings and research sup- port for differentiation.

• Leaders need to understand different ways of providing support for schoolwide differ- entiation efforts.

• Leaders need to understand the characteristics of effective staff development to sup- port differentiation.

• Leaders need to know the basic principles of differentiated instructional practices.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. List some schoolwide supports for differentiation that leaders may provide for teachers.

What do you think would be the most effective?

2. What are some barriers to schoolwide differentiation? How might these be overcome?

3. What are some elements of effective staff development for differentiation?

4. What are some elements of differentiated instruction of which leaders need to be aware?

Key Terms content The legally mandated curriculum, including all the skills and knowledge students are required to learn.

Additional Resources Chapter 9

flexible grouping Arranging student work groups in varied ways—for example, whole group, small groups, partners, and independent options.

high-quality curriculum Certain knowledge to master and skills to learn; instruction is dif- ferentiated to ensure that all students attain mastery.

learning environment The classroom configurations that allow students to learn.

process The many ways in which students learn the material.

product How students prove that they have learned the material.

respectful tasks Assignments that honor the needs of each student.

supportive learning environment The operation and tone of each classroom reflects the teacher’s belief in the possibilities of each student, including rules for members of the class, furniture arrangement ideas, guidelines for how to get help with work, and procedures for passing out and collecting materials.

Additional Resources Further Readings

Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sousa, D., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience sup- ports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and under- standing by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Videos

• Differentiated instruction ignites elementary learning: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=AqepSNNjowU

• Differentiated instruction 6–12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvDT9KFZPw&list =PLlN8LzEP6HQrY4ZFlLi1XMihoQRwSoq20

• Tips and strategies for effective differentiation and instruction: http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=mVRYSC8YyYA

Additional Resources Chapter 9

Weblinks

• Differentiated instruction: Meeting students where they are: http://www.glencoe.com/ sec/teachingtoday/subject/di_meeting.phtml

• Differentiated instruction, curriculum, and assessment: http://www.differentiatedin- struction.net

• Differentiated instruction and implications for universal design for learning implementation: http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/ differentiated_instruction_udl

Slideshow Presentations

• Differentiating instruction for student success: http://www.slideshare.net/ssantoli/ differentiated-instruction-10371091?from_search=12

• Differentiation in secondary classrooms: http://www.slideshare.net/jillaaguilar/ differentiated-instruction-5561331?from_search=4