No, really...

I know this is late, mostly because I was going to take a pass this week, but this article has been gnawing on me for a bit and reading comments on others, I have to.

Large Hadron Collider

Ok, you all know I hate technology, but maybe not the reasons why. This article felt like a good idea, like the particle accelerator
at CERN, but also what happens when that power gets into the wrong hands or is used the wrong way? Even the good guys could accidentally create a black hole with that thing, and then what?

Here are my questions/problems with this idea of implementing technology:

How can people be taught to communicate and interact when they're staring at a screen and tapping messages out? I am a Facebook un-fan. Yes, I do have a page and in my defense, it has been good in communicating with a specific group of people I see once a year. I have 29 friends there. One is my mom, one my sister, and only because my sis lives soooo far away. What I hate about it, is people put things on there they would never dare say to another person face to face. It makes them bold and opinionated, without the consequence of seeing the look of disappointment on their conversational partners. When did it become so hard to actually make time to get together with our friends and neighbors and how will children know how to do that if they are never taught to get away from their screens, even at school? Will the cafeteria be filled with children staring at screens while eating as they text the person sitting next to them?

Which one?

How many platforms are going to be utilized? Will they be compatible  Will we have interface wars like Google and Apple? In four classes I have taken so far from WSU, I have had to learn how to use three different platforms to participate. As far as I can see, no data from each transfers to the other, plus, dummy me, I have to spend hours at each one figuring out how it works before I even start the class. I know kids are smarter than I in that regard, but my questions still stand.

How will information transfer when students move? This one is kind of related to the one above. We all know kids move between school and between districts. How can we transfer their data between platforms? Do students take their tablets with them when they move? What happens when they go from the super-awesome-everyone-has-a-tablet school, to the regular one that can't yet afford that program? What happens to their data? And what use is it to the new school?

Screen time for kids should be limited! That's not a question. I have no research quotes to back this up, but I am sure that many kids have spent too much time being overstimulated by a screen, be it tv, computer or video games. I truly think this has contributed to the rash, nay, epidemic of ADHD that has been running rampant in our youth. I know this is a bold statement and I have done very little research on it. My own children get less than two hours of tv a week. When they get more than that, they get antsy and overactive. Instead, they go outside and play or create things with their toys.

Well, are you?

When the power goes out...? While this is a highly unlikely scenario, we only have three power grids in the US, one of them shared with Canada (Texas actually has its very own!). With the
increasing demand for electric to power our new cars, new gadgets and all the regular stuff we've been using power for forever, the grids become stressed. Some cities have experience rolling black-outs and brown-outs. How is this good for an electrically based education system. (No, I'm not a Prepper, but I do believe in being prepared). One of the funniest things I ever get to see is what happens when a store's cash register stops thinking for the clerk. I end up having to count my own change back to myself. Yes, I have a sardonic sense of humor, but why are people relying on a machine to do math for them when they have the most sophisticated computer on the planet? Teachers have this computer available to them as well, and many use it and use it well!! Why use a sub-par computer in competition to this one?

That being said...
I really do think technology can help to improve the education of children. They are so used to using tech already, it would only be a small step for most of them from texting and web browsing to classroom blog discussion and educational games. Teachers must learn to adapt and use the resources available.

Nook or Kindle?

Putting text books onto tablets is a great idea! Saves paper, updates can be done automatically, speech
readers can talk the student through the book if they have trouble with reading (though, we have to remember, the kid still needs to know how to read!), kids can even take notes right there on the screen.

Will the tech of our education follow us digitally in the next 50 years? I hope not, actually. We should all get to start again, anew, when we age out of school, but it could be handy, if used correctly.

Parity

Hmmm...Where do I even begin? While each article discussed the multitude of ways students are/can be different from each other, they were all a more in-depth rehashing of what we've been learning. Of course, they will all contain examples on differentiation, that is the class we are taking, after all. Amusingly, the lesson that stuck out most to me was not how kids can discreetly ask for help without feeling they look stupid (Tobin, 2005) or how some seemingly genius math students can also be in the Vulture reading group (Winebrenner, 2003), but the lesson of "parity issues" in Tobin (2005) which really had nothing to do with students at all.

