Facilitating Differentiated Instruction - Syllabus
New Explorations in Learning Online Course - 2005
Course: Number of Credits: 1
Contact Hours: 15
Texts:
Differentiating Learning: Different Strokes for Different Folks- 2001-Fogarty
How to Differentiate Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment-2005-Fogarty and Pete
Overview:
Differentiated learning is about a robust instructional repertoire. It’s about having an assortment of teaching
tools and techniques to meet the diverse needs of students. It’s about different strokes for different folks, and
about different entry points to learning! Differentiation is about change, challenge, and choice in today’s
classroom: Change the content! Change the process! Change the product! It’s about the opportunity to learn
through the many ways of knowing and expressing what one knows. Differentiation is about standards-based
learning and high quality teaching.
Rationale:
While seasoned staff know that there really is nothing new in education, from time to time, a compelling
concept is revisited which such gusto that it almost takes on a life of its own. This is the case with the
concept of differentiated learning. It is not a new idea, by any means. Yet, the concept of differentiating
learning has captured the attention of educators across the many continents. According to Carol Ann
Tomlinson (1998), “Three principles from brain research-emotional safety, appropriate challenge and selfconstructed meaning-suggest that a on-size-fits-all approach to classroom teaching is ineffective for most
students and harmful to some." Facilitating differentiated instruction is not about teaching louder and slower.
It’s about a robust instructional repertoire. It’s about having an assortment of teaching tools and techniques
to meet the diverse needs of students. It’s about different strokes for different folks, and about different entry
points and end points to learning!
Description:
Using brain-based instruction as the basis for differentiated learning, processes for designing curriculum,
instruction and assessments address the standards. In addition, emphasis is given to three critical
instructional strategies: cooperative group instruction, a multiple intelligences approach and higher order
thinking. Woven throughout the course content is the concept of differentiating instruction and assessment
for individual learners. Finally, four distinct instructional arenas are given comprehensive treatment:
Differentiated Learning; Cooperative Learning, Multiple Intelligences, and Higher Order Thinking.
Authentic assessments are integrated throughout the curriculum development and instructional areas.
Research Base:
The research that supports, Facilitating Differentiated Instruction, includes five distinct areas: research on
teacher quality and student achievement (Haycock, 1999); research on the brain and learning (Caine and
Caine, 1994); research on cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec,1986); research on Multiple
Intelligences, (Gardner, 1983) and research on cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies (Perkins, 1986 ).
1
In addition, based on Tomlinson's conceptual model (1999 ), differentiation is about change, challenge, and
choice in today’s classroom: Change the content! Change the process! Change the product! It’s about the
opportunity to learn through the many ways of knowing and expressing what one knows. It’s about learner
readiness, learner interests and learner profiles. Differentiation is about standards-based instruction and
brain-based learning. It’s about high quality teaching that targets how students learn best.
Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Understanding of differentiation theory and practice
Objective 1: Will apply differentiated learning strategies in planning and implementation of the instructional
and assessment repertoire.
Objective 2: Will provide evidence of differentiation strategies applied to particular students.
Goal 2: Ability to design standards-based and brain-based (differentiated) curriculum models.
Objective 3: Will demonstrate a backward mapping designed unit of study that addresses content standards.
Objective 4: Will demonstrate integrated curriculum through the use of robust curriculum units.
Goal 3: Repertoire of instructional strategies (Cooperative Learning, Multiple Intelligences, Higher Order
Thinking)
Objective 5: Will demonstrate the use of three cooperative strategies for small group work.
Objective 6: Will demonstrate the application of multiple intelligences in curriculum planning, instructional
design and in performance assessments.
Objective 7: Will demonstrate higher order thinking applied to the integrated model of literacy across the
curriculum.
Course Outline:
How Does the Constructivist Theory Impact k12 Classrooms?
Definition
Piaget
Vygotsky
Feuerstein
Brain Research
Brain Physiology
Principle of the Brain and Learning
Brain-friendly Strategies
What are the Characteristics of Quality Differentiated Instruction?
