Oct+2-+Marzano+Ch+10,+H&A+Ch+4

Having read some of Tomlinson in other classes, there was a familiarity to the material. I really like how her chapter in Marzano goes into an in-depth analysis of differentiation. Since starting Randolph College, many of the education classes discuss differentiation, but there has been little explanation, yet there has been a great deal of application. This chapter gave me a greater understanding because the chapter is written by one of the leaders in the practice, Carol Tomlinson. Tomlinson explains that the age old methods of teaching across the curriculum to all students the same way no longer works. Lessons require break downs and different methods of application and presentation. Tomlinson defines three key teaching styles: heterogenous, homogenous, and individual adaptations to content (251). In the section Context for Effective Differentiation, Tomlinson reviews the five elements to strengthening teaching and learning: Positive student mindset, Connectivity between teacher and student, community development, high-quality curriculum and targets, and assessment. All of the elements make very good sense of teaching and learning, however, Tomlinson discusses very little of the strains in implementation and the possible failures of incorrect implementation. It appears as though that is what Alper and Hyerle attempt. The most useful aspect of the Tomlinson article was the key elements of differentiation, which are: student variance, modification of classroom elements, and flexibility of resources and tasks (256). In the second aspect, classroom elements, Tomlinson discusses the KUD, which is familiar to me because of previous classes. The KUD appears applicable to all aspects of the three dimensions of the differentiation methodology. The Alper and Hyerle chapter deals with flow charts and the dangers of incorrect implementation regarding differentiation. Chapter 4 holds the title of "Tools for Integrating Theories and Differentiating Practice". What I found most interesting about this chapter was not so much the thinking maps applications, but the levels of development a student can witness using differentiation. Alper and Hyerle discuss: emotional intelligence, multiple intelligence, and learning styles and how they "link" to differentiation. Emotional intelligence refers to the level of the student's confidence in reference to undertaking new teaching methods and learning styles. This confidence can also be built and I think requires a relationship of trust between the student and the teacher. Multiple Intelligences refers to interpersonal and interpersonal relationships. These relationships reside primarily between the teacher and the student in regards to what Alper and Hyerle call "capacities", which are the capabilities of both student and teacher. The learning style link appears to refer to four stages of the student and teacher development in reference to differentiation. They are: concentration, processing, internalization, and retention of difficult information. Alper and Hyerle make examples of differentiation and these elements with the use of the flow map. The example set is that of two middle-school boys learning about World War II and the Holocaust. Harry and Douglass had very different learning styles and required differentiation with the use of thinking maps. As a future history teacher, the flow maps are ideal for demonstrating cause and effect learning in the differentiation model. **- James Cheatham**

