Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program
Instructor Name: Dr. Michael Sedler
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Welcome to Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program, an interactive computer-based instruction course. This course is designed to provide you an opportunity to learn about an instructional framework, Differentiated Instruction (DI), aimed at creating supportive learning environments for diverse learning populations. Students will be presented a method for self-assessment of the extent to which their current instructional approach reflects the perspective, principles, and practices of the DI approach. The course reflects an approach that aligns the principles of DI with the practices of DI. The concept of a “theory of action” will also be provided within a DI context. The course has also been designed to introduce students to a range of strategies associated with a DI approach. Strategies included in this course have been selected on the basis that they are effective in the widest possible range of educational K-12 settings. This course follows Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, which addressed the What, Why, and Who of a classroom that reflects a DI approach. The focus of Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program is on the When, Where, and How of the DI approach.
Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program is an invitation to reflect, explore, and anchor professional practices in the current literature and growing research base in support of DI. This course is designed for anyone working with a diverse learning population across the K-12 spectrum and will have the most direct application to professionals serving students within a mixed-ability classroom setting.
Title: Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2012
Instructor Name: Dr. Michael Sedler
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
The individual will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit for the course.
This course is designed as the second course in a series of courses on meeting the needs of a diverse learning population served across the K-12 continuum.
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
1) Understand how differentiated instruction is defined and the distinctive elements of a classroom where DI is practiced.
2) Outline elements of the rationale supporting implementation of a DI approach (i.e., why DI?).
3) Identify the essential principles from which a DI approach is developed and implemented.
4) Demonstrate understanding of a teacher reflection strategy aligned with principles of DI.
5) Understand the need for alignment between instructional paradigm, educational priorities, principles of differentiation, and practices selected on a daily basis.
6) Demonstrate understanding of a self-assessment tool used to reflect on current practice in comparison with elements of the DI approach.
7) Understand the importance of having a “theory of action” as a teacher and the potential for elements entailed in the DI approach to enhance current practice.
8) Identify several methods for gathering information about student-specific readiness.
9) Understand the relationship between instructional decision making and student motivation.
10) Identify DI strategies for designing environments that reflect Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles.
11) Articulate some of the challenges when differentiating based on student readiness.
12) Demonstrate understanding of strategies for differentiation to meet student-specific needs.
13) Articulate the advantages of differentiating with regard to student interest.
14) Explain the relationship between planning effective instruction and student motivation.
15) Demonstrate understanding of methods for flexible grouping commonly used in a DI classroom.
16) Identify general considerations to make when differentiating based on student-specific variables in the areas of interest and learning profiles.
17) Explain the general parameters necessary for creating a positive learning environment.
18) Outline a variety of teaching decisions that could be made in response to observations of students struggling to maintain progress.
19) Articulate a number of instructional management strategies for improving the learning environment.
20) Understand the significance of creating opportunities for students to reflect on and represent progress, achievement, and understanding.
21) Outline the relevance of the DI approach to the topics of “traditional grading,” “competition,” “fairness,” and “equity.”
22) Articulate difference between “assessment for learning” and “assessment of learning” within a DI approach.
23) Outline the range of assessment choices and barriers most often encountered when implementing a differentiated classroom.
24) Identify possible steps of a course of action for teachers transitioning from a non-DI (i.e., “one size fits all”) approach to a DI (i.e., “whatever it takes”) approach.
25) Understand the functionality of an observation tool that reflects both the theories and practices with a DI approach.
This course, Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program, has been divided into four chapters. As the second course in a multi-course series on Differentiated Instruction, the emphasis is on providing examples of strategies and methods associated with a DI approach. The course has been organized to ensure that each strategy, or idea on “how to” implement DI, is an extension of the DI approach as a whole and not just presented as a disjointed list of ideas to try. The first course in the series, Why DI?:An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, focused on the What, Why, and Who of a classroom that reflects a Differentiated Instruction approach. Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program, will indirectly address the conditions, or When, Where, and How of the DI approach. Because DI is not a recipe for teaching or a prescriptive model, the structure of the course reflects a range of entry points for educators to consider as they reflect on the considerations teachers make when differentiating.
