Why DI?: An
Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
|
Instructor
Name: |
Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D. |
|
Facilitator: |
Professor
Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
|
Phone: |
509-891-7219 |
|
Office
Hours: |
8
a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday |
|
Email: |
|
|
Address: |
Virtual
Education Software |
|
|
23403
E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F |
|
|
Liberty
Lake, WA 99019 |
|
Technical
Support: |
Introduction
Welcome to Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, an
interactive computer-based instruction course, designed to give you an
understanding of the framework of and need for creating supportive learning
environments for diverse learning populations. In this course you will learn
what is meant by Differentiated Instruction (DI) and the common myths
associated with creating the differentiated classroom. We will discuss the
legal, theoretical, and pedagogical foundations in the field of education that
support the utilization of differentiated instructional practices and
principles. We will reflect on best practices and national trends in the design
of the educational setting to meet the needs of a diverse learning population.
Participants will learn how a differentiated approach invites educators to
consider any approach that supports student access to the general education
curriculum and success in learning.
Why DI?:
An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction will also provide
connections to a variety of concepts, variables, and resources that will assist
practitioners in aligning their own professional practices with those found in
the differentiated classroom.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting
program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on
your home or school computer. Technical
support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
|
Title: |
Why DI?: An
Introduction to Differentiated Instruction |
|
Publisher: |
Virtual
Education Software, inc. 2011, Revised 2015, Revised 2018, Revised 2021 |
|
Instructor: |
Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D. |
|
Facilitator: |
Professor
Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
Academic Integrity
Statement
The structure and format of most distance-learning courses
presumes a high level of personal and academic integrity in completion and
submission of coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning course
are expected to adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers,
assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately
attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of
commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own
work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by
refraining from providing materials or information to another person with
knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards
will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit
for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed for anyone working with a diverse
learning population across the K–12 spectrum. While the information presented
may have relevance to any student-centered educational setting, it will have
the most relevance for K–8 mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning
Outcomes
As a result of this course,
participants will demonstrate their ability to:
- Understand how
differentiated instruction is defined.
- Articulate why
differentiated instruction is not a prescriptive approach.
- Outline the
major elements within a classroom that teachers typically differentiate.
- Explain the
role of curriculum and instruction in a differentiated classroom.
- Relate ways in
which differentiated instruction may be useful when creating a personal
teaching philosophy.
- Identify the
core principles of classrooms reflecting a differentiated instructional
approach.
- Outline the
current systems-level, theoretical, legal, and pedagogical foundation for
differentiation.
- Identify ways
in which differentiated instruction compares and
contrasts with specially designed instruction for students with
disabilities.
- Explain how
assessment in a classroom best exemplifies a differentiated approach.
- Articulate the
primary methods for obtaining information about student interests,
preferences, and overall learning profile.
- Understand the
rationale for synthesis between leading curricular design method,
Understanding by Design (UBD), and the differentiated instruction
approach.
- Distinguish
elements of a differentiated approach from those of a non-differentiated,
or “one size fits all” approach.
14. Analyze ways in which a differentiated
approach addresses the role of ESSA in shaping professional practice and
understanding of quality teaching.
15. Understand the systemic pressures
placed upon teachers and ways in which differentiation helps re-focus attention
on the needs of students.
16. Outline a framework for motivating all
students in a way that is respectful, student-centered, and reflective of a
differentiated approach.
17. Relate to differentiated instruction’s
concept of reciprocity of accountability for success of both teachers and
students.
18. Articulate how the current emphasis on
teacher beliefs about learning and dispositions toward students are embraced
within a differentiated approach.
19. Articulate barriers that exist for
those who are genuinely interested in implementing a differentiated approach.
20. Articulate the role of the teacher,
student, and parents in a differentiated classroom.
21. Articulate the ways in which
administrators can support teachers who are implementing a differentiated
classroom.
22. Discuss an expanded concept of
diversity and learner variance to which teachers must respond.
23. Identify characteristics of and initial
strategies for creating a culturally responsive approach to student diversity.
24. Assess current understanding of and
willingness to implement a classroom aligned with differentiated instructional
approach.
25. Understand how a differentiated
approach welcomes other approaches as broad as Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) or as specific as Explicit Instruction.
Course Description
This course, Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated
Instruction, has been divided into four chapters. The organization of the
course covers the What, Why, and Who
of a classroom that reflects a
Differentiated Instruction approach.
