Perhaps the most powerful way to capture the essence of something is through the use of analogy, illustration, or metaphor. As you are aware already, there are a number of metaphors associated with DI (e.g., Tomlinson’s “Teaching as Jazz”).
Consider the following metaphor as a way of thinking about the interconnectedness of UbD, UDL, and DI.
A DI-Cycling Coach
Imagine the role of the teacher in a differentiated classroom is like that of a coach for a team of 25 DI-cyclists who must traverse a certain distance over hillside terrain – in tandem. The race is no race at all, but a mission with a destination. There is no individual winner; the goal concerns the composite time of all members of the team. The task as coach is to support the progress of all riders maximally so that progress for each results in progress for all. The coach must find ways to support riders who encounter adversity, barriers, flat tires, chain derailment, and road conditions. Because the team of riders is diverse, alternate routes are explored to match each rider’s optimal riding trajectory. The coach accepts the challenge and opportunity of working with each rider to make the best decisions possible based on the gears available at the present time and in relation to the riding conditions. The coach must develop ways to monitor each rider’s progress, even when alternate avenues are taken.
My hope is that the metaphor draws enough from common understanding of classroom imagery and bicycling imagery that it is accessible to all. The words placed in bold are an attempt to draw attention to words that have significance and are linked to educational counterpart concepts. This metaphor may be helpful in tying together various facets of the DI perspective:
While most are already familiar with the image of implementing a DI classroom being like the “scaffolding” supports needed during a building process, some may find the DI-cycling Coach metaphor helpful because it reflects the following realizations:
To extend the analogy further, pause a minute and consider your own “cyclists,” the “terrain” they must “ride,” and how you as “coach” can help them avoid “barriers” that cause delays or impede “progress.” Can you see yourself as a coach of that cycling team? Are you already picturing the string of riders spread out across the terrain of hills? What would you do if one of your riders suddenly got a flat tire? What happens if a rider’s “chain” falls off? Are any of your riders “coasting”? Does anyone need to have his or her “brakes” adjusted? Is everyone wearing a helmet?
The degree to which you can make these connections will indicate how strongly you identify with a DI approach in general. Jackson (2009) states that teachers should pay attention to the metaphors they choose to represent their personal teaching philosophy because they are powerful clues to the beliefs we hold (p. 34). If you find yourself coming up with questions like, “What’s the point of riding unless there’s a winner?” or “Isn’t it unfair to put faster riders on the same team as slower riders?” or “Can’t we just move up the finish line for some riders?” then these kinds of questions reflect deeply held beliefs.
The DI-cycling Coach metaphor is designed to create a response, or what I call a “DI watershed moment.” A watershed is simply the ridge of a mountaintop that determines where rain or snow will travel after it falls. Depending on where it lands, rain or snow descends down one side or the other. Slight variations in placement as rain or snow falls can determine final destinations that are drastically different. Educationally speaking, slight variations at the outset of our teaching approach (or PTP) can lead to dramatically different destinations for us as well as for those who travel with us. Jackson and other researchers suggest that the key to fully understanding how widespread these results can be is to start by evaluating our beliefs and values as a teacher. To return to the comparison between “traditional” and “DI” classrooms, the distance between these ends up being significant, but starts with beliefs that nudge a teacher’s starting point, or principles, in one direction or another. That is why this course is offering a “DI watershed moment” for you to determine which side of the mountain you are coming down on, Station 1 or Station 5.
Pause and reflect on the ways that your own classroom may already reflect elements of UbD, DI, and UDL as outlined in the DI-cycling Coach metaphor. It is hoped that at this point in the course(s) you already have a strong sense of whether you regard yourself as a teacher who differentiates. A question to reflect further on is whether the students you teach would agree with your self-assessment. Would your colleagues, parents, or supervisor agree?
Review Items from Integration of UbD and DI (McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006)
McTighe and Tomlinson (2006) organized the Axioms and Corollaries in such a way that the Axioms reflect a UbD emphasis and the Corollaries reflect how DI guides implementation. Here again are the axioms that reflect the UbD components and the corollaries that reflect the DI components (pp. 4-10):
Axiom 1 (UbD)
The primary goal of quality curriculum design is to develop and deepen student
understanding.
Corollaries for Axiom 1 (DI)
• All students benefit from and are entitled to curriculum that develops
and deepens their understanding.
• Given variance in student ability, experience, opportunity, language,
interest, and adult support, students will grow at different rates and require varied
support systems to develop and deepen their understanding.
Axiom 2 (UbD)
Evidence of student understanding is revealed when students apply (transfer)
knowledge in authentic contexts.
Corollaries for Axiom 2 (DI)
• Such authentic applications will reveal varying degrees of proficiency
and sophistication in students’ knowledge, understanding, and skill.
• The most effective teachers use the evidence of variance in student
proficiency to provide opportunities and support to ensure that each student
continues to develop and deepen knowledge, understanding, and skill from
his or her current point of proficiency, interests, and learning preferences.