Chapter 1: How DI Provides Teachers a Theory of Action
Chapter 2: How DI Equips Teachers to Become Students of Their Students
Chapter 3: How DI Provides a Framework for Creating a Community of Learners
Chapter 4: How DI Promotes Equity and Excellence
In Chapter 1: How DI Provides Teachers a Theory of Action, we will begin by reviewing the rationale for Differentiated Instruction presented in the first course in this series, Why DI?:An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction. Using the terminology from the first course, a framework for reflecting on how best to create a differentiated classroom will be provided. Principles that best describe a non-prescriptive DI approach across the K-12 spectrum will be outlined. Using these principles, a tool for reflection will be presented for educators to employ as they consider elements of effective instruction from within a DI perspective. The concept of a “theory of action” will be presented and the connections to this concept will be explored in relation to the DI approach. At the conclusion of Chapter 1, course participants will complete a reflection activity.
In Chapter 2: How DI Equips Teachers to Become Students of their Students, we will articulate the connection between instructional planning and student readiness. Several methods for identifying student-specific interests will be provided. The relevance of these student-specific variables will be expounded on as a means for creating conditions for teacher-student collaboration. The connection between instructional decision-making and student motivation will be emphasized. DI teaching strategies will be outlined in support of the principles of DI explored in Chapter 1.
In Chapter 3: How DI Provides a Framework for Creating a Community of Learners, we will explore the advantages of differentiating with student interests and learning profiles in mind. The curricular, instructional, and environmental variables teachers consider in a DI classroom will be explored. The importance of creating a positive classroom work environment will be discussed. Several methods for grouping students flexibly in a DI classroom will be provided. With an emphasis on the teacher’s awareness of each student’s readiness to benefit from instructional planning, a variety of methods for matching tasks, activities, and learning environment to students will be reviewed. We will also identify the advantages of the DI approach when designing learning environments that reflect the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) backward design approach
In Chapter 4: How DI Promotes Equity and Excellence, we will explore the significance of creating opportunities for students to represent and reflect on their own progress, achievement, and understanding within a DI classroom. In order to do this, the topics of “traditional grading,” “competition,” “fairness,” and “equity” will be explored from a DI perspective. The difference between “assessment for learning” and “assessment of learning” and the importance of assessment being motivating to students will also be considered. An outline of the range of barriers most often encountered when implementing a differentiated classroom will be provided. Course participants will also reflect on the best course of action for teachers in the initial stages transitioning from a “one size fits all” approach to a “whatever it takes” approach. A multi-purpose reflection tool will be provided that ties together many of the key objectives from the course. A reflection exercise will also provide a sense of professional development direction.
Each chapter contains additional “handouts” that cover specific topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to read, ponder, and apply to the setting in which you work. Some of the handouts are directly related to the concepts and content of the specific chapter, while others are indirectly related to provide extended learning connections.
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all four information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall score of 70% or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete a review of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
· Retake any examination, after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete all course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
· Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
At the end of each course section, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
All assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your original course link.
You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
1) Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
2) Journal Article Summations
You are required to write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or scholarly journal articles (one article per summation), written by an author with a Ph.D. on topics related to this course (blogs, abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). You may choose your topics by entering any of the Key Words (click on the Key Words button) or any other words that pertain to the course, into a search engine of your choice (Bing, Google, Yahoo, etc.). Choose a total of three relevant articles and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information to allow the instructor to access and review that article. Please note, the citation of your article will not count towards meeting your minimum word count.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Try DI!: Planning & Preparing a Differentiated Instruction Program has been developed with the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles of a differentiated approach can be applied K-12. The primary goal of the course is to provide an overview of DI principles as well as DI strategies that will help teachers to implement a “theory of action.” The course will invoke a metaphor for teaching that is woven throughout the course and extends as the course unfolds. The course offers a variety of opportunities for reflection and culminates with an observation tool that will help professionals to align their theories with the actions they take in the classroom.