Chapter
1: The What of Differentiated
Instruction
Chapter
2: The Why of Differentiated
Instruction (Part 1)
Chapter
3: The Why of Differentiated
Instruction (Part 2)
Chapter
4: The Who of Differentiated
Instruction
Course Overview
In Chapter 1, we
outline what a differentiated
instructional approach entails. A framework for those elements that are
typically differentiated in a differentiated classroom is provided. Characteristics
and principles that best describe the DI approach across the K–12 spectrum are outlined. General considerations of what DI is not, or
common misconceptions associated with the DI approach, are also considered.
Attention is given to ways in which the differentiated approach aligns with
current expectations of professionals and anticipated needs for classrooms in
the future.
In Chapter 2, we
explore why the differentiated
approach is receiving so much attention. The historical, theoretical,
systems-level, legal, and pedagogical factors that provide a supporting
framework for implementing a differentiated instructional approach are defined.
The role that instruction and assessment play in a differentiated classroom are
discussed within a context of what are currently
believed to be optimal learning conditions for students. A synthesis of ways in
which differentiated instruction and “Understanding by Design” (UBD) mutually
reinforce each other is provided.
In Chapter 3, we
explore a range of variables in support of the alignment of the differentiated
approach with the needs of professionals, the needs associated with educational
reform in general, and ultimately the needs of individual students. Particular
attention is given to the role of teacher beliefs and dispositions toward
students within a differentiated model. A metaphor for differentiated
instruction is explored which reinforces a reciprocal responsibility for both
teachers and students for creating the conditions for mutual success. The
orientation of teachers to student failure within a differentiated approach is
discussed. Barriers that exist for teachers desiring to implement a differentiated
approach are explored.
In Chapter 4, we
explore who is involved in a differentiated classroom and how this approach
differs from many traditional classrooms. Clarification of the roles of the
teacher, students, and administrators in a differentiated instruction classroom
are provided. The skills, interests, dispositions, and goals of course
participants are explored within the framework of a differentiated approach.
Barriers to the implementation of a differentiated approach are explored,
allowing for discussion of your particular role or
context in education, the kind of school system you function in, and the degree
to which you would identify yourself as a teacher who differentiates.
Each chapter contains additional handouts that cover
specific topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to
read, ponder, and apply to the setting in which you work. Some of the handouts
are directly related to the concepts and content of the specific chapter, but
also included are handouts indirectly related to provide extended learning
connections.
Student Expectations
As
a student you will be expected to:
·
Complete all four information sections showing a competent
understanding of the material presented in each section.
·
Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding
of the material presented. You must obtain
an overall score of 70% or higher,
with no individual exam score below
50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course.
*Please
note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university;
therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your
minimum exam score requirements are.
·
Complete a review of any
section on which your examination score was below 50%.
·
Retake any examination,
after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a
minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a
minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum
exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you
should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score
requirements are.
·
Complete all course journal article and essay writing
assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
·
Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
Examinations
At the end of each course section, you
will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge.
You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not
the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However,
this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not
been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing
assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus,
will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction
program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not
be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions.
If you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information
will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
Writing Assignments
All assignments are reviewed and may impact
your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly
written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course
syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is
determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines
the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines, which were sent as an attachment with your
original course link. You should also
refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum, which was sent as an attachment with
your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in
addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article
Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum
word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part
of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be
used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking
Questions
There are four CTQs that
you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words
(maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you
gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong
understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the
questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to
complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to
course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you
must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE
before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article
Summations
You are required to
write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or
scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a
Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the
“Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles, or
similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to
the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of
three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write a thorough summary of
the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200
words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to
provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical
information to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To write your summary,
click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A
writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When
you are ready to stop, click SAVE.
Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are
done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment,
please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before
you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Facilitator Description
Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction has been developed with
the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles of a
differentiated approach can be applied to grades K–12. The primary goal of the
course is to provide both an accurate overview of the approach and an
opportunity for reflection to professionals who are interested in assessing how
their current practice does, or doesn’t, align with a differentiated one. Steve
Dahl has served as a district-level and regional-level administrator overseeing
a variety of federal programs, such as Special Education and Title 1. He has a
master’s degree in special education and has completed post-master’s coursework
to obtain a Washington State Administrator Credential, which certifies him to
oversee programs ranging from preschool settings through 12th grade (as well as
post-secondary vocational programs for 18–21-year-old students). He has 21 years
of combined experience in resource-room special education classrooms, inclusion
support in a comprehensive high school, and provision of support to adults with
disabilities in accessing a wide range of community settings. He most recently
served 4 years as a special programs administrator,
overseeing multiple programs ranging from institutional education settings
(juvenile detention) to K–12 social-emotional programs designed to support
students whose disability interferes with their academic learning. He currently
serves as director of Learning Solutions for Strivven
Media, creators of VirtualJobShadow.com and VJS Junior, K–12 career exploration
platforms. Please contact
Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Instructor Description
Pamela Bernards has 30 years of combined experience in
diverse PK–8 and high school settings as a teacher and an administrator. In
addition to these responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K–8
after-school care program and founder of a pre-school program for infants to
4-year-olds. As a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of
Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which
she served as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently serves as a
principal in a PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include curriculum,
research-based teaching practices, staff development, assessment, data-driven
instruction, and instructional intervention (remediation and gifted/talented).
She received a doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca
Nazarene University. Please contact
Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Contacting the
Facilitator
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl
at steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com or calling him at
509-891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages
will be answered within 24 hours. Phone conferences will be limited to ten
minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced instructional
program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical problems, course
glitches, or other issues that involve the operation of the course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the operation
of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists
please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help
section of your course.
If you need personal assistance, then email support@virtualeduc.com or call 509-891-7219. When
contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is
located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating
system and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer
Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you
have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum
regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be
Submitted, and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also
note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete
that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography (Suggested
Readings)
Abbott, J., & MacTaggart, H.
(2010). Overschooled but undereducated: Society’s failure to
understand adolescence. London, UK: Continuum.
Access Center. Universal design to
support access to the general education curriculum. (Updated October 19,
2004). https://ccie.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/02/UDLBarriersExercise.pdf
Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying the standards
that matter the most. Advanced Learning Press.
American Institutes for Research (AIR).
(2020, July). Personalizing student learning with station rotation: A
descriptive study. Overdeck Family Foundation. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Station-Rotation-Research-Brief-Final-July-2020.pdf
Arnett, T. (2021). Breaking the
mold: How a global pandemic unlocks innovation in K-12 instruction.
Christensen Institute. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BL-Survey-1.07.21.pdf
Bayse, D., & Grant, P. (2014). Personalized learning: A guide for engaging
students with technology. ISTE. E-book downloaded from https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/education/k12-personalized-learning-guidebook.pdf
Bell, K. (2020). Blended learning
with Google: Your guide to dynamic teaching and learning. Shake Up
Learning.
Beninghof,
A. (2021). Specially designed instruction: Increasing success for students
with disabilities. Routledge.
Bishop, P., Downes, J., & Farber,
K. (2019). Personalized learning in the middle grades: A guide for classroom
teachers and school leaders. Harvard Education Press.
Bluestein, J. (2008). The win-win classroom: A fresh and positive
look at classroom management. Corwin.
Blackburn, B. R. (2018). Rigor and differentiation in
the classroom: Tools and strategies. Routledge.
Bondie, R., & Zusho,
B. (2018). Differentiated instruction made practical: Engaging the extremes
through classroom routines. Routledge.
Bourbour,
C. B. (2005, February). Pupil personnel management: A problem-solving model for
special education’s ‘storms.’ The School
Administrator, 62(2). http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8800
Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen,
A. E., & Renzulli, J. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience
with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 71(2018), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr.,
& Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent
epidemic: Perspectives on high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises.
Brooks, M., & Grennon Brooks, J.
(1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18–24. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov99/vol57/num03/The-Courage-to-Be-Constructivist.aspx
Caglayan, K., Hodgman, S., Garat, M.,
& Rickles, J. (2021). Research brief. Barriers and supports: Teacher familiarity
with digital learning tools. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Barriers-and-Supports-Teacher-Familiarity-With-Digital-Learning-Tools-Feb-2021.pdf
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R.,
Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L., & Bower, J. (2009). Self-efficacy and
academic achievement in Australian high school students: The mediating effects
of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal
of Adolescence, 32, 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.009
CAST. (2008). Guidelines for Universal Design for Learning 1.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v1-0/udlg_graphicorganizer_v1-0.pdf
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.0. Author.
CAST. (2018) Universal Design for
Learning guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/?utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=launch&utm_source=cast-news&utm_content=body-text
Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C.,
& Klimek, K. (2005). 12 brain/mind
learning principles in action: The fieldbook for
making connections, teaching, and the human brain. Corwin Press.
