Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr. A.N. (Bob) Pillay
Facilitator: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday – Friday
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Welcome to Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, an interactive computer-based instruction course, designed to give you an understanding of the framework of and need for creating supportive learning environments for diverse learning populations. In this course you will learn what is meant by Differentiated Instruction (DI) and the common myths associated with creating the differentiated classroom. We will discuss the legal, theoretical, and pedagogical foundations in the field of education that support the utilization of differentiated instructional practices and principles. We will reflect on best practices and national trends in the design of the educational setting to meet the needs of a diverse learning population. Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction will also provide connections to a variety of concepts, variables, and resources that will assist practitioners in aligning their own professional practices with those found in the differentiated classroom.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
Title: Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr. A.N. (Bob) Pillay
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2011
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.
Aiding Honesty in Others
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.
Level of Application
This course is designed for anyone working with a diverse learning population across the K-12 spectrum. While the information presented may have relevance to any student-centered educational setting, it will have the most relevance for K-8 mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning Outcomes
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
This course, Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, has been divided into four chapters. The organization of the course covers the What, Why, and Who of a classroom that reflects a Differentiated Instruction approach.
Chapter 1: The What of Differentiated Instruction
Chapter 2: The Why of Differentiated Instruction (Part 1)
Chapter 3: The Why of Differentiated Instruction (Part 2)
Chapter 4: The Who of Differentiated Instruction
In Chapter 1, we outline what a differentiated instructional approach entails. A framework for those elements that are typically differentiated in a differentiated classroom is provided. Characteristics and principles that best describe the DI approach across the K-12 spectrum are outlined. General considerations of what DI is not, or common misconceptions associated with the DI approach, are also considered. Attention is given to ways in which the differentiated approach aligns with current expectations of professionals and anticipated needs for classrooms in the future.
In Chapter 2, we explore why the differentiated approach is receiving so much attention. The historical, theoretical, systems-level, legal, and pedagogical factors that provide a supporting framework for implementing a differentiated instructional approach are defined. The role that instruction and assessment play in a differentiated classroom are discussed within a context of what are currently believed to be optimal learning conditions for students. A synthesis of ways in which differentiated instruction and “Understanding by Design” (UBD) mutually reinforce each other is provided.
In Chapter 3, we explore a range of variables in support of the alignment of the differentiated approach with the needs of professionals, the needs associated with educational reform in general, and ultimately the needs of individual students. Particular attention is given to the role of teacher beliefs and dispositions toward students within a differentiated model. A metaphor for differentiated instruction is explored which reinforces a reciprocal responsibility for both teachers and students for creating the conditions for mutual success. The orientation of teachers to student failure within a differentiated approach is discussed. Barriers that exist for teachers desiring to implement a differentiated approach are explored.
In Chapter 4, we explore who is involved in a differentiated classroom and how this approach differs from many traditional classrooms. Clarification of the roles of the teacher, students, and administrators in a differentiated instruction classroom are provided. The skills, interests, dispositions, and goals of course participants are explored within the framework of a differentiated approach. Barriers to the implementation of a differentiated approach are explored, allowing for discussion of your particular role or context in education, the kind of school system you function in, and the degree to which you would identify yourself as a teacher who differentiates.
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, but also included are handouts 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.
Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction has been developed with the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles of a differentiated approach can be applied to K-12. The primary goal of the course is to provide both an accurate overview of the approach as well as an opportunity for reflection to
professionals who are interested in assessing how their current practice does, or doesn’t, align with a
differentiated one. 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 5 years. He has a Master's Degree in Special Education and has completed post-Master’s coursework to obtain a Washington State Administrator Credential which certifies him to oversee programs ranging from Preschool settings through 12th grade (as well as post-secondary vocational programs for 18-21 year old students). He has 17 years of combined experience in resource-room special education classrooms, inclusion support in a comprehensive high school, and provision of support to adults with disabilities in accessing a wide range of community settings.
Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Dr. Bob Pillay is a doctoral-level instructor who has been teaching in the field of Special Education for the past 30 years. Dr. Pillay has received numerous national and international awards for his research in the field. He has headed boards and committees in more than five countries, including Australia, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia, to develop and strengthen special services. Dr. Pillay has extensive knowledge of special education issues in the U.S. due to his doctoral studies at the University of Louisville. He was the Founding Director of the Learning Improvement Centre, which was a training facility for teachers, and a service provider to students with learning problems. He is currently a retired Senior Lecturer and Senior Fellow in Special Education at the University of Melbourne. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
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.
Minimum Computer Requirements
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.
Abbott, J., & MacTaggart, H. (In press 2010). Overschooled but undereducated: Society’s failure to understand adolescence. London: Continuum.
Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying the standards that matter the most. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Bourbour, C. (2005, February). A problem-solving model for special education’s ‘storms.’ The School Administrator. American Association of School Administrators.
Brooks, M., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.
CAST. (2008) Guidelines for Universal Design for Learning 1.0. Retrieved from: http://www.cast.org/publications/UDLguidelines/UDL_Guidelines_v1.0.doc
Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator's dilemma.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperBusiness.
Danielson, M., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
DeLeeuw, H., & Monpas-Huber, J. (2009, Winter). Using data to uncover the strengths of English Language Learners. Leadership Information. School Information and Research Service (SIRS), 8(1).
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.
Elmore, R. (2002, January). Building capacity to enhance learning: A conversation. Principal Leadership, 2(5).
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in the schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and research (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control Theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: HarperCollins.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction.
Honawar, V. (2008, March). Teacher education community is striving to interpret candidate “dispositions.” Education Week, 27(28), 1, 13.
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: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Klinger, J., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Duran, G., & Riley, D. (2005, September). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38/
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. National Center for Education Statistics.
Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from “Why?” to “How?” International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(12).
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers' sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 150-159.
McTighe, J., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). Integrating UBD and DI. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pallegrino, J. (2006, November). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. A paper commissioned by the National Center on Education and the Economy for the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from http://www.skillscommission.org/?page_id=291
Platt, A., Tripp, C., Ogden, W., & Fraser, R. (2000). The skillful leader: Confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, MA: Ready About Press.
Reeves, Douglas B. (2004, November). 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. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.veanea.org/vea-journal/0502/February2005-AccountabilityataCrossroads.html
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Centers, Inc.
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde, T. (2007, Jan/Feb.). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68.
Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008, May). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245-272.
Sedere, U. (2008). Delineating an educational policy framework for the developing nations in meeting the emerging global challenges by year 2050. Online submission. Paper presented at the Annual J. E. Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture (18th, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Feb. 14, 2008). Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED500041&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED500041
Shorr, P. (2006, May). Special ed’s greatest challenge and solutions. Norwalk, CT: Professional Media Group.
Singh, D., & Stoloff, D. (2008, December). Assessment of teacher dispositions. College Student Journal, 42(4), 1169-1180.
Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. (2008, Summer). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Leadership Information. School Information and Research Service (SIRS), 7(3). Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/advocacy/other_resources/AssessmentManifesto08.pdf
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin.
Thornton, H. (2006, Spring). Teacher dispositions in action. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53-68.
Tilly, D. (2006, Winter). Perspectives. International Dyslexia Association quarterly periodical.
M., Mellard, D.F., & McKnight, M.A. (2007). Responsiveness
to intervention: An SLD determination resource [Brochure].
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001, February). Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting high-quality classrooms. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 85(622), 38-47.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Lawrence, KS: Pearson.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(13), 20-32.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society.
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to changing our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitecotton, C. (2009). Collaboration and Inclusive Learning. Leadership Magazine. (Volume 38: No. 4). March/April. Retrieved on March 16th, 2009 from Association of California State Administrators website: http://www.acsa.org/Default.aspx
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2008). Schooling by Design.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2008). Put Understanding First. Volume 65:Number 8. pages 36-41.
Zawislan, D. G. , 2008-10-15 "Connected
Learning: Theory in Action" Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the MWERA Annual Meeting, Westin Great Southern Hotel,
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.