Steve Dahl, the instructor of
record, has served as a district-level administrator overseeing a variety of
federal programs, such as Special Education and Title 1, for the past five
years. He has served as an Adjunct Faculty Member for
Dr. Michael Sedler has presented seminars and classes throughout the Pacific Northwest and
Canada. Dr. Sedler has worked as an
administrator, behavior specialist, teacher and social worker within the public
school setting. Dr. Sedler is an adjunct
professor for two universities in the state of
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at firstname.lastname@example.org or calling him at 509-891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages will be answered within 24 hours. Phone conferences will be limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that involve the operation of the course.
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you need personal assistance then email email@example.com or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Access Center. (2000). Universal design to support access to the general education curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/UniversalDesign.asp
Ainsworth, L. (2003) Power standards: Identifying the standards that matter the most. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Argyris, M., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Aronson, E. (1990). Applying social psychology to desegregation and energy conservation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 118-132.
Aronson, E. (1991). How to change behavior. In R. Curtis & G. Stricker (Eds.), How people change: Inside and outside therapy. New York, NY: Plenum.
Aronson, E. (1992). Stateways can change folkways. In R. M. Baird & S. E. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Bigotry, prejudice and hatred: Definitions, causes & solutions (pp. 185-201). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Aronson, E. (May/June, 2000). Nobody left to hate: Developing the empathic schoolroom. The Humanist, 60, 17-21.
Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after Columbine. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal (10th ed.). New York, NY: Worth/Freeman. [Translated into 14 foreign languages]
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social psychology (6th ed.). Garden City, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C., & Snapp, M. (1975, February). Busing and racial tension: The jigsaw route to learning and liking. Psychology Today, 8, 43-50.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N. T., Stephan, C., Rosenfield, R., & Sikes, J. (1977). Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 121-128.
Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438-446.
Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., & Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12, 16-27.
Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D., & Geffner, R. (1978). The effects of cooperative classroom structure on student behavior and attitudes. In D. Bar Tal & L. Saxe (Eds.), Social psychology of education (pp. 257-272). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Aronson, E., & Gonzalez, A. (1988). Desegregation, jigsaw and the Mexican-American experience. In P. Katz & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 301-314). New York, NY: Plenum.
Aronson, E., & Goode, E. (1980). Training teachers to implement jigsaw learning: A manual for teachers. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C. Webb, & R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in education (pp. 47-81). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
Aronson, E., & Osherow, N. (1980). Cooperation, prosocial behavior, and academic performance: Experiments in the desegregated classroom. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 163-196.
Aronson, E., & Thibodeau, R. (1992). The jigsaw classroom: A cooperative strategy for reducing prejudice. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity in the schools. London, England: Falmer Press.
Aronson, E., & Yates, S. (1983). Cooperation in the classroom: The impact of the jigsaw method on inter-ethnic relations, classroom performance and self-esteem. In H. Blumberg & P. Hare (Eds.), Small groups. London, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, M., & Dousis, A. (2006). The research-ready classroom: Differentiating instruction across content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991a). Self-efficacy mechanism in physiological activation and health-promoting behavior. In J. Madden, IV (Ed.), Neurobiology of learning, emotion and affect (pp. 229- 270). New York, NY: Raven.
Bandura, A. (1991b). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-regulatory mechanisms. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
CAST. (2009). Guidelines for Universal Design for Learning 1.0. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/UDLguidelines/UDL_Guidelines_v1.0.doc
Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). Differentiated assessment strategies: One tool doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). 11 practical ways to guide teachers toward differentiation. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 20-25.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Dahl, S. (2009). Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction [CD]. Spokane, WA: Virtual Education Software, inc.
