A Metaphor and Strategies for Planning and Implementing Differentiated Instruction

Although Response to Intervention (RTI) approaches should be content or behavior specific, educational systems often utilize a macro-approach to student diversity. Metaphorically, such a view of student diversity is as limited as merely accepting there are different types of forests.  Continuing the metaphor, it is crucial for educational systems to accept that understanding differentiation of learning needs is akin to recognizing there are different types of trees within each forest: Oaks, maples, pines, etc. Content specific differentiation must further recognize there are differences amongst specific family of trees: Big pines, average-sized pines, and small pines OR Ponderosa pines, Red pines, and Eastern white pines.

Therefore, just as the diversity within a family of trees requires different climate and conditions, so too will diverse students thrive or whither, depending on the classroom’s climate and conditions.  For professional development related to differentiation, educational stakeholders must reflect upon whether their teaching approaches focus on the forest or the trees.  How might your mindset influence the most fragile within your educational ecosystem?

Images created through metaphorical language influence thought-processes.  The instinctive nature of symbolic thought can transcend cultures (Jung, 1964).  Therefore, providing metaphors can be constructive when planning professional development programs. 

Crucially, utilization of metaphor can optimize the relationship between the learning organization and the organization’s collective efficacy.  Thus, the presentation of a metaphor or other symbolic thought can increase identification of the most positive aspects of an organization’s culture (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).  Ideally, developing and perpetuating metaphorical messages, such as that presented above, creates more effective, sustained change from subsequent professional development programs.

Effective differentiation of instruction provides students with multiple options for receiving information, making sense of it, and expressing what they learned (Tomlinson, 2017).  Thus, planning for differentiation begins by understanding the desired content to be learned, diverse processes for accessing and making sense of the content, and various formats for reliably demonstrating new skills or knowledge.  Providing accommodations and reliably planning for valid differentiation allows inclusive education to be designed from the beginning (Peterson & Hittie, 2010).  The following review of accommodation categories, presentation of categorical differentiation strategies, and directions for conducting a Talk, Think, Open- Exchange activity, can be utilized for either a short professional development session or adapted to be part of a professional learning community’s planning series.

Review of accommodations:

All students exhibit differences.  Crucially, educational stakeholders must accept that difference does NOT mean deficient.  Learning differences and preferences can be exhibited through each student’s learning styles: a preferred modality for input and output OR the student’s learning environment preference: active, quiet, peer-work, independent, etc.  Differences are also exhibited through the student’s background, multiple intelligences, ability, interests, strengths, inculcation or tendency aptitude, or motivations.  An accommodation does not significantly alter what the evaluation purports to measure (validity) or the comparability of results (reliability). Accommodations should provide fairness in equity to access optimal student learning.  Accommodations are changes in:

•Preparation (Format or Administration),

•Response,

•Setting,

•Timing or Scheduling

Related to the planning for differentiation, choice-making practices recognize difference does NOT mean deficient.  Choice empowers students to feel part of their own learning.  Choice improves teacher-student interactions.  There is NO research indicating negative effects resulting from providing choices (Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, Massey, 2001).

             

Differentiation Strategies:

General Differentiation Strategies:

• Use multisensory approaches; address multiple intelligences
• Use manipulatives and hands-on or real-life experiences
• Adjust verbal and written vocabulary for level of student

• Relate information being presented to previous experience; use real, culturally relevant examples and situations

• Teach prerequisite skills; build on prior knowledge
• Teach to student's strengths and interests

Language: Speaking and Listening Differentiation Strategies:

• Provide for whole group and small group participation and pair work
• Give visual and oral cues; use graphic organizers; tape record lessons, stories, assignments
• Have students repeat, retell, or paraphrase
• Demonstrate and describe at the same time
• Use concrete language; keep sentences simple
• Provide multiple ways for students to share what they know, both language and non-language based

Thinking Differentiation Strategies:

• Keep information and instructions at student's comprehension and vocabulary level
• Demonstrate abstract concepts using concrete materials
• Provide multiple exposures to information
• Reduce distractions
• Draw attention by using visual cues such as highlighting, arrows
• Break information into manageable chunks; sequence materials and information from simple to complex

Writing Differentiation Strategies:

• Break writing task into small steps; show how each step leads to the next
• Have student dictate (to student, teacher or tape recorder) or draw, then write
• Utilize work banks, word walls, and dictionaries; have students make their own dictionaries with words, definitions, and pictures
• Provide a variety of graphic forms for organizing: lists, webs, diagrams, charts, index cards, outlines
• Allow peer conferencing for editing
• Have student read his/her writing to class and other audiences
• Provide authentic writing tasks such as thank you notes or letters of request

Reading Differentiation Strategies:

• Build background and vocabulary before reading
• Use Story Maps, Picture Walks, Word Walls, Sentence Strips, Think Alouds, readers circle, retelling, strategy charts, highlighting tape, rulers for line of print, and graphic organizers
• Select materials at student's reading level; use leveled books
• Provide multiple exposures such as tape recording of text, dramatization, role playing and music
• Provide a variety of manipulative pictures, letters and words
• Use a variety of printed materials including real life print such as magazines and cereal boxes

Work and Study Differentiation Strategies:

• Provide strategies to help students organize their work
• Use peer tutoring or study buddies
• Use questioning strategies to assist in problem solving
• Set clear timelines; give time cues
• Gain students' attention before giving instructions; give oral and written instructions and keep them as simple as possible
• Check for understanding by having student repeat directions or assignment

Assessment and Test Taking Differentiation Strategies:

• Use multiple forms of assessment that use different intelligences (e.g., drawing and writing); provide multiple ways of responding
• Make sure the readability level matches the student's reading level
• Decrease distractions
• Provide clear simple directions
• Adjust task and criteria/rubric for different students

Social/Emotional Differentiation Strategies:

• Consider social and emotional as well as academic needs when planning
• Place students in groups where they will be most successful
• Verbally and visually prepare students for transitions and changes in routine
• Allow for short breaks and movement during long periods of sitting
• Provide student with adequate space (some need more than others); provide advantageous seating
• Provide clear limits and consequences and enforce them consistently

Adapted from Educational Checklist and Suggested Accommodations (Arlington Public Schools, 2000)

Preparing for the Group Learning Routine: Talk, Think, Open-Exchange Activity:

After an initial review of the Differentiation Strategies categorized above (make into a handout), participants should form content-based triad groups for the Think-Talk-Open-Exchange activity.  Triads then further review the Differentiation Strategies Handout while reflecting upon a recent or current unit of instruction.

Before beginning the ensuing Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity, participants should reflect upon how their utilization of suggested strategies could:

·         scaffold content to reduce frustration for some students,

·         provide choices in how to respond to new learning,

·         present information based on diverse learning styles, OR

Group Learning Routine: Talk, Think, Open-Exchange Activity:

Roles: One Speaker, Two Listeners, One Time keeper (can be the facilitator for the entire group or one of the listeners. It is useful to set a timer so that no one watches a clock.)

Note: Whenever a participant’s task is to listen, then that participant (or “listener”) cannot talk.

Steps:

1.      Talk Out Loud: Speaker: describes a question, dilemma, or resonating ideas. Listeners: Two other participants listen without interrupting. No one but the speaker talks during this time period. If the speaker finishes before the time is up then the group uses the extra time to think.

2.      Think: Everyone takes time to think about what they heard. During think time participants may jot down questions, record connections, patterns, and surprises, and take notes.

3.      Open Exchange: Speaker is not allowed to speak during this step. It is often useful for the speaker to move the chair back a bit while still close enough to actively listen. The two listeners then have an exchange about what they heard: raising questions, making connections, noting surprises and patterns. It is helpful for the two listeners to look at each other, avoiding eye contact with the Speaker.

4.      Interesting and Useful: Speaker shares what was interesting or “surprising” and useful from the exchange.  Listeners listen to the Speaker.

5.      Repeat steps 1 – 4 (changing roles so that everyone has a chance to be the Speaker).

6.      Facilitated Short Discussion: PD Facilitator engages the group in a short discussion to ask questions and talk about patterns that came up in the Talk Out Louds and the Open-Exchanges.

Additional Tips:

·         PD facilitator must teach participants this routine for them to be able to use it in an efficient manner.

·         Do not forget to share the purpose of the group learning and criteria for success with the PD participants.

·         Be sure to include enough information in the directions about the participants’ roles during the group learning routine, so that they know exactly what to do.  Include directions about who speaks first, what they need to discuss, and how much time they have for each aspect of the routine.