Tomlinson addresses the necessity of differentiation in today's American classroom. Her opening discussion of the usefulness of a single room school house, but its downfall to unified large schools was useful in pointing out that not student is the same and why do some people still find it useful to teach students as a unit. Individualized instruction is important because of the obvious differences in ethnicity, religion, cultures, learning styles, levels of disability, socioeconomic status, etc. We have learned that differentiation is necessary because of these reasons throughout several of our MAT classes, but we do not understand the difficulty of of actually completing this in the classroom and addressing it consistently throughout the school year. Tomlinson is spot on in that as a new teacher I am extremely focused on creating a good classroom environment with firm management and I am trying to stay afloat with my lesson planning and school work. And with the limited about of time in the school year, I find myself scrambling to impart the necessary knowledge and then confront the need for differentiation a little bit later, when in reality I need to be doing this from the beginning. I am in a position where I will take any help and suggestions I can get in this regard because with the number of students every teacher is expected to teach it is easy for a few to get lost in the crowd and I do not want this to happen. Tomlinson rightly suggests the need to to form relationships with your students and create a comfortable and functioning community. I believe I have developed a great community, but if I truly think about it, I have only built a relationship with those outgoing students who come up to talk to me themselves. I need to work on this. I truly enjoyed her discussion of "fixed vs fluid mindsets" because it is addressing the elephant in the room that there is an easy way out and too many teacher take it by dumbing down curriculum. It makes me feel better about challenging my students. I have had a few parent email me about their child "not being a C student." This isn' middle school anymore where many of their "not C students" did not have study as much, so instead of making the lessons easier I suggest that the student read over what we did in class that day and come in with questions about fizzy areas the next day. I have already seen improvement in several of these students and I am still challenging them. Tomlinson's table on content, process, and product is extremely useful on seeing different steps to approach differentiation instead of just telling us "it is common sense and necessary," because yes it is common sense, but it is not easy to accomplish. I enjoyed reading her chapter. It is not unfamiliar territory, but she addresses it with good advice and ideas. Cooper's chapter was very well written and helpful. It was good to see a relationship between students learning styles and emotions to the learning maps. I have always had this view that thinking maps were useful in helping students organize their thoughts and see patterns in topics, but to help students work collaboratively with different types of learners is an extremely beneficial skill that the students will gain from repeated use of maps. These skills are definitely transferable to other parts of life. I have several Harrys and several Douglass in my classroom and I find myself grouping them together so that the Harry keeps the Douglas focused and on task. Implementing a thinking map into these situations will prove very helpful and allow the different strengths of the different types of students to shine through while the students learn how to utilize those different strengths. The maps allow both to contribute equally, but in different ways so students of different learning styes all feel invested in their learning and develop that sense of self worth that Collins discusses. I like that Collins addresses that teachers also learn from the use of thinking maps. We can learn to be better teachers by experimenting and seeing results of different pairs of groups through the completion of maps. The example of Harry and Douglas as global and analytical thinkers growing and developing through a combined effort on a WWII and Holocaust project was a good example to help be understand the depth of thinking maps. Thinking maps result in a wholesome educational experience that Cooper has helped me understand. - Helen Phillips

Differentiation in the classroom is the key focus of Tomlinson’s chapter and her example from Understood Betsy highlights the necessity of differentiated teaching. I had never thought that the instruction in a one room schoolhouse could have a positive effect on students as the one room contained students of varying levels of ability and knowledge, but the way the teacher taught Betsy according to her needs and abilities allows her to progress at her own pace. Comparatively, the current state of the public school classroom is what seems outdated. I know I have said this many times, but again, I have to say that this all seems like common sense. Teaching a child based on age or grade level does not account for intelligence, ability, or developmental level. We all know there are gifted Doogie Howser’s out there who excel beyond all expectations, but even typical children vary in some degree. Some of the more gifted students might advance through school quickly: attending high school at twelve, or graduating from college by sixteen; yet, thrusting a child unprepared for the higher physical and maturity levels into classes with students who are much older has its own inherent faults. Who will be this child’s peers? Who will be this child’s friends? Differentiation within each classroom can benefit these types of children. For students at lower levels, differentiation will ensure that the pace and level of the curriculum is not too low for the majority of other students.

As Tomlinson explains, there needs to be a shift from teaching all children to teaching each student. Teachers must adopt a growth mindset believing that each individual has the capacity to learn, “teach up” to stretch students’ current grasp, and provide support at each turn. In addition, teachers much nurture positive relationships with students to motivate them and also to motivate themselves. I can see Tomlinson’s point that it is too easy to mass a group of students together into one unit as opposed to knowing them as individuals with personal interests, motivations, and abilities. Tomlinson contrasts Hodges pedagogy of plenty with Haberman’s pedagogy of poverty to highlight the differences between schools that promote “best” students’ learning with those that push students through the motions of learning. Schools serving mostly poor and minority students tend to lack resources, rich curricula, and high expectations. Unfortunately, what we have discovered, in this and previous chapters, is that students learn best when they are expected to learn, are taught slightly beyond their ZPD, and have the support to reach learning goals. After reading James' post, I agree that we have encountered differentiation quite a bit in our program, have even used it; yet, without much explanation as to how to implement it successfully or effectively. Tomlinson has clarified this to some extent.