With the mention of the word "parity", which is an unusual word to use, (and to use it twice!), I considered the possibility that this author was dissatisfied with her choice of study and/or setting in which it took place. Did the parity issue of Tobin not getting a say in curricular decisions (as specifically mentioned) color her results? Even the recorded statements of the children mentioned in the article were ambiguous and I did not see much evidence that this study proved anything except that more time and equality was needed for concrete results.

Jumping in

Not sure what Tobin was thinking, jumping into a class like that and expecting to be considered an equal when she had no repertoire with the teachers or the students. I feel like the students did not trust her to give her "real" answers when she asked questions and when they did not ask for her help. Did her mere presence disrupt the learning flow of the lower achievers mentioned? Would they have done better if Tobin only observed and did not participate? Apparently, more time and further study are needed.

This being said, Winebrenner's and Tobin's other article (2007) did give some good advice on what some kinds of differentiation look like and how to implement them. Winebrenner gives a great how-to guide for teaching "twice-exceptional" students. I like how the methods can be used for any of the students in the room and all are given the opportunity to test out. This sounds like a classroom of true differentiation. Is it possible for this classroom to exist? Is it possible on top of all the other teacher requirements?

Tobin's (2007) article was differentiation as it applies to literacy. I see a lot of practical ideas and I'm relieved that it took Rachael two years (with more to go, I'm sure) to develop her practices. So many times, I've been feeling like all of the things I'm learning, I should just be able to jump in and do. I know this is not so. As with anything, it takes experience and practice. Now, I have a written and published validation of this.                    

Back to "parity," these articles all have a common theme (to me). That is, equal doesn't mean the same and we all need to accept, embrace the differences we see in each other.

Found this in a teacher's classroom.   This is a link. It is supposed to be purple!

Differentiating differentiation differently

So, first, I want to respond to each of the articles separately, and then I have a few on-going questions about studies in general. Here goes...

Hertzog's article gave an overview of open-ended activities and how they can be beneficial to all learners, but especially to those identified as gifted. This article was the most informative to me. I did not even know such a thing as open-ended activities existed. Open-ended activities (OEA) can be accessible to general ed students as well as gifted. My favorite quote from this article was that of one of the teachers: "This is what the task is. What are you going to do?" That sums up open-ended in  a nutshell. Here's the problem, tell me how you're going to fix it. This gives students the control and the teacher is truly and advisor/coach.

Devin's art :)

I also liked that Hertzog pointed out that the gifted students are not all gifted in all areas. In fact, drawing is pointed out specifically that general ed and even lower achievers, excel at drawing and are better at it than the gifted students. I think this can be helpful for both ends of the spectrum: It helps the lower and general education students see that they can excel at something, it helps with discouragement if they compare themselves to the higher kids AND helps higher achievers retain some humility - they can't and won't be great at everything all the time.

Werderich's article described what and how dialogue journals can be used. Separating student responses into categories can help a teacher determine what response type to use depending on where the student should be guided. I'm not sure separating them into 150 categories is practical, but maybe three to five would be useful. The "real conversation" in the
journals lets students know the teacher is not giving everyone the same canned response, that the teacher is actually reading and paying attention to what the students say. Having that written record can also help both teacher and students see progress of reading and insights, be reminded of previous conversations or see changes in interest and let parents see how their children are using the learning they are acquiring

One might also compare these journals to texting, something more and more students (and people in general) are doing. My dad once asked me what was the point in texting. I told him it was a perfect way to communicate non-urgent information that could be looked at at one's convenience, like putting a note in a mailbox, only digitally. The journals seem to function a little like this. Students and teacher alike can leave each other "notes in the mailbox" and communicate over time when it is good for them.

This one was easy to read and the process of journaling seemed more practical in use and less part of one of those "ideal" classrooms that feel impossible to achieve.

Umm...

Lastly, the Dalton article. I honestly couldn't read the tables and all the numbers made absolutely no sense to me. Apparently, my brain prefers anecdotal information. Can this article be translated into English with one of the ICON programs it mentions? I had to sift through a bunch of numbers and references to get any information. I see that computer scaffolding is helpful when used in a combination of comprehension and vocabulary and it seems to work best for monolingual English speakers. Is this because this is who the program is geared toward or because this demographic is the most familiar with digital technology already?

