The last two weeks, I have not written my personal post because I have been easily jumping into writing and researching. This week I really started diving into the codes for differentiation which were muddier than the other coded reports that I did so because of this I had to organize the structure of results a little differently to paint the whole picture. This has been where I have spent the majority of time my week trying to frame these results in a way that is easily accessible to any reader. I think the goal of synthesizing these reports is to provide a clear-cut structured path that teacher preparation programs can use to strengthen the differentiation (or the other topics I selected to focus on, e.g. math in elementary, academic questioning, teaching observational skills) coursework and “asks” of their program.
To start this improvement, in the realm of differentiation, programs need to have an agreed upon research-based definition of what differentiation is, and this needs to be used by all faculty and consistently across the program. One interesting topic that has come up in some reports and even in some recent inspections I have been on is Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and how programs are using this term to synonymously mean differentiation. When I see this it’s usually not focused on the research-based definition for differentiation which focuses on process, product, environment, and content. When it is taught without this research-based definition in mind it has translated to lessons with choice, but not actually with what students need in order to progress their learning in a lesson. I think this may be due to instructor’s not having the research-based definition of differentiation driving their instruction of UDL. With UDL, we are looking at a lesson through providing multiple means of representation (the way information is presented in a lesson), engagement (the ways learners are motivated in the lesson), and action and expression (the ways learners showcase what they know/learned in a lesson). When this is done without the research-based definition for differentiation driving it, I often see surface level changes that do not address students that are struggling and students that are high-achievers—it again teaches to the middle (the average on-grade-level students in the classroom). An example of what I mean by this is teacher candidates indicated they are using UDL (multiple means of representation) because they are presenting content auditorily and through the visual-means of a PowerPoint. Technically they are displaying information in multiple ways, but this content is often grade level content not taking into account those on either end of the learning continuum (those that still need pre-requisite skills to the content, and those that have mastered the content). If we are truly linking multiple means of representation to the research-based definition of differentiation, content and varied levels of students needs should be addressed. I bring up this example because this is the scenario that I see the most often. I think our coursework in teacher preparation really needs to examine and tease this out—that if UDL is done at the surface level true differentiation is not happening. This really needs to begin with all faculty in a program understanding this and guiding students to think this way—and providing feedback on lesson plans, assignments, and teaching so that UDL goes beyond surface-level changes in the classroom. Surface-level is an entry point to start using UDL, but it needs to then be deeply rooted in differentiation so that all K-12 students can progress in their learning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorKristina Scott Archives
February 2023
Categories |