Axiom 3 (UbD)
Developing effective curriculum following the principles of backward
design (described in Chapter 3 and explored throughout the book) helps
avoid the twin problems of textbook coverage and activity-oriented teaching
in which no clear priorities and purposes are apparent.
Corollaries for Axiom 3 (DI)
• All learners benefit from and should receive instruction that reflects
clarity about purposes and priorities of content.
• Struggling learners require focus on the truly essential knowledge,
understanding, and skill of a unit to ensure that their efforts are most efficient
and potent in moving them forward in reliable ways.
• Advanced learners need challenge predicated on what is essential in a
discipline so that their time is accorded value and their strengths are developed
in ways that move them consistently toward expertise in the
disciplines.
Axiom 4 (UbD)
Regular reviews of curriculum and assessment designs, based on design
standards, provide quality control and inform needed adjustments. Regular
reviews of “results” (i.e., student achievement) should be followed by needed
adjustments to curriculum and instruction.
Corollaries to Axiom 4 (DI)
• Results of reviews will inevitably show variation among students in
essential knowledge, understanding, and skills.
• Results-based adjustments to curriculum and instruction should be
targeted to the individual as well as to the class as a whole.
• Results-based adjustments will require flexible use of time, teacher
attention, materials, student groupings, and other classroom elements to
ensure continued development and deepening of students’ understanding.
Axiom 5 (UbD)
Teachers provide opportunities for students to explore, interpret, apply, shift
perspectives, empathize, and self-assess. These six facets provide conceptual
lenses through which student understanding is assessed.
Corollaries to Axiom 5 (DI)
• All students should be guided and supported in thinking in complex
ways.
• It is not the case that struggling learners must master the basics before
they can engage in thinking. Rather, evidence clearly suggests that for most
students, mastery and understanding come through, not after, meaningful
interaction with ideas.
• Nonetheless, students will differ in the level of sophistication of their
thinking and understanding at a given time.
• Teachers should be prepared to provide opportunity and support to
continually develop students’ understandings and capacities as thinkers.
Axiom 6 (UbD)
Teachers, students, and districts benefit by “working smarter” and using
technology and other vehicles to collaboratively design, share, and critique
units of study.
Corollaries to Axiom 6 (DI)
• Students also benefit when teachers share understandings about students’
learning needs, classroom routines, and instructional approaches to
ensure that each student develops knowledge, understanding, and skills as
fully as possible.
• A routine part of collaboration in academically diverse classrooms
should take place between teachers and specialists who have expert knowledge
about student needs and instructional approaches most likely to respond
effectively to those needs.
• Technology should be used to address varied learner needs and to
assist the teacher in keeping track of student growth toward important curricular
goals.
Axiom 7 (UbD)
UbD is a way of thinking, not a program. Educators adapt its tools and materials
with the goal of promoting better student understanding.
Corollaries to Axiom 7 (DI)
• Differentiated instruction is a way of thinking, not a formula or recipe.
Educators draw on, apply, and adapt its tools with the goal of maximizing
knowledge, understanding, and skill for the full range of learners.
• Effective differentiation guides educators in thinking effectively about
whom they teach, where they teach, and how they teach in order to ensure
that what they teach provides each student with maximum power as
learners.
Review of Universal Design for Learning Principles
Those who are aware of the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) may see yet another backward design process that could complement the integration of UbD and DI. UDL principles, as was noted in Why DI?, present a thorough framework for creating accessible learning environments and is extremely helpful for teachers who want to address barriers to learning proactively. With its roots in architecture design, UDL has numerous applications for teachers designing learning environments so that all students may access the general education curriculum on cognitive, perceptual, emotional, psychological, and physical levels.
Three primary principles guide UDL—and provide structure for the UDL Guidelines:
Principle I: Provide Multiple Means of Representation (the “what” of learning). Students differ in the ways in which they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or deafness), learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), language or cultural differences, and so forth may all require different ways of approaching content. Others may simply grasp information better through visual or auditory means rather than via a printed text. In reality, there is no one means of representation that will be optimal for all students; providing options in representation is essential.
Principle II: Provide Multiple Means of Expression (the “how” of learning). Students differ in the ways in which they can navigate a learning environment and express what they know. For example, individuals with significant motor disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy), those who struggle with strategic and organizational abilities (executive function disorders, ADHD), those who have language barriers, and so forth, approach learning tasks very differently and will demonstrate their mastery very differently. Some may be able to express themselves well in writing text, but not in speech, and vice versa. In reality, there is no one means of expression that will be optimal for all students; providing options for expression is essential.
Principle III: Provide Multiple Means of Engagement (the “why” of learning). Students differ markedly in the ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn. Some students are highly engaged by spontaneity and novelty, whereas others are disengaged, even frightened, by those aspects, preferring strict routine. In reality, there is no one means of representation that will be optimal for all students; providing multiple options for engagement is essential.
Just as it made sense to see the essential partnership between UbD and DI, so too many who differentiate see a similar opportunity to overlay the principles of UDL onto UbD/DI.