Why DI?:
An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator: Professor
Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Phone: 509-891-7219
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday –
Friday
Email: steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Technical Support: support@virtualeduc.com
Introduction
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. Participants will learn how a differentiated
approach invites educators to consider any approach that supports student
access to the general education curriculum and success in learning.
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.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software,
inc. 2011, Revised 2015, Revised 2018
Academic Integrity
Statement
The structure and format of most distance-learning
courses presumes a high level of personal and academic integrity in completion
and submission of coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning
course are expected to adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
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.
Course Objectives
- Understand how differentiated instruction is
defined.
- Articulate why
differentiated instruction is not a prescriptive approach.
- Outline the major elements
within a classroom that teachers typically differentiate.
- Explain the role of
curriculum and instruction in a differentiated classroom.
- Relate ways in which
differentiated instruction may be useful when creating a personal teaching
philosophy.
- Identify the core principles
of classrooms reflecting a differentiated instructional approach.
- Outline the current
systems-level, theoretical, legal, and pedagogical foundation for
differentiation.
- Identify ways in which
differentiated instruction compares and contrasts
with specially designed instruction for students with disabilities.
- Explain how assessment in a
classroom best exemplifies a differentiated approach.
- Articulate the primary
methods for obtaining information about student interests, preferences,
and overall learning profile.
- Understand the rationale for
synthesis between leading curricular design method, Understanding by
Design (UBD), and the differentiated instruction approach.
- Distinguish elements of a
differentiated approach from those of a non-differentiated, or “one size
fits all” approach.
14. Analyze ways in which a
differentiated approach addresses the role of ESSA in shaping professional practice
and understanding of quality teaching.
15. Understand the systemic pressures placed upon teachers
and ways in which differentiation helps re-focus attention on the needs of
students.
16. Outline a framework for motivating all students in a
way that is respectful, student-centered, and reflective of a differentiated
approach.
17. Relate to differentiated instruction’s concept of
reciprocity of accountability for success of both teachers and students.
18. Articulate how the current emphasis on teacher beliefs
about learning and dispositions toward students are embraced within a
differentiated approach.
19. Articulate barriers that exist for those who are
genuinely interested in implementing a differentiated approach.
20. Articulate the role of the teacher, student, and
parents in a differentiated classroom.
21. Articulate the ways in which administrators can
support teachers who are implementing a differentiated classroom.
22. Discuss an expanded concept of diversity and learner
variance to which teachers must respond.
23. Identify characteristics of and initial strategies for
creating a culturally responsive approach to student diversity.
24. Assess current understanding of and willingness to
implement a classroom aligned with differentiated instructional approach.
25.
Understand how a differentiated approach welcomes other approaches as broad as
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) or as specific as Explicit Instruction.
Course Description
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
Course Overview
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.
Student Expectations
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%, 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 a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Examinations
At the end of
each chapter, 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. Your final grade for the course
will be determined by calculating an average score of all exams. This score will be printed on your final
certificate. 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.
Facilitator
Description
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 grades K–12. The primary goal of the course is to provide both an accurate overview of the approach and 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 has served as a district-level and regional-level administrator overseeing a variety of federal programs, such as Special Education and Title 1. 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 19 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. He currently serves as a special programs administrator, overseeing multiple programs ranging from institutional education settings (juvenile detention) and K–12 social emotional programs designed to support students whose disability interferes with their academic learning. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Instructor
Description
Pamela Bernards
has 30 years of combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as
a teacher and an administrator. In
addition to these responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K-8
after-school care program and founder of a pre-school program for infants to
4-year-olds. As a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of
Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which
she served as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently serves as a
principal in a PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include curriculum,
research-based teaching practices, staff development, assessment, data-driven
instruction, and instructional intervention (remediation and gifted/talented).
She received a doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca
Nazarene University. Please contact
Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Contacting
the Facilitator
You
may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com 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.
Technical Questions
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 support@virtualeduc.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.
Bibliography (Suggested
Abbott,
J., & MacTaggart, H. (2010). Overschooled
but undereducated: Society’s failure to understand adolescence. London, UK:
Continuum.
