Idealism and the Power of Intentionality

Often the behaviors exhibited by students, customers, clients, or stakeholders are the result of feeling lost.  Outside of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1933), uncertainty creates a conflict cycle and thereby ineffective learning.  Borne from not knowing how to ask the better question, the result can be frustration, anxiety, or tension. 

       Platonic Idealism embraces the search for truth and therefore the dialectical approach to problems is crucial to this school of philosophy. Formative assessment proponents recognize the communication loop as essential when assessing FOR learning. Advocates of Invitational Theory and Practices know others are better served by intentionally inviting and modeling questions that promotes dialogue. 

“The research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p.57).  Burns and Martin (2010) believed their literature review, which included analysis of Aldridge, (2003); Jennings,(2003); Penner, (1981); Shapiro, (1990); and Stillion & Siegel, (2005) reinforces their premise that “contemporary leaders in education must face a new day requiring skills and knowledge beyond what needed to be exhibited by previous leaders” (p. 30).  Purkey and Siegel blended leadership qualities, values, and principles to develop the invitational leadership theory and model that invited success from all interested stakeholders (Burns & Martin, 2010).  “This model shifts from emphasizing control and dominance to one that focuses on connectedness, cooperation, and communication” (Purkey & Siegel, 2013, p.1).  “Invitational leadership was created based upon four basic assumptions exemplifying invitational leaders: optimism, respect, trust, and intentionality” (Burns & Martin, 2010, p.31).  It is now recognized that intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT) exemplify the invitational leader’s mindfulness.  Combined with the four basic assumptions are five powerful factors: people, places, policies, programs, and processes, which Purkey and Siegel call the “five P’s” (p. 104), which have separate and combined influence on Invitational Leadership.  The combination of these five P’s and an exhibition of ICORT provide limitless opportunities for the Invitational Leader because the result can positively impact the total culture of nearly every organization.

An implication for future practice can be derived from the invitational leadership’s assumption of intentionality.  Citing Stillion and Siegel’s recommendation for all leaders becoming “well-versed in the issue of intentionality” (2005, p. 9), it is reasonable to advance the definition presented by Day, et. al., (2001), whereby intentionality is “a decision to purposely act in a certain way, to achieve and carry out a set goal” (p.34).  Showing contempt only destroys motivation and incites division.  Let a mindset elevated by intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (ICORT) guide all your educational and leadership endeavors. May the new year provide many opportunities for perfect clarity while encouraging human potential.

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2019) Idealism and the Power of Intentionality [Web log post]

Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the Effectiveness of Male and Female

Educational Leaders Who Made Use of the Invitational Leadership Style of Leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach

            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

            Publishing Company. Retrieved from:           http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

Purkey, W. W., Schmidt, J. J., & Novak, J. M. (2010). From conflict to conciliation: How

            to defuse difficult situations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN:

            9787452212104

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach            to

professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2004). Diversity and invitational theory and practice. Journal of Invitational

        Theory & Practice, 10, 27-46.

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

        Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23.

Intentionality and the Power of Self-Awareness Upon One’s Educational Philosophy

The context of instructional leadership has been rapidly changing since the late 1980s, as reflected in numerous past and ongoing educational reforms and school restructuring movements in western countries and also in the Asia-Pacific Regions (Yin Cheong, 2010).  In response to these changing and amplified conditions of accountability, Burns and Martin (2010) reviewed numerous studies that examined diverse leadership models designed to meet the perceived leadership needs of the past several decades (Hallinger & Heck, 1999; Kezar, 2000; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2000; Spears & Lawrence, 2004; Yukl, 2006).  Although transformational and servant leadership models have served instructional leaders for several decades, Burns and Martin identify one comprehensive model as having been created with the promise for providing a positive and encouraging structure to guide today’s leaders through complex times.  That relatively new model is invitational leadership.  As cited by Burns and Martin, “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey, 2016, p.5).  Furthermore, “The purpose of invitational leadership is to address the entire global nature of human existence and opportunity” (Purkey, 2016, p. 29).  Thus, this invitational leadership model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations.