I most liked how the ICON program was similar to how a real web page works. It had hyper-links and lots of scaffolding. If a web page is not easy to navigate, no one will go back and the kids seemed to like this one. I kind had another duh moment when I read that a combination of comprehension and  vocabulary worked best. The two kind of go hand in hand.

That being said, here are my questions:

Does the ethnicity of a student matter? Why does every research article feel the need to separate people into groups "of color"? If a student is gifted, then she's gifted. Who cares what her heritage is?

We have "pull-out" and "push-in" programs for lower achievers. Why not the same benefits for high achievers? For that matter, why not separate all students by achievement level rather than age? It would be more beneficial for the students and easier for the teachers (hoping not to offend anyone, just questioning here)? Factory model again.

The Werderich article mentioned that teachers may possibly be influencing how students responded in their journal. Aren't teachers supposed to influence their students? Isn't that part of their job description?

Well, duh...

So, I'm kinda of having a duh moment right now. After reading these articles, I first, don't have a whole lot to say because, well, duh...

I just had to...

Duffy's article says to me that teacher adaptation and thinking are one of the best things that can happen in a classroom and that teachers who are compliant, either in curriculum or how the classroom is run, may end up being non-thinkers. Too bad everyone is trying to implement a "perfect method" that would render teacher pretty much useless.

And here's my duh comment...We should all just stand back and let teachers do what they do best!

That is, give them the reins and let them change and adapt and teach how they see their students needing them to. Does this mean all teachers can do this well? Does this mean all teachers care about their students? Does this mean all teachers will adapt and change according to their students' needs?
No. To all. But I believe the majority of teachers can, will and do whatever they can to help their students succeed.

Totally had to

Parsons' "reaction vs. differentiation" was helpful to me. It helped me see that planning is the biggest part of differentiation, not just letting your kids run the show. The clothing analogy has bee very helpful
both in class and in reading.

Here's one of my main beefs with public education: So many rely on state or official test scores to tell how students are doing. I hate this. I (and my boys) suck at test taking. Soooo many different factors can affect the scores: Have I learned how to take this test? Have I had a good

Where's the beef?

breakfast, a good night's sleep? Am I feeling out of it today? Am I bored with sitting in one spot for so long? Is the stuff on the test too hard or too easy for me? Have we even studied this stuff? Am I a good reader, or maybe not so good? Is my neighbor kicking me under the table the whole time? Do you see where I'm going?...

Language, Alive!

Blank Stare

First, the math video was boring and not very helpful. Initially, this was a dry tutorial to be given to adults that want a different way to use fraction manipulatives and wound up on this video by accident. Fine. Don't show this video to a kid. He'll die of boredom and probably confusion. In addition, the first example was a fits-well-together one where the two denominators smoothly fit when combined. The second example was fourths and sevenths (!) with no tutorial on how to first convert the fractions so they could even be combined. I even tried to find another video or something that would be better than this one. I couldn't find one and I won't even bother to put a link here. I don't want you to die.

On the other hand, Kelly's article was illuminating, joyful and enlightening (I did that just to make Kelly smile, but seriously, I enjoyed the reading). By comparing the collaborative translation/language groups with guided reading groups, I had a platform on which to build my understanding. Putting students into groups of the same level of learning with some of the same interests will help foster the translation process. I loved how I could see the groups talking back and forth, volunteering their expertise on different parts of the process. Is this typical of any ELL group or just Latino students?

I also liked that the boys and the girls were divided into groups. After bringing them together, I think this can foster an even further collaboration when the two groups come up with different translations for the same passage/chapter. Why do we not do this with other types of groups or other subjects in our classrooms? Is language translation the only thing that works well with this type of grouping? I noticed they used different words in translation that may have meant the same thing in a dictionary, but used connotatively, were pretty different.

I have read some about English language learners before and find myself encouraging students to go ahead and use their native language if they "get stuck" while reading in English or if they can't get just the right word while writing in English. Do native English speakers go through the same process when learning another language they've been immersed in?

Question: Where can I use this kind of collaboration in my teaching?
                Will it work with any age group, or only those that have already learned to collaborate?
                How can I translate this knowledge into other subjects?

Superfluous

This is not for class. Just for showing off some of my stuff...