Danielson, M., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: McMillan.
Elmore, R. (2002). Building capacity to enhance learning: A conversation. Principal Leadership, 2(5).
Fierros, E. G. (2004). How multiple intelligences theory can guide teachers’ practices: Ensuring success for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.urbanschools.org/pdf/onPOINTS.multiple.intelligences.DOCUMENT.style.LETTERSIZE.pdf
Forsten, C., Grant, J., & Hollas, B. (2002). Differentiated instruction: Different strategies for different learners. Crystal Spring Books.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in the schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing Students without coercion. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-based classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gregory, G. (2005). Differentiating instruction with style: Aligning teacher and learner intelligences for maximum achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gregory, G., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-based classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gregory, G., & Kuzmich, L. (2005). Differentiated literacy strategies for student growth and achievement in grades K–6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guild, P. B., & Garger, S. (1998). What is differentiated instruction? In Marching to different drummers (2nd ed., p. 2). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html
Heacox, Diane. (2001). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kagan, S., Sharan, S., Slavin, R., & Webb, C. (Eds.). (1985). Learning to cooperate: Cooperating to learn. New York, NY: Plenum.
Howard, P. (1994). The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research. Austin, TX: Leornian Press.
Howell, K., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Thompson.
Jackson, R. (2009). Never work harder than your students & other principles of great teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jacobs, H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lachat, M. A. (2001). Data-driven high school reform: The breaking ranks model. Available from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/hischlrfm/datdrv_hsrfm.pdf
Lawrence-Brown, C. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Maddux, J. E., & Stanley, M. A. (Eds.). (1986). Special issue on self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3).
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum (NCAC). (2000). Differentiated instruction: Effective classroom practices report. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
Northey, S. (2005). Handbook on differentiated instruction for middle and high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice. Education Leadership, 8(1), 14-18.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability at a crossroads: The nation needs school leaders who will make accountability decisions that are grounded in research, not popularity. Virginia Journal of Education, November. Retrieved from http://www.veanea.org/vea-journal/0502/archive.html
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO. Advanced Learning Centers.
Reis, S. M., Kaplan, S. N., Tomlinson, C. A., Westberg, K. L., Callahan, C. M., & Cooper, C. R. (1998, November). Equal does not mean identical. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 74-77.
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde, T. (2006). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68.
Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2007). Strategies for differentiating instruction: Best practices for the classroom. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions, pp. 13-44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Sizer, T. R. (2001). No two are quite alike: Personalized learning. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 6-11.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: Theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. In The encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm
Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K. (2003, May). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/using_research_stanovich.cfm
Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service, Assessment Training Institute.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Penguin.
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Tomlison, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). Differentiated instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlison, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000, September). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001, February). Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting high-quality classrooms. NAASP Bulletin, 85(622), 38-47. doi:10.1177/019263650108562206
Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Lawrence, KS: Pearson.
USDOE. (1999, January). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(13), 20-32. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053001003
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to changing our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
White, J. (1982). Rejection. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2008). Put understanding first. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 36-41.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Schooling by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000, Winter).
Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet individual needs. Curriculum Update. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum-update/
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
ThinkDOTS©: Retrieved from http://www.jigsaw.org/tips.htm
Multiple Intelligence Theory Handout. Source: National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI). Edward Garcia Fierros. (2004). How multiple intelligences theory can guide teachers’ practices: ensuring success for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.urbanschools.org/pdf/onPOINTS.multiple.intelligences.
An Educator's Journey Toward Multiple Intelligences Handout. (Source: Scott Seider, assistant professor of education at Boston University).
Threats to Student Success Handout. (Source: Adapted from Kovalik & Olsen, 2001, pp. 2.9-2.10)
Changing teaching practices: Using curriculum differentiation to respond to students’ diversity (printed by UNESCO in Paris, France).
The Public Education Leadership Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School.
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding organization's web home page.