As noted in this text’s introduction, Effective Schools Researchers examine sustainable learning organizations and consistently find “effective schools have strong and effective leadership” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 51).  Other studies (Purkey & Siegel, 2002; Burns & Martin, 2010) posit leadership based on invitational theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential.  As a comprehensive model, inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations, invitational leadership requires leaders with high emotional intelligence to develop a culture of collaboration. 

As quoted by Burns and Martin (2010, p. 30)  “the research on the effects of Invitational Education Theory in the educational administrative process is relatively new as compared to other theories pertaining to leadership” (Egley, 2003, p.57).  Burns and Martin (2010) believed their literature review, which included analysis of Aldridge, (2003); Jennings,(2003); Penner, (1981); Shapiro, (1990); and Stillion & Siegel, (2005) reinforces their premise that “contemporary leaders in education must face a new day requiring skills and knowledge beyond what needed to be exhibited by previous leaders” (p. 30).  The work of Purkey and Siegel blended leadership qualities, values, and principles when developing the invitational leadership theory and model that invited success from all interested stakeholders (Burns & Martin, 2010).  “This model shifts from emphasizing control and dominance to one that focuses on connectedness, cooperation, and communication” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p.1). 

Studies by Purkey & Siegel (2013) as well as Burns and Martin (2010), posited leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory would encourage people to tap into their unlimited potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Teacher preparation and graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher leaders must seek to optimize the identification and development of correlates optimizing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2019). Optimal educational leadership has been identified as a correlate that promotes sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

Winston and Hartsfield (2004) identified correlations between three of the four sub-skills of emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and leadership behaviors that promote positive school climate. These behaviors include empowerment (Patterson, 2003; Wong & Page, 2003) and collaboration (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004). Climate-building behaviors also embrace teacher autonomy (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Winston & Hartsfield, 2004). Marzano and Waters (2009) identify the importance of “defined autonomy” (p.8).

The empirical study by Anderson, 2016 increased understanding of how demonstrated or applied emotional intelligence behaviors correlate with the teacher’s perceptions of school and whether certain emotional intelligence (EI) sub-skills more or less influence perceptions of school climate as related to IE theory. The findings inform professional development programming by identifying factors that influence school climate. Research by Momeni (2009) found dimensions of emotional intelligence explained 70% of employees' perceptions of organizational climate result directly from a manager's morale and behavior.  The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010).    

 In a state-wide study of leadership and potential influence of gender, Burns and Martin’s (2010) employed a purposeful sampling method, consisting of a multi-tiered criteria process to select the schools for their study.  Results indicated that compared to the perceived leadership at less effective schools, the effective schools, on average, were led by leaders who were perceived to demonstrate consistently higher attributes of effective invitational leadership qualities (Burns and Martin, 2010, p. 39).  Follow-up interviews with teachers and principals established that teachers believed that the invitational qualities of respect and trust were the most influential leadership qualities, while principals viewed “trust as the predominant influencing factor” (p. 29).  Their analysis identified significant differences between the usages of invitational leadership qualities in effective schools versus less effective schools.  During interviews, Burns and Martin additionally found the perceptions of these leaders were consistently more positive and affirming than the perceptions of leaders in schools that were identified as less effective.  Their analysis revealed that effective leadership behaviors prove effective, regardless of the gender of the leader. Participants in the follow-up interviews praised the efforts of effective leaders without regard to gender. Thus, effective leadership characteristics considered helpful in the creation of successful organizations were not based on the leader’s gender (p, 46). 

Based on the results from the study, the researchers believe educational leaders have the power to positively create an effective learning organization.  Therefore, teacher and instructional leadership preparation programs should explicitly implement invitational leadership theory within their curriculum.  Another implication for future practice can be derived from the invitational leadership’s assumption of intentionality.  Citing Stillion and Siegel’s recommendation for all leaders becoming “well-versed in the issue of intentionality” (2005, p. 9), it is reasonable to advance the definition presented by Day, et. al., (2001), whereby intentionality is “a decision to purposely act in a certain way, to achieve and carry out a set goal” (p.34).

