Skip to main content

Home/ wcsgifted/ Group items tagged differentiation

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Eric Calvert

Differentiating Instruction For the Gifted - 1 views

www.kidsource.com/...diff_instruction.html

differentiation mixed ability Tomlinson wcsgifted gifted

shared by Eric Calvert on 21 Oct 09 - Cached
  • In a differentiated class, the teacher uses (1) a variety of ways for students to explore curriculum content, (2) a variety of sense-making activities or processes through which students can come to understand and "own" information and ideas, and (3) a variety of options through which students can demonstrate or exhibit what they have learned.
  • A class is not differentiated when assignments are the same for all learners and the adjustments consist of varying the level of difficulty of questions for certain students, grading some students harder than others, or letting students who finish early play games for enrichment. It is not appropriate to have more advanced learners do extra math problems, extra book reports, or after completing their "regular" work be given extension assignments. Asking students to do more of what they already know is hollow. Asking them to do "the regular work, plus" inevitably seems punitive to them (Tomlinson, 1995a).
  • Four characteristics shape teaching and learning in an effective differentiated classroom (Tomlinson, 1995a):
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Instruction is concept focused and principle driven.
  • On-going assessment of student readiness and growth are built into the curriculum.
  • Flexible grouping is consistently used. In a differentiated class, students work in many patterns. Sometimes they work alone, sometimes in pairs, sometimes in groups. Sometimes tasks are readiness-based, sometimes interest-based, sometimes constructed to match learning style, and sometimes a combination of readiness, interest, and learning style.
  • Students are active explorers. Teachers guide the exploration.
  • Adjustments based on learning profile encourage students to understand their own learning preferences.
  • Readiness-based adjustments can be created by teachers offering students a range of learning tasks developed along one or more of the following continua:
  • Concrete to abstract.
  • Simple to complex.
  • Basic to transformational.
  • Fewer facets to multi-facets.
  • Smaller leaps to greater leaps
  • More structured to more open.
  • Less independence to greater independence.
  • Quicker to slower.
  • Among instructional strategies that can help teachers manage differentiation and help students find a good learning "fit" are the following: use of multiple texts and supplementary materials; use of computer programs; interest centers; learning contracts; compacting; tiered sense-making activities and tiered products; tasks and products designed with a multiple intelligence orientation; independent learning contracts; complex instruction; group investigation; product criteria negotiated jointly by student and teacher; graduated task- and product-rubrics.
  • Teachers moving toward differentiated instruction in an inclusive, integrated middle school classroom find greater success if they (1) have a clear rationale for differentiation, (2) prepare students and parents for a differentiated classroom, (3) attend to issues of classroom structure and management as they move toward more student-centered learning, (4) move toward differentiation at a pace comfortable to both teacher and learners, and (5) plan with team members and other colleagues interested in differentiation
  • If middle school students differ in readiness, interest, and learning profiles, and if a good middle school attempts to meet each student where he or she is and foster continual growth, a one-size-fits-all model of instruction makes little sense. Rather, differentiated instruction seems a better solution for meeting the academic diversity that typifies the middle school years.
Suzanne Palmer

Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers - 7 views

www.davidsongifted.org/...Articles_id_10173.aspx

shared by Suzanne Palmer on 13 Apr 10 - Cached
  • September 1993
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 13 Apr 10
       
      I am concerned with the date of this article. Are her points still relevant?
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      I absolutely believe they are. I have read many more recent articles and journals that continue to support Rogers findings. I think that the organization of the article is reader-friendly addressing the different types of groupings as well as the social and emotional impact on students.
    • Eric Calvert
      Eric Calvert on 22 Apr 10
       
      In 2002, Rogers published a book (Re-Forming Gifted Education) covering similar territory but incorporating data from students between 1993 and 2002. Her conclusions in the more recent work were pretty consistent with the article from 93. The College of William and Mary also did an independent survey of the literature just a few years ago for the State of Ohio comparing pros and cons of different gifted service delivery models. In a nutshell, their summary was that models that include grouping elements, provide access to advanced content at a faster than typical pace, and are focused on a specific content area (vs., say, a general purpose pull-out "enrichment" program) tend to produce the biggest learning gains and are among the least costly models to implement. (Thus, I would wager that the reconfiguration of the middle school programs you all started this year will ultimately pay big dividends for kids down the road if you keep working together on differentiating curriculum and gradually articulating the program down to lower grade levels.)
  • have used one of the latter two approaches to research.
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 13 Apr 10
       
      I was pleased to see they used the approaches that can be quantified.
  • Gifted educators are now confronted with shoring up the erosion of years of effort:
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 14 Apr 10
       