Hyerle’s chapter deals with the use of thinking maps as a way to develop some of the multiple intelligences and manage inter- and intrapersonal relationships. By allowing students with different learning or thinking styles to interact through the creation of thinking maps, students can become aware of others’ and their own patterns of thinking in developing Habits of Mind. I’m not familiar with Habits of Mind, but I understand that metacognition plays an important role in student learning and collaboration can enhance learning. Bridging two students with different styles through a thinking map highlights their differences but also joins them together in a way that facilitates understanding and allows them to engage with the material and each other at different levels, while also providing teachers with an effective tool to differentiate teaching and learning. **~Joanna Bourque**

As James, Helen. & Joanna have already stated Tomlinson's chapter discusses differentiate instruction in the classroom. Her opening about the book // Understood Betsy // was very interesting. The fact that a child going from a large school to a single room school house without a specific grade level and being confused is almost refreshing. It shows how our society today has created children to fit into a mold (grade level) and be able to complete certain tasks by a certain age or grade. When in fact most students cannot accomplish those tasks until some of their other skills are honed in on and perfected. Betsy being confused about what "grade" she was in would most likely be a response from any child going from one environment to another. I believe that the switch in her environments aided in her education. I believe when the teacher told Betsy that just because she didn't know her multiplication tables didn't mean she couldn't read on a seventh grade level her teacher was correct. I feel that in today's education we let one piece of the puzzle hold a child back from achieving and moving on to greater material. In my own personal experience in high school I felt the same way. I was really good at science but was horrible at math. Therefore, when I tried to take advanced sciences I wasn't allowed because my math skills were not as strong. I felt held back because my abilities in one subject were not as great in another.

The Alper chapter discusses the tools for integrating differentiation into instruction. Again like the other chapters from this book I found it a little difficult to understand but I believe I grasped the main concept from the chapter. Linking seemed to be a main focus in this chapter. Linking to emotional intelligence, multiple intelligence, learning styles, and habits of mind. Thinking Maps provide a unification of all four of those areas to be linked. An important statement I found on page 48 stated, "Think Maps are not content or task bound. They are adaptable and can be easily customized to suit individual learning styles and interdisciplinary problems." I like that this was said in the chapter. Because right now I am still having a hard time seeing how Thinking Maps can be used in other disciplines outside of history, english and science. It may be because I am placed in a history class that I see them used a lot but I am curious as how the math department implements Thinking Maps. **-Ashley Knowles**

Hyerle and Alper's chapter 4 discusses the different ways in which you can integrate thinking maps into instruction as a part of differentiation. I think this chapter was again, a refresher for me, because of some past MAT courses that I have enrolled in, I believe this chapter just built upon the knowledge of differentiation that I have already gained. I was particularly interested in the "global" and "analytical" learner story on page 44 and 45. I can envision these two types of learners in my students and I found it very interesting how the teacher grouped them together. Being a full-time teacher, I have tried many different groupings of students, but I have yet to try and push them out of their comfort zones. I believe the technique of heterogeneous grouping (which links back to the Tomlinson chapter) would be a good method to try for my students. I was also particularly intrigued by the reflections portion of the chapter on page 49. When the authors talk about how Harry would have usually been pigeonholed as a difficult student, I imagine some of my students. I don't particularly like "labeling" students as difficult, but sometimes it is very hard to turn another cheek to the fact that it is always going to happen; but by using thinking maps to integrate students of different learning styles, maybe these labels can diminish.

I just want to focus on a few parts of Tomlinson's chapter because the other students have done a fantastic job of summarizing. I first want to look at page 254, specifically the statement " In an effectively differentiated classroom, a teacher asks each student to work consistently at a point a bit beyond the students reach." When I read that, I immediately thought of the "zone of proximal development" from Vygotsky. The following statement even mentions scaffolding, again turning on the light bulb in my head to Vygotsky. It was very helpful to have this chapter to link my knowledge of ZOPD to differentiation and particular examples. I also wanted to look at page 253, and the segment " success and achievement are not artifacts of birth, but rather of effort". I found this statement to be very "deep" to say the least. Some student's always boast about how they are so talented and gifted, but what other students need to realize, is that behind all of that boasting, is a huge amount of effort invested by the student. My students just completed a roller coaster project where they had to build a roller coaster. I could not even begin to tell you how fabulous the outcomes were. To see the amount of effort put into every detail of their coasters was simply amazing. Needless to say, they were so successful at achieving their goal, that I wish more teachers could have experienced what I had. There was stimulating conversation, debates, and brainstorming of how to make each students coaster better. It was a very eye-opening experience. Needless to say, I found this weeks reading very useful to my personal experience as a first year teacher. I think these chapters, so far, are the only ones where I could actually highlight and underline new material that built upon old principles. The new connections being made are very enlightening --- **Caitlin Unterman**