Access
Center. (2000). Universal design to support access to the general education
curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/differentiationmodule.asp
Ainsworth,
L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying
the standards that matter the most. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Bayse,
D., & Grant, P. (2014). Personalized
learning: A guide for engaging students with technology. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
E-book downloaded from https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/education/k12-personalized-learning-guidebook.pdf
Bayse,
D. (2018). Personalized vs.
differentiated vs. individualized learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=124
Bluestein,
J. (2008). The win-win classroom: A fresh
and positive look at classroom management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bourbour,
C. B. (2005, February). Pupil personnel management: A problem-solving model for
special education’s ‘storms.’ The School
Administrator, 62(2). Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8800
Bridgeland,
J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr., & Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives on high school dropouts.
Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Brooks,
M., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18–24.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov99/vol57/num03/The-Courage-to-Be-Constructivist.aspx
Carroll,
A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L., et al (2009).
Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school students: The
mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 797–817. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.009
CAST.
(2008). Guidelines for Universal Design
for Learning 1.0. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/UDLguidelines/UDL_Guidelines_v1.0.doc
CAST
(2011). Universal Design for Learning
Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
CAST
(2018). Universal Design for Learning
Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Caine,
R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2005). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: The fieldbook for making
connections, teaching, and the human brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Center
on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). Progress monitoring briefs. Retrieved from
https://www.rti4success.org/resource/progress-monitoring-briefs
Centers
for Disease Control. (2018). School
connectedness resources. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
Christensen,
C. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma.
New York, NY: HarperCollins.
City,
E.., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving
teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Collins,
J. (2001). Good to great. New York,
NY: Harper Business.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Danielson,
C. (2007). Enhancing professional
practice: a framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson,
C. (2009). Implementing the framework for
teaching in enhancing professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson,
C. (2009). Talk about teaching: Leading
professional conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson,
C. (2013). Framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson,
M., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher
evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond,
L., Bransford, J., LePage, P., & Hammerness, K. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Boss.
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, NY: New Press.
Diamond,
A. (2009). All or none hypothesis: A global-default mode that characterizes the
brain and mind. Developmental Psychology,
45, 130–138.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T.
(2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/305/learning-in-a-plc-student-by-student-target-by-target
DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2016, July 8). Student
grouping in a PLC [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/32/Student+Grouping+in+a+PLC
Dweck,
C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology
of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Elmore,
R. (2002, January). Building capacity to enhance learning: A conversation. Principal Leadership, 2(5).
Fuchs,
L. S., & Fuchs, D. (n.d.). What is scientifically-based
research on progress monitoring? National
Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502460.pdf
Fullan,
M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s
worth fighting for in the schools. New York, NY: 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, NY: Basic Books.
Gay, G.
(2000). Theory, research
and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G.
(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. Retrieved from https://www.cwu.edu/teaching-learning/sites/cts.cwu.edu.teaching-learning/files/documents/PreparingforCulturallyResponsiveTeaching,GenevaGay.pdf
Ginsberg,
M., & Wlodkowski, R. (2000). Creating
highly motivating classrooms for all students: A schoolwide approach to
powerful teaching with diverse learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glasser,
W. (1969). Schools without failure.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser,
W. (1986). Control theory in the
classroom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser,
W. (1992). The quality school: Managing
students without coercion. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Gregory,
G., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated
instructional strategies: One size does not fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gregory, G. (2011). Differentiated instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey,
T. (2007). Using assessments to improve teaching and learning. In D. Reeves
(Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 15–29). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
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
Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A.
(2004). Differentiated instruction and
implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html
Hall, T., & Vue, G. (2004). Explicit Instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing
the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2002/ncac-explicit-instruction.html
Hattie,
J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis
of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heacox,
D. (2009). Making differentiation a
habit: How to ensure success in academically diverse classrooms. Minneapolis,
MN: Free Spirit.