Crucial to optimizing vocational success, the novice teacher and instructional leaders should become fully aware of her or his educational philosophy.  Self-awareness is an element of emotional intelligence.  Self-awareness of one’s educational philosophy increases understanding of the potential for a successful fit within the defined system.

Seventy percent of the time, people with average IQs outperform those with the highest IQ (Bradberry & Greaves, 2010).  Emotional intelligence (EI) seems to be a critical factor explaining this anomaly.  EI is comprised of four core skills paired under two primary competencies: personal competence and social competence.  Personal competence includes one’s self-awareness and self-management skills.  Highly developed self-awareness skills allow accurate perception of your emotions and the ability to remain aware of them as they happen. Since emotional reactions to events occur before rational thought is able to engage, developing emotional intelligence, especially increasing self-awareness skills, results in more effective interaction between the rational and emotional areas of one’s brain. 

Early in their professional development, teacher candidates are encouraged to name and claim their philosophy of education. While most candidates view the first-year task of naming and claiming their personal educational philosophy a burdensome assignment, this early connection to one or more schools of educational philosophy can help the candidate later match her passions and beliefs with a system that will nurture rather than corrupt these passions and beliefs. When this connection is encouraged through explicit mentorship, the experienced educator passes on a great gift: Freedom for the teacher candidate to act like an entrepreneur and wisely choose the best system for utilizing and implementing the passions and beliefs that promote best practices!   

‎An effective educator/mentor within an innovative teacher preparation program seeks to own this wonderful opportunity. The lessons presented during a program of professional development facilitated by such effective educators then fan the flames of freedom rather than the mere pursuit of licensure and acceptance of any available job. Thus, by actively encouraging ownership of one's educational philosophy, the teacher preparation program ensures the teacher candidate’s philosophical foundation girds other leading indicators of success. There is then greater likelihood that the trailing indicator of success will shift from the number of candidates earning licensure to the quality of teachers empowered to promote the learning for all mission within a system that will invite the novice teacher’s success!

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2019) Intentionality and the Power of Self-Awareness Upon One’s

Educational Philosophy. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the Effectiveness of Male and Female

Educational Leaders Who Made Use of the Invitational Leadership Style of Leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Yin Cheong, C. (2010). A Topology of Three-Wave Models of Strategic Leadership in

Education. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 38(1), 35-54. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Reliable Assessment Utilization Can Impact Inclusion Rates More Than Knowledge of Mandates

Public Law (PL) 94-142 (1975) mandated a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students identified with disabling educational conditions. Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting for part or all day. PL 94-142 certainly was enormously successful in providing students with disabilities access to a public education. However, far too many placement decisions initially foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. PL 94-142’s mechanism of LRE was often being interpreted as a legal and valid option of not placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.

Reviewing mainstreaming beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975, Lipsky and Gardner (1997) found mainstreaming is based on an assumption that a student with a disability can cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming was traditionally only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77). By contrast, inclusion signifies that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Too often mainstreaming and inclusion are used interchangeably in educational literature (Fuchs, 2010). They differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246). The p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the reauthorization of IDEA (1997) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helps ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities.  A greater understanding as to what elements denote effective progress for this inclusion movement may result from a thorough analysis of data available through the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and state educational agencies (SEA).

Through IDEA (2004) State Performance Plans (SPP) mandates, the USDE required identification, evaluation, and monitoring of each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States must also collect data on variables that may influence its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by SPP Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed by determining whether certain variables are more present in those states deemed highly successful. Understanding how to review SPP Indicator 5 data will allow stakeholders to utilize leadership principles described by Stephen Covey (1992) whereby “…good managers will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and may say, ‘This is the wrong forest’.”  