Chapter 10 has probably been my favorite so far, since I am very intrigued by the idea of differentiated instruction. The reasoning behind differentiated instruction is one I am very passionate about - myself and my parents are of three completely different learning styles, so it has always been interesting when they tried to help me out with my school work. I believe whole heartedly that everyone learns differently and that using the simple one size fits all teaching style isn't helping any student. I was also intrigued by the different levels of learning Tomlinson spoke about (like reading at a 7th grade level, but doing math at a 3rd grade level). This all makes sense to me in theory, but I think that it would be very hard to pull off in the modern class, especially with the sheer number of students each individual teacher must care for. The only snag I can find in the differentiated style of teaching is that it must be very time consuming and would take a keen sensibility to be able to accommodate so many students individualized learning styles. I am unsure as to how a teacher could spend so much time creating specific activities for different types of students.

I really enjoyed this chapter of the Thinking Maps because it focused around the same thing as the Tomlinson chapter. I enjoyed how the chapter was focused around a real life example of two students who have radically different learning styles and how they worked together using a thinking map to learn about WWII. Group projects like the one described always leave me wary, since I am always worried about one student doing all the work and the other doing/learning nothing at all (though we were told groups of 2 usually work better than groups of 3+). The thinking map they used for their project was perfect for both of them and both students were able to use their own personal learning style to add to the map. This makes the thinking maps all the more appealing to me, since sometimes I think there's only one way to fill them out, but there's really not - a student can fill them out in any way they see fit in order to process the knowledge they're learning at the time. **~Erin Caracapp**


 * I found Marzano's chapter 10, courtesy of Carol Ann Tomlinson, to be refreshing, particularly when she discusses the "common sense of differentiation". She opens with //Understood Betsy// to illustrate just how important common sense really is; and I think this instance also illustrates just how close our education systems still are to the single room school house methods. Tomlinson advocates for a new mind set: "human diversity is both normal and enriching" (251). She writes that there are five indicators of quality differentiation (all of which don't take a genius to observe): success and achievement are possible and expected of each student, teachers and students must be equally engaged in the learning process, a safe and respectful community of learning is vital, the quality of the curriculum must not diminish as a students struggles increase, and assessments should be a tool rather than punishment or a way to score and categorize students in a hierarchy. She points out that students will come into the classroom on various levels of "readiness", they will have varying personal interests, and they will inevitably come with varying learning profiles/styles. In response to these variations, teachers can differentiate in content, process and product. Also, a flexible and understanding form of classroom management will reenforce a safe and nurturing learning environment. I think that it is imperative that teachers stop sweeping these differences under the carpet and begin to grapple with what an effectively differentiated classroom looks like for them and their students. I see, too often at Heritage Elementary, students loosing their recess because they couldn't understand a worksheet, lost interest in the task at hand, and could no longer contain their energy--a perfect recipe for chaos and trouble. I also see a lot of struggling students not receiving the differentiation that they need because there are too many children in the same classroom; and all of whom are dependent upon solely the instructor's word and encouragement because they haven't been taught how to think and problem solve independently. To quote Tomlinson on 259, "Perhaps the greatest challenge to teachers...is establishing a classroom in which, some of the time, individuals and groups of students can work effectively and efficiently on different tasks, for different lengths of time, using different materials and different working parameters." As a new teacher, with next to no experience, and only a small amount of say in curriculum and its delivery, I still struggle with how to implement positive and effective differentiation, but I do believe in the necessity of it. **
 * Echoing Tomlinson, Alper and Hyerle introduce thinking maps as a forum, where two students of radically different learning styles could uniquely contribute to a project using the same tool--a flow map. This is the kind of differentiation that still maintains a high quality curriculum and high expectations. It is rare to find tools as versatile as the concept maps discussed in this chapter--book, even. This versatility is explained by linking emotional and multiple intelligence, learning styles, and habits of mind. I think teachers with a strong sense of "with-it-ness" and a desire to know their students will be aware of these things in each student and will find ways for them to interact in such a way that they can lean from one another (not just the teacher), explore together, and illuminate each others' strengths. This is a most cherished element in any classroom that values community and higher level thinking. **