Tigerlilies. 6'x4'

Snapdragons 4'x4'

Dragonfly (sold!) 2.5'x3.25'

no title, 5'x6'

Impotent 6'x4'

 No title (but, yes, that's what it is...)   3'x2'


By the way, the pics are all crummy, but I thought I'd show them off anyway! They all look much better in person and I have a ton more...

Thanks for looking!

Backward

Watching these videos was torture. Better to turn off the video and just listen...

Hmmm...I wonder if we teachers should think of ourselves more as coaches of the Game of Life. Maybe this will help us incorporate or diversify our differentiation techniques. Never having been part of a sports team, because I suck at sports, I never thought of coaches as being great differentiators. Thinking about it though, it does seem natural because you can't have half your team sitting out because they are not getting the point of the game.

The point I remember most from all of this is backward design. I've been in a class now for one and a half weeks with the same amount of time to go. The teacher (very thoughtfully) carefully laid out three week's worth of lesson plans for me. What I was unable to find, was the ultimate goal for the students during my three weeks' time with them and the lessons were not making sense to me. They were out of context. She also might not have considered the fact that, even with a guest teacher the students are familiar with, there will be (are!) management issues that sometimes hold the kids back and lessons will have to be reinforced (read: re-taught). Is this where the coaching comes in? Couple this with the fact that I can't see a connection between the lessons I'm giving and the independent math work stations the students are doing. Also, these math lessons are very scripted giving the teacher little wiggle room for presentation and with such a strict schedule that the writers (and

Math

people who advocated for the purchase of this program) must think all teachers are either geniuses and can get the points across with the written script, or so stupid that the only thing that will come across is a scripted math lesson!

So, what to do? I look to the end of the unit, figure out where I'm going and try to teach to that (whew! Alliteration!). When I figured out where the goal was, I had a better idea of how to get there (though I still don't see the connection between lessons and stations...).

With this in mind, I really connected to McTighe's idea of What is the ultimate goal of school? To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if children are uneducated, it will cost us in the long run. He hit the nail on the head. Bear with me... I think in terms of backward design when educating my boys. When I say educating, I mean more than subjects taught in school. I teach them everything from monetary responsibility to the consequences of kindness without cause. My ultimate goal, of course, is to mold them into awesome men that are productive and contribute to their society - hopefully the goal of all parents and teachers for all the children they come in contact with. And we bring this goal all the way down through school to kindergarten in teaching them cooperation and not to yell or hit each other: The ultimate backward design.
backward designing all the way up from high school or beyond.

And where does this leave one who is a coach of the Game of Life? Always looking forward and thinking ahead, of course! What I want my students to know tomorrow, I must scaffold on today and what next year's teacher wants them to know will have to grow on what they can learn from me this year. Funny, when you think about it, how a successful adult may partly owe her success to her kindergarten teacher (and her parents!!).

Practice

Our readings this week did not really spur me into writing. They were all very interesting and helpful, but none really inspired a ton of questions. They all seemed to be about specific strategies within DI. From Robb's quick FAQ guide to Brown and Morris' in-depth spelling needs of second graders, we can see a span of explanations of how to practice DI.

Robb's article only skimmed the surface -as most of the pages were covered in advertisements. It gave a quick overview of some things one could expect during DI and put our minds to ease just a little over the seemingly super-complicated practice of differentiated instruction. The one that sticks out to me was how to keep a conference to only five minutes. In the past, I have always thought to myself "Just one more question...I know we can get this down!" only to look up at the clock and realize that I have spent ten minutes with a student on a single "sticking point" that s/he is working on. I never thought of the kitchen timer...

Brown & Morris' and Coulter and Groenke's articles were about specific studies done. They both used some lovely examples. I love the idea of Vocabulary Logs mentioned in Coulter's (p 30) keeping vocabulary and definitions, etcetera, relevant to the student. It feels leaps and bounds above rote memorization for retaining the knowledge. This is one way a student can start to be respnsible for his/her own learning. I was so glad that the point of other students noticing the differences in their teaching coming up in Coulter's article, too (p 31), though I'm not sure the glossed-over answers were helpful. I think more straight-forward answers would be called for.

Comfort food for thought

What was comforting about the articles was the acknowledgement that DI can be a front-load of work to begin with, but that good prep can make all the difference. It was also refreshing to see that I actually practice some of the mentioned strategies.

