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?