As the result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), each state was required to identify baseline data related to its local educational agencies’ special education programs performance on education-related performance indicators. In addition to other important performance indicators, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) evaluated and monitored each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This data was identified and monitored as SPP Indicator 5. Specifically, this performance indicator addresses the educational placement of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, based on the percent of the day spent in one of three diverse types of educational environments:

A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;

B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or

C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Most states initially collected and identified baseline data by analyzing LRE statistics based on the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Thereafter each state planned to collect and analyze yearly LRE data for SPP Indicator 5.  A sampling of ten initial State Performance Plans (SPP) found there was diversity in the baseline percentages identified for each state’s Indicator 5 results. The five-year progress projections were uniformly modest. For instance, the sampling revealed each of the ten states’ with approved SPP for Indicator 5, part A, established improvement as one-half of one percent (.005) per year. Therefore, it would be ten-years before a 5% increase in inclusion rates would be realized.

If USDE evaluation and monitoring of  state’s Performance Plans for Indicator 5, part A and each state’s Annual Performance Report (APR) remains deficient for pushing increased inclusion rates, then professional development may be the better hope for reform of LRE initiatives.  Research suggested professional development is most effective when teachers engage in instructional inquiry within the context of collaborative professional communities that focus upon instructional improvement and student achievement. Research suggested great value in professional development that ensures teachers support of each other in understanding policies and research that guide effective practices related to inclusive programs (Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2004; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004; and Waldron & McLeskey, 2009).  Crucially, research indicated the positive impact of creating and implementing embedded professional development intended to improve instructional practices that lead to improved outcomes for individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families (Beverly, Santos, & Kyger, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, & Ugel, 2001; Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Monteith, 2000; Powers, Rayner, & Gunter, 2001; Voltz, 2001; and Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003).

  Traditional theorists contend current teacher preparation standards are sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000). By contrast, Reformists or Substantial Re-conceptualists, contend explicit standards are requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Paul & Paul, 1996; Andrews, et. al., 2000). To improve rates of inclusive educational practices, states would benefit from requiring explicit teacher preparation standards related to the effective implementation of LRE mandates rather than merely comprehending the meaning of LRE.  However, understanding the adverse impact of assessment systems upon diverse students and how to effectively monitor and adjust instruction based on assessments FOR learning, may be more powerful for encouraging change. 

Systemic approaches that utilize diverse evaluations allow all stakeholders a better opportunity to make decisions based on holistic data.  Diverse data analysis offers the opportunity to more reliably monitor and adjust plans for student, classroom, and school-wide improvement.  This systemic approach provides an opportunity that is not reliably possible through analysis of a solitary, end-of-year test.  The latter “simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (Herman, 2010, p 3).

An embrace of the learning for all mission will be more valuable for promoting LRE initiatives.   A coherent, data-based accountability system is identified as a correlate of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). More important than understanding the continuum or cascade of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) available to diverse students is the ability to navigate or advocate for an assessment system promoting a coherent network that provides the opportunity to develop, implement, and utilize data-based accountability. The lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance results in problematic decisions that adversely effects the integrity of the placement process.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2019) Utilization of assessments options can increase inclusion better 

       than mandate knowledge. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, L.,

et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.

Connor, D. (2007). A (Brief) History of Inclusion in the USA. Supporting Inclusive

            Classrooms: A Resource. NYCTFQIS

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons,

challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichenger, J., & Downing, J.E.  (2002). Instruction in the general education environment. 

In J. Downing (Ed.) Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms:  Practical strategies for teachers (2^nd ed.).  Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Elbaum, B.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M.T.; Moody, S.W.; Schumm, J.S. (2000).  How

            reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping

            formats:  A meta-analytic review.  In R. Gersten, E.P. Schiller, S. Vaughn (eds.),

            Contemporary special education research:  Synthesis of the knowledge base on

            critical instructional issues.  (pp. 105-136).   Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of

special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman and D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The inclusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 213242). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming

 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to

mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.

Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all America’s

 schools. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., Correa, V., McLeskey, J., Bishop, A., Smith, D.,

Tyler, N., & Waldron, N., (2001). The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.

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.