Centers for Disease Control. (2018). School connectedness resources.
Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
Chardin, M., & Novak, K. (2020). Equity
by design: Delivering on the power and promise of UDL (1st ed.).
Corwin.
Corwin Visible Learning+. (n.d.). Global research
database. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/Influences
Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma. HarperCollins.
City, E..,
Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving
teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Harper Business.
Council of the Great City Schools.
(2020a). Addressing mental health and social-emotional wellness in the COVID-19
crisis: A resource guide for school districts. https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/313/CGCS_SocialEmot_Resources.pdf
Council of the Great City Schools.
(2020b). Addressing unfinished learning after COVID-19 school closures. CGCS_Unfinished Learning.pdf
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge
University Press.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: a framework
for teaching (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Danielson, C. (2009). Implementing the framework for teaching in
enhancing professional practice. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Danielson, C. (2009). Talk about teaching: Leading professional
conversations. Sage.
Danielson, C. (2013). Framework
for teaching evaluation instrument. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Danielson Group. (2020). The
framework for remote teaching. https://danielsongroup.org/the-framework-for-remote-teaching/
Danielson, M., & McGreal, T.
(2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance
professional practice. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J.,
LePage, P., & Hammerness, K. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and
be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey,
C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to support
student success. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/educating-whole-child-report
Darling-Hammond, L. & Oakes, J.
(2019). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard University
Press.
Davis, T., & Autin, N. (2020). The
cognitive trio: Backward design, Formative Assessment, and Differentiated
Instruction. Research in Contemporary Education, 5(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1275572.pdf
Diamond, A. (2009). All or none
hypothesis: A global-default mode that characterizes the brain and mind. Developmental Psychology, 45, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014025
Diller, D. (2021). Simply small
groups: Differentiating literacy learning in any setting. Corwin.
Duckworth, A., Kautz, T., Defnet, A., Satlof-Bedrick, E.,
Talamas, S., Lira, B., & Steinberg, L. (2021). Students attending school
remotely suffer socially, emotionally, and academically. Educational
Researcher, 50(7), 479–482. American Educational Research Association
(AERA). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211031551
DuFour, R., DuFour, R.,
Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning
by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work.
Solution Tree Press. http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/305/learning-in-a-plc-student-by-student-target-by-target
DuFour,
R., & DuFour, R. (2016, July 8). Student grouping in a PLC [Blog post]. http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/32/Student+Grouping+in+a+PLC
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.
Random House.
Elmore, R. (2002, January). Building
capacity to enhance learning: A conversation. Principal Leadership, 2(5).
France, P. (2019). Reclaiming
personalized learning: A pedagogy for restoring equity and humanity in our
classrooms. Corwin.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (n.d.). What
is scientifically-based research on progress
monitoring? National Center on Student Progress
Monitoring. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502460.pdf
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A.
(1996). What’s worth fighting for in the
schools. Teachers College Press.
Fulbeck,
E., Atchinson, D., Giffin, J., Seidel, D., & Eccleston, M. (2020). Station
rotation: Personalizing student learning with station rotation. American
Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/Station-Rotation-Practitioner-Brief-Final-July-2020.pdf
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1986).
The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory
and research (pp. 61–89). Academic Press.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple
intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
Gay, G. (2000). Theory, research and practice. Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for
culturally responsive teaching. Journal
of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://www.cwu.edu/teaching-learning/sites/cts.cwu.edu.teaching-learning/files/documents/PreparingforCulturallyResponsiveTeaching,%20Geneva%20Gay.pdf
Gheyssens,
E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet,
J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020).
Differentiated instruction: The diversity of teachers’ philosophy and praxis to
adapt teaching to students' interests, readiness and learning profiles. International
Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1812739
Ginja, T. & Chen, X. (2020).
Teacher educators’ perceptions and experiences towards differentiated
instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1270682.pdf
Ginsberg, M., & Wlodkowski, R.
(2000). Creating highly motivating
classrooms for all students: A schoolwide approach to powerful teaching with
diverse learners. Jossey-Bass.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. Harper &
Row.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. Harper
& Row.
Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students
without coercion. HarperCollins.
Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One
size does not fit all (2nd ed.). Sage.
Gregory, G. (2011). Differentiated instruction. Corwin.
