303 DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION - Professional Learning...Susan Watts-Taffe is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; e-mail [email protected]. B.P.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
school settings, the need for further differentiation
is pitted against the realities of limited teacher
time and the need for more knowledge about how
to differentiate instruction to meet the variability
in student needs.
The following comments, heard recently in
schools, may sound familiar:
■ The basal gives us models, materials, and
methods to differentiate instruction for all
students; isn’t that enough?
■ I thought the whole point of using research-
based instructional strategies was to be more
effective with my students. I’m unclear on what
more I should be doing.
Meanwhile, administrators and professional
development facilitators state: We know that teachers
and students need more direction than core reading
programs can provide to help students who struggle
in reading. How can we support our teachers?
In this article, we address the concept of
differentiation by investigating what it means, the
research base supporting it, what it can look like in
both primary and intermediate-grade classrooms,
and the teacher decision making behind it. We begin
Susan Watts-Taffe is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; e-mail [email protected].
B.P. (Barbara) Laster is director of the graduate reading programs at Towson University, Maryland, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Laura Broach is a literacy specialist at Lexington Public Schools, Massachusetts, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Barbara A. Marinak is an associate professor at Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Carol McDonald Connor is a professor of psychology and director of the Early Learning Research Initiative Center and senior learning scientist at the Learning Sciences Institute at Arizona State University, Tempe, USA; e-mail [email protected].
Doris Walker-Dalhouse is an associate professor at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; e-mail [email protected].
DI F F E R E N T I AT ED I NST RUC T ION: M A K I NG I N FOR M ED T E AC H E R DEC ISIONS
www.reading.org R T
305
teachers provided high-quality but
primarily whole-class instruction. In
these studies, the heart of effective
differentiated instruction was
understanding students’ skill profiles
and matching amounts and types
of instruction to each profile. Valid
and reliable ongoing assessments of
students’ reading and vocabulary skills
were used to identify different student
profiles, which changed over time. This
research also revealed the importance
of using ongoing assessments and
truly understanding students’ specific
strengths and needs as they changed
in response to effective literacy
instruction.
Differentiated instruction is also
central to honoring diversity. In his
review of research on literacy and
diversity, Tatum (2011) reported
nine categories of diversity pertinent
to literacy educators, including
gender, ethnicity, language,
race, socioeconomic status, and
exceptionalities (physical, mental,
emotional, intellectual), noting that
“there are many interactions that
can exist within and across each of
the categories, and each is affected
by dynamics of power and privilege”
(p. 427). He stated that an important
way to honor the multiple ways in
which students are diverse is to offer
appropriately differentiated instruction.
In his review, Tatum (2011) identified
specific instructional recommendations,
which include making connections
between instruction and students’
experiences, fostering student
autonomy, making effective use of
strategic grouping, and providing
research-based cognitive strategy
instruction. A truly differentiated
classroom is one in which learners are
understood to be constantly growing
and changing as they participate in
various literacy events.
Furthermore, particular ways of
learning are not privileged over others.
Instead, it is understood that children
bring to school an array of valuable
cultural and linguistic experiences
that may be similar or dissimilar to
those of the teacher or other children
in the classroom (e.g., Terry & Connor,
2012). The idea that classrooms are
fundamentally diverse in a variety of
ways, including experiences with and
achievement in school-based literacy,
is in keeping with concepts underlying
Response to Intervention (RTI), which
blurs the lines between traditional
notions of “mainstream” or “general”
instruction versus “specialized”
instruction.
Differentiation has drawn
increasing attention since 2004, when
reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
introduced RTI. RTI assumes that
literacy teachers differentiate as a matter
of course, within both the context of the
general classroom (sometimes called
Tier 1) and within the context of more
specialized and targeted instruction/
intervention (sometimes called Tier 2
and Tier 3).
According to the Response to
Intervention: Guiding Principles for
Educators (International Reading
Association [IRA], 2010):
Students have different language and literacy needs so they may not respond similarly to instruction, even when research-based practices are used. No single process or program can address the broad and varied goals and needs of all
students, especially those from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
DI F F E R E N T I AT ED I NST RUC T ION: M A K I NG I N FOR M ED T E AC H E R DEC ISIONS
www.reading.org R T
313
assessments of all children, as well as
assessments of how children respond
to instruction.
■ Methods to monitor students’ progress
so that groupings and instructional
strategies can be modified as students
gain important skills and knowledge.
■ In-depth knowledge of the reading
process and evidence/research-based
practices associated with instruction
and assessment. This includes design
and appropriation of materials,
including those from your core literacy
curriculum, that can accommodate the
varying learning needs of individual
students and gradually releasing
responsibility for learning back to
students.
■ Use the core literacy curriculum
more flexibly and creatively than
the publisher recommends. For
example, select reading materials
from different parts of the core—
for example, materials designed for
the beginning of the year may not
be challenging enough for some
students and too difficult for others;
for them, more time in basic skills
might be warranted. The anthologies
frequently offer text that follows
similar themes but offer different
reading challenges. These can be
useful for differentiating instruction
when using small groups.
■ Emphasis on teaching components
of strategic reading. Differentiation
is used to support all students in the
acquisition of the highest levels of
literacy.