One thing that is missing: All of the articles mention assessments even though this weems to not be an "official" part of DI and I'm seeing fewer examples of this. How do I do the assessments? What is an on-going assessment? Do they have to be official or graded, or can it be a passing-by, taking-notes kind of assessment?

There is No Secret Ingredient!

Play here--------------->
The common theme in all of our readings this week was real-world examples of what it means to differentiate. I'm tempted to stop there...In the beginning, I kept thinking DI was this huge thing I'd have to prep for way in advance, a complicated thing that only really good or long-experienced teachers could do. Then, when Tomlinson said teachers "simply do what seems right for their students" (pg 1036 on my Kindle version), I thought "That's just it! There is no secret ingredient for teaching differentiatedly (is that a word?)." It's something a teacher learns, practices and then just has a knack for. This particular insight helped me to overcome that hump of fear I had about practicing DI.

Tomlinson's explanation in the article For integration...of fusing concepts rather that facts was exactly the information I needed to see how to use interdisciplinary teaching as the way to get concepts across to students. The analogy of the tiles in a bin (pg 6) to memorization made me realize how unconnected facts can't be retained. Seeing how the tiles (facts) make up a whole can do wonders for connecting those facts (loose tiles) to a whole concept (pool). My favorite line is that learning should be the human pursuit of self-understanding (pg 6) - There is no secret ingredient!

Choose Roman Pool

The McMackin & Witherell and Bellamy articles gave very specific examples of differentiation. Using graphic organizers (I've also heard these referred to as "note-takers") as a way to let students choose their own difficulty level showed me that students will likely choose the one at or just above the level they are on. I like the idea of choice in almost any learning situation. Giving the student the power of choice lets the student know she can be trusted to take her learning into her own hands. Any time a student is given a choice of learning, I think just the power to make the choice puts her interest first and she is invested in the choice and the outcome. As a teacher, I know that, while not limitless, the number of tiers at which a student can be graded is not limited. This feels like differentiation for the teacher as well as the student.

Bellamy's article mentions that students are being "stretched". For me, it connects to Tomlinson's equalizer (no, not the 80s show with Edward Woodward). This visual showed me that the entire thing (lesson, concept, end-product) does not have to be changed in order to differentiate, that pieces of a student's learning can be tailored to his specific needs, as well as the needs of other students without changing the entire lesson for everyone. In this way, while the end results are similar, a student can demonstrate his strengths as well as stretch his abilities.

                                                      Questions I have this week:
Tomlinson mentions (in her book) study buddies, reading partners, audio and video recorders and peer and adult mentors. Are these learning profiles, differentiation or multiple intelligences?

Can graphic organizers be used only in literacy or other subjects as well?

If a student's abilities are continually stretched, will this help her in the long-term or will it become tiresome, always reaching without a break and give up?

There are no Vultures!

Ahhh... Clarity! I find myself writing (and talking) with more exclamation points lately. I'm so excited about what I've been learning! (good example) The readings this week have finally clarified and solidified the idea of what differentiation is for me. Robb's concrete examples are what I needed to understand how and why differentiation works.

Good Book!

I really like her practice of using read alouds as a main teaching tool. If I'm interpreting correctly, it looks like a read aloud would have a theme such as in/justice, acceptance, etc., and that students would then break up into groups using a different text with the same theme. I love this! Would this be a practical way to teach little ones though? I'm guessing not. I would like to see an example of what differentiation looks like at different grade levels, especially the little ones, and especially using the read aloud format, something the smalls already love.

Ruetzel's article also turned on a light for me! He uses magic as an analogy to reading and writing. If one doesn't understand how it works, it's a complete mystery. Showing students the "back stage production" side of reading and writing, how they fit together and enhance each other, lets them see that they can do it too! I never considered - until I began this program - that there is a process to my reading and writing. Even writing

David Copperfield

this entry, I still don't think about how I'm doing it. Understanding the process, even as I type, really takes some effort.

The only problem I see, with my own interpretation of Ruetzel (and no specific passage comes to mind, it's just an overall impression I have), is that an idyllic differentiation situation is so impractical that it's impossible. This is frustrating for me. To know something I can do with a few students will help all of them but with too many students I can only help some. How will I know which ones are slipping through the cracks before it's too late?