Guskey,
T. (2007). Using assessments to improve teaching and learning. In D. Reeves
(Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 15–29). Solution Tree
Press.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated
instruction. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. https://www.dr-hatfield.com/educ342/Differentiated_Instruction.pdf
Hall, T., Vue, G.,
Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2004). Differentiated
instruction and implications for UDL implementation. National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl-2014-10.docx
(live.com)
Hall,
T., & Vue, G. (2004). Explicit instruction.
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). ncac-explicit-instruction-2014-10.docx (live.com)
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Hanson, H. (2014). RTI & DI
(Response to Intervention & Differentiated Instruction). National
Professional Resources, Inc.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing
the impact on learning. Routledge.
Hattie,
J., & Zierer, K. (2019). Visible learning insights. Routledge.
Heacox, D. (2009). Making differentiation a habit: How to ensure success in academically
diverse classrooms. Free Spirit.
Heintzman,
L. & Hanson, H. (2009). RTI & DI: The dynamic duo. (National
Professional Resources DVD/video resource). https://www.films.com/id/20034
Herburger,
D., Holdheide, L., & Sacco, D. (2020). Removing
barriers to effective distance learning by applying the high
leverage practices. CEEDAR Center & the National Center for Systemic
Improvement (NCSI). https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CEEDER-Leveraging-508.pdf
Hersi,
A., & Bal, I. (2021). Planning for differentiated instruction:
Understanding Maryland teacher’s desired and actual use of differentiated
instruction. Educational Planning, 28(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1284804.pdf
Herbold,
J. (2012). Curriculum mapping and research-based practice: Helping students
find the path to full potential. Odyssey:
New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 40–43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976481
Hochanadel, A., &
Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps
students persist in the face of adversity. Journal
of International Educational Research, 11(1), 47–50. http://www.alearningboxblog.com/uploads/5/8/0/2/58020745/fixed_and_growth_mindset_in_education_and_how_grit_helps_in_the_face_of_adversity.pdf
Honawar,
V. (2008, March 14). Teacher education community is striving to interpret
candidate ‘dispositions.’ Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/teacher-ed-community-is-striving-to-interpret-candidate-dispositions/2008/03
Hoover,
J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2005, March). Differentiating curriculum and
instruction for English-language learners with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4),
231–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512050400040401
Howell, K., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and
decision making (3rd ed.). Thompson.
IES What Works
Clearinghouse. (2007). Practice guide:
Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/1
Instructional design/SAMR model/What is
the SAMR model? (2018, May). Wikiversity. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Instructional_design/SAMR_Model/What_is_the_SAMR_Model%3F
Jackson, R. (2009). Never work harder than your students &
other principles of great teaching. Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum
access for students with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of universal
design for learning. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
(Links updated 2011). https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2005/ncac-curriculum-access-low-incidence-udl
Jacobs, H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Association of Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Sage.
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students
at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, S. (2021). Differentiated
instruction for advanced and gifted learners. Routledge.
Karger, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003).
Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief
legal interpretation. https://ollibean.com/access-to-the-general-curriculum-for-students-with-disabilities-a-brief-legal-interpretation-2/
Kise, J. (2021). Doable differentiation:
Twelve strategies to meet the needs of all learners. Solution Tree Press.
Klinger, J., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Zamora-Durán,
G., & Riley, D. (2005, September). Addressing the disproportionate
representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005
Learning First Alliance. (2020). Effective
professional development policy. https://learningfirst.com/effective-professional-development-policy/
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999, January).
Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. (2013). Learning-focused supervision: Developing
professional expertise in standards-driven systems. MiraVia.
Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of
support for inclusive education: Moving from “Why?” to “How?” International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(12).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847475.pdf
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U.,
& Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an
instrument for measuring preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns about inclusive education. International
Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 150–159. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ814498.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., &
Heflebower, T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Solution Tree.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T.
(2018). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiation
(6th ed.). Pearson.
McCarthy, J. (2017). So
all can learn: A practical guide to differentiation. Rowman &
Littlefield.
McClane, K. (n.d.). Student progress
monitoring: What this means for your child. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/student-progress-monitoring-what-means-your-child
McTighe, J., & Tomlinson, C. A.
(2006). Integrating UBD and DI.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Pear Press.
McTighe, J., & Willis, J. (2019). Upgrade
your teaching: Understanding by design meets neuroscience. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moosa, V., & Shareefa, M. (2019).
Implementation of differentiated instruction: Conjoint effect of teachers’
sense of efficacy, perception, and knowledge. Anatolian Journal of Education,
4(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1244448.pdf
Moosa, V., & Shareefa, M. (2020).