■ Development of “systems” or
routines to support differentiation.
This includes developing classroom
routines and systems that allow
children to work in small peer groups
and independently while the teacher
provides targeted instruction to a
small group of students.
Although there are many ways to
differentiate instruction, the needs,
interests, and strengths of students
within specific instructional contexts
guide decisions about how best to
differentiate at a given point in time.
1. Select one intriguing idea discussed in this article to try out with some of your students. It may be Ms. Cooper’s idea of adjusting the level of
text to support learning of a specific strategy or the idea of using a continuum of learning guides to support the same key concept, as Mrs. Manley
demonstrated.
2. Think of a specific skill or strategy you are currently teaching and analyze your instruction for elements of the gradual release of responsibility.
In what ways do you begin to meet your students where they are and then gradually, and systematically, release your responsibility while increasing
their responsibility so that they become independent and strategic in their use of that skill or strategy? Depending on the specific skill or strategy
you are teaching (especially if it is a strategy), this process may take weeks or months and may require coordinating efforts with other instructional
staff (e.g., reading specialist, paraprofessional) or classroom volunteers. How can you harness all resources to continually use a gradual release of
responsibility model in your teaching?
3. Make a list of the types of data you typically use to make instructional decisions. How much of these data are classroom based and provide
you with a direction for your instruction (as opposed to simply indicating a need for further or different instruction)? What types of data do you
need to make better instructional decisions for your students? How can you, or you and other instructional professionals working together,
efficiently gather those data on a regular basis?
4. Take the time to design an instructional schedule that allows you to visit with each of your students one on one, or in small groups, at least once
each week. If this is too daunting, begin by aiming for once every two weeks. What elements of the school day can you manipulate to make this time
available? How can you adjust the structure of your classroom to support this valuable time?
5. Develop a plan to use in evaluating the extent to which students’ cultural and linguistic differences are integrated in your plans for differentiated
instruction. To what extent might grade-level differences and classroom demographics influence the development of such a plan?
6. Put the topic of differentiation on the next agenda of your professional learning community or team planning meeting. As a start, ask everyone
to read this article and come prepared to talk about what it means for instruction in your school. Then make a plan to support further collaboration in
DI F F E R E N T I AT ED I NST RUC T ION: M A K I NG I N FOR M ED T E AC H E R DEC ISIONS
The Reading Teacher Vol. 66 Issue 4 Dec 2012 / Jan 2013R T
314
We hope the examples of differentiation
examined in this article serve as a cata-
lyst both for classroom teachers, who are
called upon to make informed decisions
about differentiation in their daily work
with students, and for literacy coaches,
professional development facilitators,
and administrators, who are called upon
to support classroom teachers in this
critical endeavor.
RE F ERENC ES
Armbruster, B.B., Anderson, T.H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331–346. doi:10.2307/747972
Clay, M. (2000). Running records for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Connor, C.M. (2011). Child by instruction interactions: Language and literacy connections. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook on early literacy research (3rd ed., pp. 256–275). New York: Guilford.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B.J., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P., et al. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics X instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221.
Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd. ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dymock, S. (1998). A comparison study of the effects of text structure training, reading
practice, and guided reading on reading comprehension. In T. Shanahan & F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.) 47th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 90–102). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Elleman, A.M., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bouton, B. (2011). Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at-risk of developing comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 348–357. Medline doi:10.1177/0022219411407865
Hall, K., Sabey, B., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository text to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211–234. doi:10.1080/02702710590962550
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/udl/diffinstruction.asp
International Reading Association. (2010). Response to intervention: Guiding principles for educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 458–492. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.4.2
Marinak, B., & Gambrell, L. (2008). Elementary informational text: A research review. The International Journal of Learning, 15(9), 75–83.
Marinak, B., Moore, J., & Henk, W. (1998). Reading instructional handbook. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 302–312. doi:10.1598/RT.59.4.1
Pressley, M. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 3–12. doi:10.1086/461599
Richgels, D., McGee, L., Lomax, R., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects of recall on expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 177–196. doi:10.2307/747664
Tatum, A.W. (2011). Diversity and literacy. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 424–447). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Terry, N.P., & Connor, C.M. (2012). Changing nonmainstream American English use and early reading achievement from kindergarten to first grade. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(1/2), 78–86. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0093)
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vacca, R.T., & Vacca, J.L. (1999). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (6th ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Longman.
Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J.M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101–128. doi:10.1086/461918
Williams, J.P., Hall, K.M., Lauer, K.D., Stafford, B., DeSisto, L.A., & deCani, J. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538
Williams, J.P., Stafford, K.B., Lauer, K.D., Hall, K.M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–20. doi:10.1037/a0013152
LI T ER AT U RE C I T ED
Hoffman, M. (1991). Amazing Grace. New York: Dial.
Lobel, A. (1989). Small pig. New York: Trumpet Club.
Recorvits, H. (2003). My name is Yoon. New York: Frances Foster.
Rylant, C. (2004). Puppy Mudge finds a friend. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Simon, S. (1998). Wild babies. New York: HarperCollins.