      This statement seems to show some bias on the part of the author.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      I think that we all know how hard it is to get something back that has been cut from budget. Gifted programming of any kind is often one of the first things cut from a budget when there needs to be cuts. Gifted can be an easy target in Ohio because gifted programming is currently not mandated and often times the test scores of our identified students show they are doing "OK".
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • from the minority who have been chronically underserved
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      I might argue that the "middle" would be the most chronically underserved group.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      I would be interested in more detail on this.
  • in which the top 5-8 gifted learners at a grade level
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      Is she saying here that only the top 5-8 students per grade level would be served using this model? If not, it would seem that each building would need almost all teachers to be a trained teacher of the gifted in order to be able to service all students with a gifted ID.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      Yes, I believe that is what she is saying. In most of the research I have done in clustering, it is recommended to have 5-7 in an identified area together. We began clustering in reading and math in our 4th and 5th grade classes this year throughout the district. We found that the majority of the buildings had enough students to support a cluster either in reading and/or math and the training of that teacher. In 2 of our larger buildings, they actually had enough where they could have a couple of math and reading classes with a cluster of math or reading identified students.
  • substantial academic gains for elementary learners at all ability levels in mathematics,
  • substantial academic gains in reading and some evidence of similar gains in mathematics for students of all ability levels.
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      I find it interesting that cross grade grouping seems to be most affective for reading and the within-class grouping seems to be most affective in mathematics. I do not see this as reflective as what is currently happening in Westerville.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      Please expand.
  • a small decline in self-esteem for subject acceleration,
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      Teachers of 6th grade Pre Algebra have been concerned with some of the stress-levels exhibited by students - such as pulling out eyelashes and the inability to cope with not understanding a specific concept.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      Interesting, there are a couple of things to consider with the behaviors exhibited by these gifted students. For some of our brightest students, it can be difficult for them when they are faced with something that is a challenge for them for the first time. Many of our gifted learners exhibit characteristics of perfectionism as well. I hope that these teachers are working with our middle school coordinators to address some of these social and emotional concerns. If not, that is something that I would strongly recommend.
  • She found greater numbers of ethnic minorities and the economically disadvantaged in the lower track classes.
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      This would be my concern with ability grouping at all levels. While it may be appropriate for gifted learners, I do think the lower track can give students all the opportunities that should be afforded them.
    • Suzanne Palmer
      Suzanne Palmer on 20 Apr 10
       
      I agree. That is a nice benefit of clustering. I recently read The Cluster Grouping Handbook which talks about the appropriate way to cluster students and I think the way Susan Winebrenner has done it really makes sense to help raise the bar for all students.
  • It is important that we change this situation, seek to understand its causes, while at the same time we continue to provide appropriate ability grouping options to our identified gifted and talented.
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      I agree!
  • appreciate the diversity in their society
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      I will say that my daughters who attended WNHS greatly benefited from both the diversity of the school and the diversity of their classes. When they left for college and entered the world of work, they had a nice glimpse into the "real world" and I think are better adjusted for it.
  • It is important to note that the coverage vs. mastery dilemma exists in all whole-class group-paced instruction
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      I think the points made in the Differentiation article would dispute this.
  • This in turn may lead to an even more precipitous decline in national test scores than we have already been witnessing since the 1960s.
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      Is this the case? What has happened in the 17 years since this article was written?
  • Just as we readily acknowledge the complexity of the learning process, we must acknowledge that no simple solution
    • Laura Hance
      Laura Hance on 15 Apr 10
       
      The other article we were asked to read is a PDF, which does not support Diigo. However, I fully agree with the points made regarding differentiation. Done appropriately, I think this is the best model to benefit ALL students.
Suzanne Palmer

Westerville City Schools Office of Gifted Education - 5 views

www.westerville.k12.oh.us/administrativeDepartment.aspx

shared by Suzanne Palmer on 09 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Suzanne Palmer on 09 Feb 10
     
    After reviewing the Identification brochure (accessible on the right-hand side of this site) and ODE's "Who is Gifted in Ohio by Law and Rule?", what questions do you have about the gifted identification process in Ohio or Westerville? What do you see as the biggest challenge in the gifted identification process in Westerville?
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Laura Hance on 16 Feb 10
     
    So. . .do you know that if you are writing a comment about link, and click back on the link to look something up, when you return to our wcsgifted page, everything you have typed up to that point is gone ARGHHHH!!!!! Tip of the day: Always click Post before navigating away from this page!
  • Laura Hance on 16 Feb 10
     
    And I was just about finished with this assignment - kinda like the dog ate my homework! It appears as if the Westerville identification process follows the criteria outlined by the Ohio Department of Education. I would say that the broad range of gifted identification would be the greatest challenge. I also wonder about the 4 year age gap between the two grade levels when screening instruments are administered. The developmental differences between a student in Grade 2 and a student in Grade 6 are vast. I am aware that students can be identified by other means as well; however I would venture to believe that a majority of students are identified by these group screening tools. I am curious why students are not rescreened earlier than Grade 6?
  • Laura Hance on 16 Feb 10
     