The most-cited educational research publications on differentiated instruction:
A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1),
331–349. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1241203.pdf
National Center on Accessible
Educational Materials. (2021). AEM in the IEP. National Center on
Accessible Educational Materials. https://aem.cast.org/get-started/resources/2021/aem-in-the-iep
National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Authors.
Night, J., Hoffman, A., Harris, M., & Thomas., S. (2020). The
instructional playbook: The missing link for translating research into practice.
ASCD.
Nolet,
V., & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Accessing
the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based
reform. Sage.
Novak,
K. (2016). UDL now! A teacher’s guide to
applying universal design for learning in today’s classrooms. CAST.
Novak,
K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally
designed leadership: Applying UDL to systems and schools. CAST.
NYU
Steinhardt, School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. (2008). Culturally
responsive differentiated instruction strategies. https://impactofspecialneeds.weebly.com/uploads/3/4/1/9/3419723/culturally_responsive_differientiated_instruction.pdf
Pallegrino,
J. (2006, November). Rethinking and
redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research
and theory suggests. A paper commissioned by the National Center on
Education and the Economy for the new Commission on the Skills of the American
Workforce. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234639199_Rethinking_and_Redesigning_Education_Assessment_Preschool_through_Postsecondary
Payne, R. (2008). Under-resourced learners: 8 strategies to boost student achievement.
Aha! Process.
Platt, A., Tripp, C., Ogden, W., &
Fraser, R. (2000). The skillful leader:
Confronting mediocre teaching. Ready About Press.
Reeves, D., & Wiggs, M. D. (2012). Navigating implementation of the Common Core
State Standards. Leadership and Learning Center.
“Remote students of all races, incomes suffered
during pandemic.” (2020). Stavros Niarchos Foundation, Paideia Program,
University of Pennsylvania. https://snfpaideia.upenn.edu/news/remote-students-of-all-races-incomes-suffered-during-pandemic/
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde,
T. (2007, January/February.). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally
responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 39(3), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900310
Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S.
(2008, May). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of
sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701528436
Sedere,
U. (2008, February 14). Delineating an
educational policy framework for the developing nations in meeting the emerging
global challenges by year 2050. Paper presented at
the Annual J. E. Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture, Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500041.pdf
Singh, D., & Stoloff, D. (2008,
December). Assessment of teacher dispositions. College Student Journal, 42(4),
1169–1180. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A187324788/AONE?u=anon~ed9f6068&sid=googleScholar&xid=6de3e4e0
Smets, W., & de Grote-Hogeschool, K. (2017). High quality differentiated
instruction – A checklist for teacher professional development on handling
differences in the general education classroom. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 5(11), 2074–2080. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.051124
Sousa,
D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2018). Differentiation
and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd
ed.). Solution Tree.
Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K.
(2003). Using research and reason in
education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make
curricular and instructional decisions. National Institute for Literacy.
Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment.
Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. (2008, April). Assessment
manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. ETS Assessment
Training Institute. https://famemichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Stiggins-Assessment-Manifesto-A-Call-for-the-Development-of-Balanced-Assessment-Systems.pdf
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S.
(1999). Difficult conversations: How to
discuss what matters most. Penguin.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated
instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7),
935–947. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf
Tarc,
P. (2020). Education post-Covid-19: Re-visioning the face-to-face classroom. Current
Issues in Comparative Education (CICE), 22(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1274311.pdf
Thornton, H. (2006, Spring).
Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice? Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53–68.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478934
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., &
Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating
instruction: Collaboratively planning and teaching for universally designed
learning. Sage.
Tilly, D. (2006, Winter). Perspectives.
International Dyslexia Association.
Tollefson, J. M., Mellard, D. F., &
McKnight, M. A. (2007). Responsiveness to
intervention: An SLD determination resource [Brochure]. National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Differentiated instruction. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable
differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6–11. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/reconcilable-differences-standards-based-teaching-and-differentiation
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001, February).
Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting high-quality classrooms. NASSP Bulletin, 85(622), 38–47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254917796_Standards_and_the_Art_of_Teaching_Crafting_High-Quality_Classrooms
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in
mixed-ability classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to
teach them all. Educational Leadership,
61(2), 6–11. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct03/vol61/num02/Deciding-to-Teach-Them-All.aspx
Tomlinson, C.A. (2021). So each may soar: The principles and practices of
learner-centered classrooms. ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin,
K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The
differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson,
C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating
differentiated instruction and Understanding by Design: Connecting content and
kids. ASCD.