During a conversation Kelly and I had one day, he suggested when trying to find a particular kind of differentiation, that I look for " brand names." Reading the description of small-group differentiated reading instruction -whew! a mouthful! - I was struck by the similarity to "Daily 5", a much catchier and easier thing to say: A brand name. More lights! (and exclamation points) I have done this before!! This connection to real life, real practices, made me want to read more!

Walpole and McKenna helped me to understand tiered instruction. This goes back to a discussion we had earlier about not grouping students according to age. "Differentiation by Assessed Needs" is a flexibility group. Constantly assessing and moving students from this group to that, or creating whole new groups based on current needs, means there are no Vultures! (And what a terrible name for a reading group anyway!)

While I understand that in graded classrooms, we do still put children in based on age, it looks like tiered instruction is a great model for breaking away from the assembly line learning that our society is stuck on. Is this a good way to use tiered instruction? What happens when a student "tests out" of the grade s/he is in? Would we skip that student to the next grade or keep her/him in her/his age level classroom?

I have a much better and deeper understanding of what differentiation is now. The concrete examples have helped me to connect these ideas to what I have already seen and practiced. Everything I read gives me more questions, a desire to learn more, and, more exclamation points!

I Can Totally Do This!

Each of these articles has given me something to think about. As my mind is whirring from both the reading and thinking back on my own teaching practices (can substitutes be said to really have a teaching practice?), I am seeing many of these things called differentiated instruction, I already know, I just didn't know I knew! My reaction to each of the articles are separate and as follows:

Cool book today...

It seems as though, while Davila and Patrick make a point of doing all the research and presenting all the statistics about what children like to read and why they like to read it and all the influencing factors that may contribute to these likes and dislikes, what they end up saying at the end is all these things may matter today, but tomorrow the kids may change their minds about what they like. I realize that was a lengthy sentence, but why would someone go through all the work to figure out what kids like just to say that interests change?

I posit that kids probably like series of books for the same reason I do (here read "adults"): They like the style, the language, the nuances of the writer that become familiar and are noticeably different from author to author. It's a little like the reader gets to know the author while reading his characters and his plots (I say "his" because most of my favorite writers are men, Stephen King, Charlie Huston and Jeff Somers being my top three favs).

I was also very excited to see the mention of audio and multimodal books, though I wonder about the books with corresponding on-line content. Twenty years down the road when a student wants to share that story with their child, will the content still be available? Or maybe it will just come with a disc for future readers. And hey! Do audio books count as reading?

"What the child is able to do in a collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow." Lev Vygotsky

Lev Vygotsky

This quote by Vygotsky in Smagorinsky's article reminded me of the Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." From the article, I see that Smagorinsky has a deep affection for the Vygotsky. I was just commenting last week how weird it is to be able to relate to an article written 45 years ago and here Smagorinsky does the same thing. I feel he's pulling us back to our roots in education. Roots where we used to teach and learn as much smaller communities. Smaller communities where all children learned in the same classroom and were maybe not promoted based on age alone. 

I especially liked how Vygotsky thought of speech as oral writing. I think it's true that both processes will have a better end result if students are allowed to make their thinking out loud and work toward a final goal. I  have been remembering that it is the message we want to hear from students, not judge the way it is delivered.

Stahl is telling us that learning styles don't matter. At least, teaching to various learning styles will not help students improve their learning, especially since their learning styles may be ever-changing. I do think it would be natural for a teacher to notice, for example, that Edgar really loves to put his hands on things while Esther prefers quiet solitude. From this article though, I have learned that those are learning preferences, a personal way of thinking and going about one's learning rather that what is called a learning style. 

Learning style and differentiation seem to have become a little muddled in my mind. This article did nothing to clear it up. I am glad I did not read this one last because it would have left me confused. 


Santangelo's article helped me see what DI really is. I feel I've been floundering a bit here in class wondering if I'm the only one... What I keep coming up with is teach the same stuff at different levels. A great quote Santangelo put in from Tomlinson, "When in doubt, teach up." I love that that attitude will give a teacher and a student so much better results than dumbing something down. This article helped me to formulate a question that has helped me define, for myself, what differentiation is. "How do I promote the success of my students?"

