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.