Honoring student diversity-No Child Left Behind
Minority
Soci-Economic
Language
Disabilities
Ethnicity
2
Gender
Active and Engaged Learning
Differentiated Learning Concept
Challenge: The role of high expectations
Choice: The role of interest and relevance
Change the content: complexity, resources, learning environment
Change the process: direct Instruction, cooperative learning, inquiry models
Change the product: entry points, exit points, accountability
Differentiated Learning Strategies
Cooperative learning
Definition-R.I.C.H.E.S.
Decisions: communication, physical tools, lesson supports, management tactics, success monitoring
Designs: whole class, small groups
Developments: leading, consensus, communication, team building
Multiple Intelligences
Theory of MI: criteria
Applications: curriculum, instruction, assessment
Multiple entries for differentiation; brain theory/practice
Multiple connections for differentiation: constructivist theory/practice
Multiple Representations for Differentiation: Transfer Theory/Practice
Higher order thinking/graphic organizers
Relevance-contemporaneity
Richness-complexity
Relatedness-connectedness
Rigor-challenge
Recursiveness-concept
Evaluation:
Participants will be evaluated using a variety of strategies to show competencies. These strategies will
parallel those taught in the course.
Ratings of:
Excellent Work = A
Average Work = B
Below Average Work = C
Based on the following four areas:
Participation and Time online.
Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the content. (Module Assessments)
Application of curriculum, instruction and assessment strategies demonstrating high level of relevant
transfer. (In the Classroom and Beyond Assignments)
Reflective practice as evidenced in written assignments. (Roust Assignment)
Evidence of research-based readings (Course texts)
Bibliography
Armstrong, T. (1999). Seven kinds of smart: Identifying and developing your multiple intelligences. New
York: Penguin Putnam.
3
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Barell , J. (1998). PBL: Problem based learning: An inquiry approach. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Bellanca, J. (1990). Cooperative think tank I. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Bellanca, J. (1993). Cooperative think tank II. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Bellanca, J. (1997). Active learning handbook for the multiple intelligences classroom. Arlington Heights,
IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (1991). Blueprints for thinking in the cooperative classroom. Palatine, IL:
Skylight Publishing.
Berman, S. (1997). Project learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Berman, S. (1999). Service learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Bradley, A. (1999). Zeroing in on teachers. Education Week, 18(17), 46–52.
Brady, G. (2000). The standards juggernaut. Phi Delta Kappan (May): 649–651.
Burke, K. (1999). The mindful school: How to assess authentic learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Burke, K., Fogarty, R., & Belgrade, S. (1994). The mindful school: The portfolio connection. Arlington
Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fits: Developing multiple intelligences. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Cooney, W. C., Cross, B., & Trunk, B. (1993). From Plato to Piaget: The greatest theorists from across the
centuries and around the world. New York: University Press of America.
Costa, A. (1991). School as a home for the mind. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.
Diamond, M., & Hobson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intellignece,
creativity, and healthy emotions from birth to adolescence. New York: Dutton Books.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). Educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York:
Macmillan.
4
Eichhorn, D. 1971. The middle school. New York: The Center for Research in Education, Inc.
Fogarty, R. (1998). Balanced assessments. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (2002). Brain compatible classroom. Palatine, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (2001). Differentiating Learning: Different Strokes for Different Folks. Chicago, IL: Fogarty &
Associates, Ltd.
Fogarty, R. (1990). Designs for cooperative interactions. Palatine, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (2001). Finding the time and the money for professional development. Chicago: Fogarty &
Associates
Fogarty, R. (1991). The mindful school: How to integrate the curricula. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences
classroom. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (2000). Literacy matters. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (2001). Making sense of the research on the brain and learning. Chicago: Fogarty & Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2001). A model for mentoring our teachers: Centers of pedagogy. Chicago: Fogarty &
Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2001). Student learning standards: A blessing in disguise. Chicago: Fogarty & Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2001). Teachers make a the difference. Chicago: Fogarty & Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2000). Ten things new teachers need to succeed. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and
Publishing.