Like many of you, I found the student examples in both these chapters to be thoughtful and helpful. In a discussion of differentiation, the one room school house is upheld as a model that allows teachers to place students at their level in a particular discipline and not lock them into a grade level, and in Hyerle and Alper, Harry and Douglas, who work in radically different ways, come together through an adaptable tool to complete an assignment. In second grade, our reading groups are quite rigorously differentiated through a series of quite formal and some very informal assessments. As they are with their peers, it's easy to track their overall improvements and see if one member of a group is falling behind or advancing so quickly we can move them to a higher group, and provided targeted interventions for every student that way. Similarly, no one is at their frustration level with a book--we select them from a program so they're at the right level. Once there is a schedule and a system worked out to everyone's satisfaction, it's not that much extra work, in part because of the resources that are devoted to reading materials. But as much as we differentiate in that area, the students still spend the bulk of their day in a classroom that is not differentiated, and unfortunately my teacher has repeatedly been unwilling to recognize that many of our students are working at a frustration level on several assignments, not an instructional one. They are cranky and impatient, she knows and expects this behavior from them, and this bleeds over to how she interacts with the most difficult-to-manage in my reading group. I can't say with certainty that this correlates, but those students are often behind in their reading group work as well. (Similarly, the most advanced students spend their days rolling their eyes at work which is largely beneath their abilities and so in reading group either attempt to roll their eyes as well and do not pay adequate attention. Alternately, they are baffled by analytical work they never have to do otherwise, though they can handle it.)

The benefit of the one room school is that everything was differentiated--the experience of working at a level so above one's abilities as to be daunting and overwhelming could be avoided. As Caitlin said, students have a zone of proximal development, and when tailoring everything is part of your instructional approach, students can be kept in that zone. When I read this chapter, I initially thought to myself "As an English teacher I'll only work with them for one period, how can I meet all those different levels of needs?" but upon reflection (and spending a few really rough days at Heritage), as an English teacher I'll only have to handle one subject, and the students' performances in math, science, etc will not impact my interactions with them. Thinking Maps, for me, served to further this point, not so much in how to apply the maps in particular, but in the characteristics they lend to assignments. Because they are adaptable and flexible, they lend themselves to differentiation while still incorporating higher level thinking and an understanding of relationships between facts and concepts. Harry and Douglas is an interesting pairing because they are so different, but two Harrys would have been able to pour all their attention to detail into the maps; the structure of the thinking map would have compelled them to move towards a larger, more global picture as well. Likewise, in order to complete the map, a Douglas/Douglas pair would have been necessitated by the map format to find analytical details to support their global perspectives. Because they can work on the whole thing and not just a piece of this, their tendency to jump back and forth in working on a flow map would also have been accommodated within one map in a way an essay might not allow--they could just move on and come back to include more detail, while Harry and Harry could have just put additional facts down and come back later to work out the larger issue at play with those facts upon reflection. I think these qualities of Thinking Maps can be included in other projects that do not rely on the maps; what matters is crafting an assignment that does not penalize a student for being behind or handicap them because they are more advanced or exclude a learning style--the assignments that work allow students space to find their own approach. With appropriate differentiation comes a need for effective but not militaristic classroom management. I was relieved when Tomlinson mentioned how novice teachers are constantly working for "flock control" because as I read, I kept thinking how I couldn't do this because students might get out of hand if I turned my back to work specifically with another group or if they got bored. This is not an easy thing to do until other things are acheived, but again, I'll only have to deal with one subject at a time with a group of students, not all of them. By recognizing the difficulties in this approach, I hope to be able to avoid the pitfall of letting a student's approach to one-size-fits-all-work change how I view them in a differentiated setting.--Noren Bonner