Herbold, J. (2012). Curriculum mapping and
research-based practice: Helping students find the path to full potential. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education,
13, 40–43. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976481
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and
growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of
adversity. Journal of International
Educational Research, 11(1), 47–50. Retrieved from http://www.alearningboxblog.com/uploads/5/8/0/2/58020745/fixed_and_growth_mindset_in_education_and_how_grit_helps_in_the_face_of_adversity.pdf
Honawar,
V. (2008, March). Teacher education community is striving to interpret
candidate “dispositions.” Education Week,
27(28), 1, 13. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fwww.edweek.org%2few%2ftoc%2f2008%2f03%2f19%2findex.html
Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2005, March).
Differentiating curriculum and instruction for English-language learners with
special needs. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 40(4), 231–235.
Howell,
K., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based
evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Thompson.
IES What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Practice guide: Organizing instruction and
study to improve student learning. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/1
Instructional
design/SAMR model/What is the SAMR model? (2018, May). Wikiversity. Retrieved from
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Instructional_design/SAMR_Model/What_is_the_SAMR_Model%3F
Jackson,
R. (2009). Never work harder than your
students & other principles of great teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum access for students
with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of universal design for learning.
Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links
updated 2011). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2005/ncac-curriculum-access-low-incidence-udl.html
Jacobs,
H. (2004). Getting results with
curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Jensen,
E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new
paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karger, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal interpretation. Retrieved from https://ollibean.com/access-to-the-general-curriculum-for-students-with-disabilities-a-brief-legal-interpretation-2/
Klinger, J., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E.,
Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., . . . 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 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38/
Learning First Alliance. (2000). The
process of professional development. Retrieved from www.learningfirst.org
Lewis,
L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999,
January). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf
Lipton,
L., & Wellman, B. (2013). Learning-focused
supervision: Developing professional expertise in standards-driven systems.
Charlotte, VT: MiraVia.
Loreman,
T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from “Why?”
to “How?” International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 3(12). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=6289E10A91A8BD6DB3AD670C0B71E463?doi=10.1.1.562.6943&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Loreman,
T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an
instrument for measuring preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns
about inclusive education. International
Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 150–159. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ814498.pdf
Marzano,
R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
McClean,
K. (n.d.). Student progress monitoring: What this means for your child. National Center on Student Progress
Monitoring. Retrieved from https://rti4success.org/sites/default/files/whatthismeans.pdf
McTighe,
J., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). Integrating
UBD and DI. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Medina,
J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA:
Pear Press.
National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core
State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally designed leadership: Applying
UDL to systems and schools. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
NYU Steinhardt, School of Culture, Education, and
Human Development. (2008). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction
strategies. Retrieved from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/120/Culturally%20Responsive%20Differientiated%20Instruction.pdf
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 from http://www.skillscommission.org/?page_id=291
Payne,
R. (2008). Under-resourced learners: 8
strategies to boost student achievement. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process.
Platt,
A., Tripp, C., Ogden, W., & Fraser, R. (2000). The skillful leader: Confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, MA:
Ready About Press.
Reeves,
D. (2000). Accountability in action: A
blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Centers.
Reeves,
D., & Wiggs, M. D. (2012). Navigating
implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Englewood, CO:
Leadership and Learning Center.
Reeves,
D. 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 from http://www.veanea.org/vea-journal/0502/February2005AccountabilityataCrossroads.html
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. Paper presented at the Annual J. E. Jayasuriya
Memorial Lecture (Colombo, Sri Lanka, February 14, 2008). Retrieved 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.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How
neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2018). Differentiation and the brain: How
neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd
ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
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. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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 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, NY: Penguin.
Thornton,
H. (2006, Spring). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in
practice? Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2),
53–68.
Thousand,
J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction: Collaboratively planning and teaching for
universally designed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tilly,
D. (2006, Winter). Perspectives. International Dyslexia Association quarterly
periodical.
Tollefson,
J. M., Mellard, D. F., & McKnight, M. A. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: An SLD determination resource [Brochure].
Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
Tomlinson,
C. A. (1999). Differentiated instruction.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson,
C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and
differentiation. Educational Leadership,
58(1), 6–11. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/sept00/vol58/num01/Reconcilable_Differences%C2%A2_Standards-Based_Teaching_and_Differentiation.aspx
Tomlinson,
C. A. (2001, February). Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting
high-quality classrooms. NASSP Bulletin,
85(622), 38–47. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.535.5968&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tomlinson,
C. A. (2001). How to differentiate
instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson,
C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational
Leadership, 61(2), 6–11. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct03/vol61/num02/Deciding-to-Teach-Them-All.aspx
Tomlinson,
C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: making revolutionary changes in teaching and
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and
Understanding by Design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a
differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., &
Sousa, D. (2018). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd ed.).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Turnbull,
A., Turnbull H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Lawrence,
KS: Pearson.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College- and
career-ready standards. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/k-12reforms/standards
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College- and
career-ready standards and assessments. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/college-career.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.
Whitecotton,
C. (2009, March/April). Collaboration and inclusive learning. Leadership Magazine, 38(4). Retrieved
from Association of California State Administrators website: http://www.acsa.org/Default.aspx
Wiggins,
G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding
by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wiggins,
G., & McTighe, J. (2008). (Educational
Leadership, 65(8), 36–41. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may08/vol65/num08/Put-Understanding-First.aspx
Wiggins,
G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Schooling
by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wiliam,
D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Wormeli,
R. (2001). Meet me in the middle:
Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Herndon, VA: Stenhouse.
Wormeli,
R. (2006). Fair isn’t
always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
Yamaguchi, R., & Hall, A. (2017). A compendium of education technology research
funded by NCER and NCSER: 2002-2014 (NCER 2017-0001) Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Available at http://ies.ed.gov/
Zawislan,
D. G. (2008, October 15). Connected
learning: Theory in action. Paper presented at the MWERA Annual Meeting,
Westin Great Southern Hotel, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p275553_index.html
Resources on Developing a Personal Teaching Philosophy
(PTP):
Ohio State University: University Center for the
Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from: https://drakeinstitute.osu.edu/instructor-support/teaching-portfolio-development/philosophy-teaching-statement
University of Minnesota: Center for Innovation in
Education.
https://cei.umn.edu/support-services/tutorials/writing-teaching-philosophy
Differentiation Resources by Selected State:
Kentucky Department of
Education
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Documents/StrategiesThatDifferentiateInstruction4.12.pdf
Elementary
Differentiation Resource
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/default.aspx
Secondary
Differentiation Resource
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/differentationSecResources.aspx
Universal
Design for Learning
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Pages/UDL.aspx
UDL
Crosswalk with Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FfT)
https://education.ky.gov/educational/diff/Documents/FFT_UDL_Crosswalk.pdf
US Department of Education
Resources
Dear
Colleague Letter on Students with Disabilities and FAPE:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf
Parent Center Hub
(Resources for Parents of students with disabilities)
http://www.parentcenterhub.org/brief-fape/
US
Department of Ed Tech (USDET)
National Ed Tech Plan (ETP)
IES What Works Clearinghouse Resources (Find What
Works)
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW
Other Helpful Websites
http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2002/ncac-explicit-instruction.html
http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-graphic-organizers-udl.html
http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/32/Student+Grouping+in+a+PLC
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/school_connectedness.htm
Center on Response to
Intervention publications: https://www.rti4success.org/resources/publications
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976481
Every Student Succeeds Act: https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
NAEP website: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
College
and Career Readiness Standards, Reading:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
College
and Career Readiness Standards, Writing:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/W/
College
and Career Readiness Standards, Speaking and Listening:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/SL/
College
and Career Readiness Standards, Language:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/L/
http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/SevenStepProcesstoCreatingStandards-basedIEPs.pdf
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (2007). A 7-step process for creating standards-based IEPs. Retrieved
from http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/SevenStepProcesstoCreatingStandards-basedIEPs.pdf
National Center for Accessing the General Education
Curriculum (NCAC).
http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2005/ncac-curriculum-access-low-incidence-udl.html
National Center for Accessible Educational Material
(AEM).
National Center for
Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt). (2009). http://www.nccrest.org/