·         Do not omit the timed “think time” in this routine.  It is important that participants learn to reflect on what each group member said in order for them to learn to truly listen, instead of just waiting until it is their turn to speak.

·         When participants are sharing (“interesting and useful” step), remember to take time to reflect on the process and the learning that was achieved.  Help participants identify patterns in their responses.

·         You can make your own variations to the base Talk, Think, Open-Exchange routine.  To do this, simply augment the “open exchange” part with whatever outcome you would like the participants to produce. 

o   For example, ask participants to rank the information they discussed to identify the three items they think are most important.

o   Ask participants to “talk-think-thread”, in which they have to connect or “thread” their ideas onto the statement made by the previous speakers.

o   Require participants to use provided strategies or vocabulary during their open exchange discussion time.

·         The point of any augmentation to this group learning routine is to further the exchange, so that it becomes more rigorous.

Be mindful how the Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity above, adapted from Bondie and Zusho (2018), can generalize to the classroom itself. An adapted Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity provides great opportunities for differentiated learning throughout many grade levels and content areas. The structure of the Talk, Think, Open-Exchange activity is based on the Micro Lab Protocol guidelines as available from the National School Reform’s protocols site:

https://nsrfharmony.org/protocols/

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2019) A metaphor and strategies for planning and implementing differentiated instruction. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bondie, R., & Zusho, A. (2018). Differentiated Instruction Made Practical. doi:10.4324/9781351248471

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.

Jolivette, K., Wehby, J. H., Canale, J., & Massey, N. G. (2001). Effects of Choice-Making Opportunities on the Behavior of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26(2), 131–145. doi:10.1177/019874290102600203

Jung, C. G. (1964) Man and his symbols London, England: Aldus Books in association with W.H. Allen

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Peterson, M.J. and Hittie, M.M (2010). Inclusive teaching: The journey towards effective schools for all learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Factors Determining the Educational Placement for a Student with a Disability

      Many factors must be considered before determining the educational placement of a student with a disability.  However, Heumann and Hehir (2004) identifies the relationship between Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements to the IEP process as a key factor (IDEA, 2004).  Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the student’s IEP forms the basis for the student’s placement decision.  Through the filter of federal law, policies, and procedures, the IEP must document, evaluate, and consider the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance (IDEA, 2004).  Therefore, the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance is arguably the greatest factor in determining a student’s educational placement.

            The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate is key requirement for educating children with disabilities under IDEA (2004).  This mandate states:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Sec 612(a)(5)(A)].

            Interpretations of the meaning of least restrictive environment vary in special education.  These beliefs range from those that view the regular education classroom in a student’s neighborhood school as always the least restrictive environment (LRE) for all students, to those that advocate for a full continuum of program placements (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999).  Prior to 2000, the overriding emphasis for determining the LRE for students with special needs focused placement decisions on the “where” rather than the “how” of the “instruction that should be taught” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p. 1).  It is now ethical and reasonable to accept “the environment in which all the needs of a student are best met, where the student acquires the greatest benefits from the educational program” (Curry & Hatlen, 1988, p. 420) is the least restrictive and thereby most appropriate environment.   

 The most enabling placement is one in which the student has the opportunity to fully participate in all aspects of the school experience including acquisition of special skills, thereby providing an academic, social, and emotional environment that encourages a holistic development in preparation for life.  The issue is the quality of education provided within a particular placement as measured by the degree to which specific, unique needs…can be met

(Hazekamp & Huebner, 1989, p. 1).

Explicating the general approach for determining student placement, Riley (2000) identifies how the IEP team of a student who is found eligible for special education services, must first consider if the student can be provided with an appropriate education in a regular education classroom with the services already there.  If not, then the IEP team moves through increasingly more “restrictive” settings, whereby subsequent consideration are on settings that become increasingly more segregated from non-eligible peers.  These settings may range from the regular education classroom with supplementary aids and service, to a slightly more segregated setting with the services embedded, to a more segregated setting modified with supplementary aids and services.

        Therefore, the most appropriate educational environment for an individual student with a disability must be based on the student’s needs as grounded in his or her present level of academic achievement and functional  performance, as determined through the educational team’s instructional and assessment processes and then specified in the IEP.  Depending on the student’s diverse strengths and areas for development, his or her need for instructional access to the general education curriculum may require different educational placements, for varying durations, and at different times during his or her academic career.  A continuum or cascade of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) will be necessary to explore and utilize services from a combination of programmatic options.  The model is not the problem.  Rather, too often the lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance result in problematic decisions that adversely affect the integrity of the placement process.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (March 3, 2013) Factors determining the educational placement for a student

            with a disability. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Council for Exceptional Children (2003). What Every Special Educator Must Know (5^th ed.).                    

            Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children

Crockett, J.B., & Kauffmann, J.M. (1999) The least restrictive environment: Its origins and

            Interpretations   in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Curry, S.A., & Hatlen, P.H. (1988). Meeting the unique educational needs of visually impaired pupils

            through appropriate placement. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 82, 417-424

Federal Register (2006). IDEA 2004 Regulations.  Retrieved from:

http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PolicyAdvocacy/IDEAResources/Official_Fed_Reg_IDEA_Regs_2004.pdf

Hazekamp, J., & Huebner, K.M. (Eds.). (1989). Program planning and evaluation for blind and 

            visually impaired students: National guidelines for educational excellence. New York, NY: 

            American Foundation for the Blind.

Heumann, J.E. & Hehir (2004). Letter to the council of chief State School Officers.

            Retrieved on December 10, 2008 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

Holbrook, M.C., & Koenig, A.J. (2000). Basic techniques for modifying instruction.

            A.J. Koenig & M.C. Holbrook (Eds.) Foundations of education: Vol. 2 (2^nd Ed., pp. 173-195).

            New York: AFB Press.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446.

Riley, R. (2000). Educating blind and visually impaired students: Policy guidance from

            OSERS. Retrieved from http://www.ed/gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2000-2/060800a.html

Brain Imaging Science and Best Practices in Education

Neuropsychology is a fascinating field. Thomas Insel, MD, PhD, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said “Brain imaging in clinical practice is the next major advance in psychiatry.”
Becoming more familiar with this science can improve educational practices. Absent concrete evidence of brain functioning, an effective multidisciplinary team can usually only produce an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) that seeks to impliment best practices that is too often based on speculation. Specially designed instruction requires a wide range of pedagogical tools and professional knowledge to effectively utilize interventions. Yet, interventions, including the use of medications, are too often grounded in trial and error. By contrast, when the brain can be reliably examined before, during, and after the introduction of interventions, treatment errors can be drastically mitigated.
For instance, increased activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus and prefrontal cortex is often associated with problems shifting attention, which may be clinically manifested by cognitive inflexibility, obsessive thoughts, compulsive behaviors, excessive worrying, argumentativeness, oppositional behavior or "getting stuck" on certain thoughts or actions. How often are these behaviors handled in strictly behavioral terms? Yet, there has been found to be a strong association with these findings and obsessive-compulsive disorders, oppositional defiant disorders, eating disorders, addictive disorders, anxiety disorders, Tourette’s syndrome and chronic pain--especially when combined with increased basal ganglia activity (Amen, 2007). When clinically indicated, hyperactivity in this part of the brain may be helped by anti-obsessive antidepressants or supplements that increase serotonin levels. Specific behavior modification techniques can also be useful for reducing activity in this part of the brain.
By contrast, when this area of the brain is low in activity it is often associated with low motivation and verbal expression. An "off centered cingulate" may be indicative of a brain injury.
Brain imaging science provides valuable information that can lead to more effective interventions, including natural treatments to optimize the brain whenever possible. The advantage of this work is to make the diagnostic process and treatment recommendations as scientifically reliable as possible. Daniel Amen, has compiled brain science research since 1991. The Amen Clinics website includes 300 SPECT images. You can also read the related scientific literature including:
Summary articles of Amen's work with brain SPECT imaging. Also, over 2300 scientific abstracts on brain imaging for psychiatry and neurology, including extensive tables that summarize the brain SPECT research are categorized for:
ADHD
Brain Trauma
Dementia
Epilepsy
Normal
Obsessive, Compulsive, Spectrum Disorders
Treatment Effects
Violence
A healthy brain is associated with a healthy, successful life. We should all strive to keep our brain healthy. Success starts with a healthy brain. Failure is often the result of a brain gone wrong. Educators should become familiar with the organ of learning and teach students how to optimize their brains. Regardless of how badly you have been to your brain, it may still be possible to change your brain and change your life.
Please browse the Natural Standards database on the research underlying natural treatments in psychiatry and medicine. As educators, we must always remain current with available knowledge in order to ensure best practice.