Tomlinson,
C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment
and student success in a differentiated classroom. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Sousa, D.
(2018). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the
learner-friendly classroom (2nd ed.). Solution Tree.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull H. R., &
Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Exceptional lives:
Special education in today’s schools. Pearson.
UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring
inclusion and equity in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254
UNESCO (2020). 2020 global education
monitoring report: Inclusion and education: All means all. https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Education
in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of Covid-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Supporting
child and student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/students/supporting-child-student-social-emotional-behavioral-mental-health.pdf
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T.
(2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(13),
20–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to
changing our schools. Jossey-Bass.
Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. (2018). How
to plan differentiated reading instruction: Resources for grades K–3 (2nd ed.).
Guilford Press.
Walpole, S., McKenna, M., Philippakos, Z., & Strong, J. (2019). Differentiated
literacy instruction in grades 4 and 5: Strategies and resources (2nd ed.).
Guilford Press.
Wehmeyer, M., & Kurth, J. (2021). Inclusive
education in a strengths-based era: Mapping the future of the field. W.W.
Norton.
Wiggins, A. (2017). The best class you never taught: How spider web discussion can turn students
into learning leaders. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wiggins, A. (2020). A better way to assess discussions. Educational
Leadership, 77(7), 34–38. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/a-better-way-to-assess-discussions
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Put understanding first. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 36–41. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may08/vol65/num08/Put-Understanding-First.aspx
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Schooling by design. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree.
Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded
formative assessment (2nd ed.). Solution Tree.
Wormeli,
R. (2001). Meet me in the middle:
Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Stenhouse.
Wormeli,
R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal:
Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse.
Wormeli,
R. (2018). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the
differentiated classroom (2nd ed.). Stenhouse.
Yamaguchi, R., &
Hall, A. (2017). A compendium of
education technology research funded by NCER and NCSER: 2002-2014 (NCER
2017-0001). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20170001/
Zawislan,
D. G. (2008, October 15). Connected
learning: Theory in action. Paper presented at the MWERA Annual Meeting,
Westin Great Southern Hotel, Columbus, OH.
Resources on Developing a Personal
Teaching Philosophy (PTP)
Ohio
State University: University Center for the Advancement of Teaching. https://drakeinstitute.osu.edu/instructor-support/teaching-portfolio-development/philosophy-teaching-statement
University
of Minnesota: Center for Innovation in Education. https://cei.umn.edu/writing-your-teaching-philosophy
Differentiation Resources by Selected State
Kentucky
Department of Education
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/default.aspx
Secondary Differentiation Resource
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/differentationSecResources.aspx
Universal
Design for Learning
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/UDL.aspx
Crosswalk between Danielson FtF and UDL
US Department of Education Resources
Dear Colleague Letter on
Students with Disabilities and FAPE:
Parent Center Hub (Resources for
Parents of students with disabilities)
http://www.parentcenterhub.org/brief-fape/
US Department of Ed Tech
(USDET)
National Ed Tech Plan (ETP)
IES
What Works Clearinghouse Resources (Find What Works)
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW
Supporting Child and Student Social, Emotional, Behavioral and Mental
Health Needs.
Other Helpful Websites
https://aem.cast.org/create/perceivable
All Things PLC: http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/32/Student+Grouping+in+a+PLC
CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
Edutopia – (John McCarthy Resources): https://www.edutopia.org/blog/differentiated-instruction-social-media-tools-john-mccarthy
ERIC Resources: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976481
Every
Student Succeeds Act: https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
John McCarthy List of Tools: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ihsTwYr1kFx9Jb08Z2w5i1MWoxYkRXZbTP4Gcbodp6I/edit?pref=2&pli=1&gid=0#gid=0
NAEP
website: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
College and Career Readiness Standards,
Reading:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
College and Career Readiness Standards,
Writing:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/W/
College and Career Readiness Standards,
Speaking and Listening:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/SL/
College and Career Readiness Standards,
Language:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/L/
https://nasdse.org/docs/36_a7f577f4-20c9-40bf-be79-54fb510f754f.pdf
National
Center for Accessible Educational Material (AEM).
https://aem.cast.org/create/perceivable
National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt).
Course
content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL
links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the
organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and
you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link
to the corresponding organization’s web home page.
7/3/24 JN