    My final comment has to do with the technology piece of this course. I am still trying to differentiate between the advantages of using the Wiki and the advantages of using Diigo. I was thinking that Diigo was a tool to organize Online Resources and the Wiki was a forum for discussion and uploading other resources. If that is the case, would this assignment not be better off posted on the Wiki - perhaps creating a new page in the Ashland folder entitled "Identifying the Gifted - What are the Challenges?" where we could post comments and respond to each other? I'm struggling a little with the organization of the two sites and how they work together - any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks:-) Hope everyone is enjoying our winter wonderland!
  • Suzanne Palmer on 17 Feb 10
     
    Thanks for sharing the interesting tidbit of information about posting. Sorry for the frustration. I guess I should address your final comment as this seems like the appropriate place to comment. It is my understanding that the Wiki is not suited to the discussion but the Diigo is. Eric, can you comment as well on this?
  • Suzanne Palmer on 17 Feb 10
     
    Laura, You raise some valid questions in the time between whole group testing. We started testing in 2nd grade because years ago our gifted programming did begin in 3rd grade so 2nd grade testing information was used for that purpose. About 6 years ago when we went through all of the cuts, we lost our 3rd grade programming but by that time we were a BFK district and needed that 2nd grade data point so whole group testing has remained there. Also, up until a few years ago, the next whole group testing opportunity did take place at 5th grade. When 5th grade began testing 4 areas for the OAT, it was my understanding that the decision was made to move it to 6th grade because of the overwhelming amount of testing at that grade level. 6th grade only had the reading amd math OATs. You raise the same question that many people ask. Another important factor to consider is that testing is expensive.I don't know if we will be able to get that changed or not. We are in compliance with the state and our identification. And you are correct that we do offer individual testing based on referrals but this is a small majority of our students who are identified in this way.
  • Eric Calvert on 22 Apr 10
     
    On the "Wiki vs. Diigo" question, my opinion is that Diigo has better features for facilitating discussions. (However, discussion is possible in the wiki as well to a certain extent using the "comment" feature at the bottom of most pages.) Diigo, though, lets you comment on specific sections of most web resources and can "thread" discussions, which the comment feature of PBWorks does not support. While Diigo and PBWorks do have some overlapping features, I mainly use PBWorks to collaboratively CREATE new content or share already-made resources that are not elsewhere online (e.g. policy documents, curriculum maps, or unit/lesson plans that would otherwise be locked in a physical file cabinet or on one teacher's local hard drive.) I mainly use Diigo to bookmark, annotate, and share resources that are already online. (For example, interesting online articles, lesson plans from online curriculum repositories etc.) Occasionally, though, I will use the two tools in tandem -- for example, creating a page using PBWorks which I then bookmark into Diigo. (Remember that the pages you make in the wiki are really web pages, so you can use Diigo's tools on top of them, and share and discuss them with anyone who also has access to the wiki.) For example, on other projects, my collaborators and I have started "draft" documents as wiki pages and then used Diigo to comment on the draft and suggest changes and additions.) Long story short, though, think of the wiki as a place to collaborative make new things, and think of Diigo as a place to store, share, find and talk about things that are already out on the web. Hope this helps clarify things a bit. If not, though, please let me know.
  • Laura Hance on 23 Apr 10
     
    Thanks for the clarification - this does help. So. . . when asked to view and comment on a Power Point or a PDF document. . . what is the best way to do this? I know these can these these be uploaded into the Wiki, but then are they actually part of the webpage or a separate entity. From what you are saying, if they are part of the webpage, we should be able to use the Diigo tools??? Just clarifying again. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this better.
  • Eric Calvert on 23 Apr 10
     
    No problem -- glad to hear that made some sesne. Technically, when a web page links to a PowerPoint file, the file isn't really "part of" the webpage in the sense that the actual content of the PowerPoint presentation gets added to the HTML that makes up the webpage. The PowerPoint file is still a separate entity, but the link tells your web browser where on the Internet to find it. ("Uploading" a file to the wiki actually makes a copy of your original document on a remote web server, where it also gets assigned a unique web address. When you create a link to an uploaded file, then, you're not really embedding the actual file in the wiki page, but a quick-and-easy way to access that file.) Unfortunately, the only way to make comments within PowerPoint files (on a "slide by slide" basis) is to use the commenting features in the PowerPoint program itself, then re-save and re-upload your commented version, so this gets tedious pretty quickly if you're trying to have an ongoing online conversation.) It's a similar story with PDF files. It's really a matter of personal preference whether to comment on a PPT or PDF file you link to from a wiki page using diigo or the wiki itself. Personally, I'd probably opt to do it in Diigo just because I like its commenting features better than the ones in PBWorks and because doing it in Diigo would make it part of my Diigo library, which means I could quickly find it again in the future if I needed it without having to remember where it is. I'm in a bunch of different wikis that overlap topics, so sometimes if I read something that I want to find again in six months or a year I have trouble remembering if it was in Wiki A, Wiki B, or Wiki C. Therefore, having a central index like my Diigo library in helps keep me from losing stuff and saves me time searching for things I've read in the past and want to access again. Hope you have a good weekend.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page