Fogarty R., & Bellanca, J. (1995). Multiple intelligences: A collection. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight
Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R and B. Pete. (2005). How to Differentiate Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment.Chicago, IL:
Fogarty & Associates, Ltd.
Fogarty, R., & Stoehr, J. (1995). Integrating the curricula with multiple intelligences. Arlington Heights, IL:
Skylight Training and Publishing.
Feurstein, R. (1979). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1999). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
5
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic
Books.
George, P. Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middle school—and beyond. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and curriculum development.
George, P and G. Lawrence. (1982). Handbook for middle school teaching. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman
and Company.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn.
New York: William Morrow.
Gratz, D. (2000). High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan (May): 681–683.
Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your head. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean
Publishers.
Hart, L. (1983). Human brain, human learning. Kent, WA: Books for Educators.
Haycock, K. (1999, March). Good teaching matters …a lot. NSDC Results, 45–46.
Hunter, M. (1970). Transfer. El Segundo, CA:TIP
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Joyce, B. (1999). The great literacy problem and success for all. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(2), 129–131.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperatrive learning resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for
Teachers.
Knowles, T and D. Brown. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth, NH: NMSA
Heinemann.
Kohn, A. (1999). The dark side of standards. Education Update (May): 7.
Kohn, A. (1999, December 9). Tests that cheat students. New York Times, OP-ED, p. A31.
La Doux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Lazear, D. (1998). Eight kinds of smart. Arlington, Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
6
Lyman, F., & McTighe, J. (1998). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-embedded tools.
Educational Leadership, 45(7), 18–24.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1997). Assessing student outcomes. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moye, V. H. (1998). Problem based learning in Social Studies: Cues to culture and change. Arlington
Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Olebe, M., Jackson, A., & Danielson, C. (1999). Investing in beginning teachers—the California model.
Education Leadership, 56(8), 41–44.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. New York:
Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton.
Rose, L. & Gallup, A. M. (1999). The 31st Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes
Toward the Public Schools [Insert]. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(1), 41–56.
Schmoker, M. & Marzano, R. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational
Leadership (March): 17.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sousa. D.(1995). How the brain learns. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Sylwester, R. ( 1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sylwester, R. (1998). Student brains, school issues. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated curriculum. Educational Leardership, 57(1),
12–16.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Wormeli, R. (2001). Meet me in the middle: Becoming an accomplished middles school teacher. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse; Westerville, OH: NMSA.
7
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in
American schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Home | Courses | Kinney & Associates | What's New | Help
RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING FINAL PROJECT OF DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION
4
3
2
1
Evidence was provided to Evidence was provided to
Status was reported
Very sketchy “picture” of
show need for
show need
without data. Evidence
need.
differentiation (rationale).
was incomplete in showing
(Description of
need.
demographics, summary A complete “picture” of the
OR
status
with
supporting
of curriculum and
data was provided.
assessment as it relates to
Data was provided but
standards)
not both.
BACKGROUND
PLANNING
(Plan for implementation
is created based upon
course)
IMPLEMENTATION
(Step by step design of
how to implement)
ASSESSMENT
(Baseline data is
collected, data based
upon implementation is
collected, analyzed and
conclusions drawn.)
Planning addressed the
identified needs and
incorporated learning from
the course.
Plan addressed needs
but was not supported
through the course.
Plan was developed but
incomplete and did not
address learning from the
course.
Plan was incomplete.
Plan was implemented as
designed, however, as
data indicated needed
revisions, changes were
made.
Plan was implemented.
Implementation was
started but not completed.
Plan was not
implemented.
Data was analyzed and
summarized on an
ongoing basis. Data
drove the implementation
plan. Data collected is of
an appropriate type to
meet identified needs.
Data was collected and
summarized at the end
only.
Data was collected and
summary was incomplete.
Data was not c
8