I always go back to my own kids. They teach me so much. Over the summer, we do school. We do math and writing, we go on field trips and to the library. We do science experiments... I notice that in every instance, I teach the same thing to everyone who attends summer school at my house. This year, we ended up with four total, two of mine and two of the neighbor's. They are in three different grades but each one was given a lesson at a different level. I was differentiating without even knowing it. Is this what it means to be a good teacher? To see what your students need and go in that direction? How do I know I'm doing this for as many of my students as possible? Is it possible to meet the needs of every student?

Please note: The giraffe and Vygotsky captions are links to cool things...as are the names of my fav authors.

Level Zero

Well, right away, I though of Kung Fu Panda when I read the expression "level zero." Po seems to be a good analogy of the development of the practice of differentiation from Baker to Goldman. We start with an idea. Po wanted very much to be a Kung Fu master while Baker pointed out that dull, average and bright (his words - yikes!) students should have different kinds of instruction. It's like he knew the problem and how it cold be solved, but it was a baby idea - in that it needed a lot of nourishment and growth before it even morphed into Betts' posits.

Mother

I know both my folks were taught at level zero. Mother by the nuns in an all-girl Catholic boarding school, all the way through high school and Dad in a rural elementary.

Not Mom's class, but representative

Mom remembers that the nuns were likely not trained in education. They were only there as part of "what the church does." This strikes me as odd considering the school was there on purpose, as a school, not as a church that happened to have classrooms in it. Sometimes, a Sister would pull a girl aside and conference with her. Mom doesn't know if this was individual instruction or not, but that is all she remembers of any kind of individual or differentiated instruction.


Dad's school was level zero-er. "There were no slow kids. You either passed or you didn't and if you didn't, too bad. You had the same opportunity as everyone else." He clearly remembers sitting in rows, listening and reciting and no one got any special treatment of any kind. Not even reading groups.

I asked my parents about their early education because I wanted to know if differentiation had gotten out from 1936 to 1949. Seems it hadn't, at least not out this direction.

Each article had a different feel to it. Baker is a stodgy old man telling me how and why he knows better than I. It was a lecture intended for other, stodgier old men. The language is older and at times, I had trouble following the train of thought. Baker almost grudgingly reveals that yes, in fact, children do learn differently and at different rates. I am reminded of the old magazines where women are shown dressed in high heels to do the laundry.

So, now we have an idea. An idea that students learn at different rates and in different ways. Betts seems to have this idea down pat, but she writes to us as if it were a brand new idea - and in a way, I suppose it still was. The article was well-thought out and still feels relevant to today's practices where Baker's ideas, especially in comparing bright students to future gods in knowledge and physical stature and dull students to 98 pound weaklings, make me drop my jaw at the stereotypes.

As we mentioned in class, though, it feels like a rough beginning - like Betts knows what she's saying (I assume a female here as I have no reference) and is trying to convince others, through detailed explanation, that her ideas should be seriously considered. Po in training...

The Goldman article is better. It more closely resembles what I'm familiar with both in language and practice. The writing is less like a commercial for differentiation and more like a model for success. I ask how far have we come, if 45 years later I can still relate to this writing? Shouldn't we either be well beyond what I can relate to or is this process in stagnation? Have we become as proficient as possible in differentiation? Are we still Po in training? What is the ultimate goal and how will we, as educators, achieve it?

I submit that my straining is not extensive but I feel these are important questions - I'm sure to have answered as I progress through this class!

Hmmm... A beginning

This is a beginning for me, something new. Technology and I rarely get along well, so I'm apprehensive about this particular medium, but being a teacher, we go with the flow (sometimes our mantra, I think), and learn what we can to give our students all the opportunities in the world.

I wanted this first entry for two reasons: One, a test to see if I actually did it and others can read it; and two, an apology in advance for all the times I will probably mess up the tech!

I'm looking forward to this (I feel) "meaty" class. Hopefully lol and the like can be included here and read as intended to show context and emotion. One of the reasons I don't like the tech is I feel we are somehow getting away from being able to converse with people. That being said, expect text speak and icons from me, just to clarify how I'm feeling about what I write.

Thanks for your time, All! I shall "see" you in class soon!

Kelley, just a thank you for making sure to include me at your table during class. I feel more a part of the group and I appreciate it.

Deb