‘As educators, we know that learning is not one size fits all, and what's best for some students may not be for others, Yet differentiated instruction (Di) remains elusive as a major part of formal planning. Myths about DI persist despite work by respected advocates such as Carol Tomlinson, Susan Allan, Rick Wormeli, and Gayle Gregory. What follows are prominent misperceptions expressed about Dl, presented here so that we can separate myth from truth. Myth #1: Dl is a collection of strategies. There are many books, workshops, and organizations offering “differentiated strategies" that, when used, will instantly have teachers differentiating for their students. Such strategies in isolation rarely have the intended outcome for most or all of the students. The reality is that any strategy can be differentiated if we know the leamer's current skill level. So long as the strategy has a track record of supporting leaming, it can be turned into a differentiated tool for heightened effectiveness. Truth #1: Dlis a lens for implementing any strategy in all pedagogies. Consider that effective teachers have a wealth of tools that they use to meet student needs. DI is a lens for choosing the best tool. Would you use a screwdriver to hammer a nail? That seems obvious, yet there are many learning experiences where a diamond- point screwdriver is used to tighten connections with a screw that needs a flat blade. Diagnosing students based on data helps teachers identify the best tools to design the appropriate learning experience. Some examples include: + The RAFTs strategy helps students develop writing for a target audience and improving their authors' craft. Options can be varied for student readiness, skill levels, interests, and/or learning profiles. + Choice is a powerful differentiated tool. Teach students the use of different graphic organizers and note-taking strategies (i.e. Cornell and Scholastic). Once they've learned these, students can choose the approach that works best for them. Dlis a lens that we use ongoing during the data analysis and planning process for great strategic impact on student learning. It ensures. that we use the correct screwdriver. Myth #2: DI is incompatible with standardized state testing. High-stakes tests are pervasive in the fabric of school culture. Everything in education must go through the testing filter so that schools can report results to the wider community about how well students test. If these tests assess mastery of state and ‘Common Core standards, then students need high-quality leaning experiences that develop their understanding and application of these leamiing competencies. When content coverage becomes the focus, everyone loses. To learn, students require the analytical and empathy skills of a teacher. Just because content is covered doesn't mean that students have learned. DI engages students on successful paths for mastering learning targets.Truth #2: Dl ensures that all students learn and grow in knowledge and application of state and Common Core standards. Traditional classrooms take a whole-group instruction approach because it is a timesaver for lesson delivery. This timesaver is illusory. Without incorporating differentiation based on formatively assessed needs, students shut down as they believe that they cannot succeed. As the knowledge or skills gap widens, the learning obstacle may tum into something too massive to overcome. If we know that not all students lear at the same pace and may not process skills and concepts in the same way, then differentiation is the solution to maximizing the number of students who can apply their understanding of standards on high-stakes tests. Pre-planned Differentiation does not take significantly more time to teach a unit. DI uses existing time more effectively to meet needs of all learners. With more students mastering standards, teachers can provide more in-depth learning experiences. Shortened excerpt taken from McCarthy, John, Myth-Busting Differentiated Instruction 2015, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/differentiated.instruction-myths-and-truths-john-mecarthyDifferentiation of Instruction {sa teachers response to leamer’s needs | ‘ied by general principles of differentiation, such as Cc Source: Tomlinson, Carol Ann and Demirsky Allan, Susan. Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms. 2000.Student Readiness/Ability InteresyTalents Learning Profile Prior Knowledge {adapted from Oaksford, L. & Jones, L., 2001) Figure 1. Learning Cycle and Decision Factors Used in Planning and Implementing Differentiated InstructionFive Key Components of Differentiation ~ Strategies Pre-Assessment/ Environment Content/Standard | Process/Instructional | Product/Assessment Individual Differences Strategies “ype I: Socal-Cutural & 7 Seating [Formak | + Learning Centers =” FlexibleGrouping | * Curriculum Linguist Dimension desks; Informakbean | + Uterture Circles ‘+ Tiered Lessons Enrichment + Home Language Survey bags, couches, ete) | + Multiple Inteligences | + Cubing (Compacting) + Oral Histories + Teacher-riven | Jigsaws + RAFT (Role of the | + Negotiated Criteria + Cultural fin ists Instruction + Taped MaterialWVideos Writer, Audience,” | 6 Learning Contracts + Place Names ourney Map |» Student-Centered | + Varied Tests Format Topi) + Project Menus * ite titeracy Profile lastruetion + VariedSupplemental | Web Quests Varied Research + Readinginterest Surveys | + Time of Day Teas ¢ Learning Centers Projects “+ Best Advice (romarelative, |» MultiSensory + Varied Computer + Simulations/Role | 5 Community Based friend, community member) | Stimulation Programs Plays Projects ‘Type 2:Personal Dimension | + Text-Oriven + Varied Suppor 3 Independent study | 4 choice Menus (Uearning Profit) 2 Mobilty Mechanisms + Learning Contracts | > Varied Homework + Learning Styles + lighting + Interest Centers + Group investigations | | Varied journal + Modality Surveys + Heat + Curriculum + Sccratie Seminars Prompts Multiple Inteligence + Sound Enrichment + Demonstrations |. Choices on Tests surveys + UseofFinearts | » student Selected + Guestspeakers | Varied quizzes + Learning Profiles + DisplaysofStudent | Vocabulary + Fld Tepe + Developmental + fe Timeline ‘Work + Groupinvestigation + Varied Debates Portfolios + Graffiti Facts + Touch-Rich artifacts | + Reciprocal Reading Independent study |. Graduated Rubrics Type 3: Metacognitive + Student choice | + Multiple + PeerTutoring * Varied Speeches Dimension Representations: + Multiple nt +) Goal Checklist Concrete, Graphic, ‘Assessments + Interest Surveys symbolic + Learning Journals + Guided Reading “ype &: Academic Literacy (ctferent reading Dimension (Students academic selections) literacy proficiencies and subject enowledge/skil) * Development Portfolio + Sklinventories + Reading Assessment + Standards Tests a — A‘Stenson fn 9 PRELIMINARY PLANNING SHEET - Google Docs won “ERNE PARIS FORURERING ONT ORD STO Ya i iba tui da 7 eo ro a PMed ehoies Different vaays 40 fale roles Be porgioraeyeg, | Tecabeiyy Hebe Seder Henan pg ty Heed wiggnel Vespers Xlack macoperle Yao pis goge comical MFZENSKIZTWiA XQZHaDGXeloHgIDS2TE Wet