Differentiated Instruction is the latest educational philosophy
to sprout wings and take the great self serving mantra of the
desk bound pedagogically clueless academician. Every child gets instruction based on individual interest, learning preference,
learning style, readiness level, ability, preferred mode of learning
and thats just to start. Wow, what planet are they from! I am one
teacher with 27 students and you want all that plus a cup of tea. Differentiated Instruction sounds like a wonderful Orwellian lie designed to keep teachers bouncing around like pinballs doing senseless retort with all students suffering mediocrity. I have a very simple educational philosophy “Teach to the TOP” and drag everyones learning style along for the ride! Individual interest, learning preference, learning style, readiness level, ability, preferred mode of learning is moot if you can not read! I teach ALL students to read and reason without excuses or exceptions. What data has been submitted to the WWC that proves this philosophy has efficacy?
门门懂,样样瘟 (“All trades known, all trades dull”)
三脚猫 (“A cat with only 3 legs”)
万宝全书缺只角 (“樣樣通,樣樣鬆 (“All trades known, all trades dull”)
An encyclopedia with one corner missing”)
周身刀,無張利 (“Surrounded by knives, none are sharp”)
El que mucho abarca poco aprieta (“Who embraces too much, has a weak grasp”).
Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada (“Apprentice of everything, master of nothing”).
Un océano de conocimiento de una pulgada de profundidad (“An ocean of knowledge of an inch deep”).
A todo le tiras, y a nada le pegas (“You shoot for everything, but you hit nothing”).
همه‌کاره و هیچ‌کاره (“One tries to do everything, but is capable of doing nothing”).Πολυτεχνίτης και ερημοσπίτης (“He who knows a lot of crafts lives in an empty house”).

No, I didn’t–a nicely balanced article, I think. Only one recommendation causes me pause: “Respond to individual student differences (such as learning style, prior knowledge, interests, and level of engagement).” Of course, we have to respond to prior knowledge–that we can objectively measure and teach to… the others are pure bunk: Learning style has been thoroughly debunked; interests moves to student choice issue, and I’m not sure what is meant by “level of engagement.”

ted

As a staff developer and district reading specialist for five years in Elk Grove Unified (the third largest school district in California), I had the opportunity to visit countless elementary classrooms. Student-choice learning including “Learning Centers,” “Free-Choice Fridays,” unsupervised “SSR” (student selected books with no accountability), “Learning Style” assignments in which kinesthetic learners acted out, rather than wrote essays, “Multiple Intelligences Learning” in which students could choose to create a written report, oral report, a song/rap, or create a model… I could go on… were prominent features of most classrooms. Not only was a substantial portion of the daily content in the hands of students, teachers also devolved the methods of learning to their students via student choice. Reading test scores hovered in the 40th percentiles for years, especially in the middle and lower SES schools.

Enter a swing in the pendulum and a return to phonics-based instruction with Open Court® reading: a scripted instructional block and “workshop” in which reading instruction was differentiated according to formative data. Most teachers hated the tightly-bound curriculum and, especially, the organized “workshop.” No teacher choice there and no student choice, either. Reading Scores jumped within two years in the same demographic to the 60th percentiles and have remained there for a dozen years. The what of instruction mattered, but the how of instruction mattered more. Most of us credited the differentiated instruction of Open Court® “workshop” as the key factor.

Beyond that elementary experience, I’ve taught eleven years at the middle school level, eight at the high school level, and three at the community college level. From my own teaching experience, and more appropriately the learning experiences of my students, I’ve gleaned a few morsels about student learning. A nine-year-old, twelve-year-old, sixteen-year-old, and twenty-year-old all share a few common developmental learning characteristics: First, most would take the path of least resistance to reach their goals. Few are mature enough to include learning skills and concepts as key components of these personal goals. Students want the grades and the related self-satisfaction; they want access to the next class and/or school; they want to keep their parents off of their backs–they are human. We were once as they are. Understanding their characteristics should inform our “teaching/learning… collaboration with students.” Second, they don’t know what they don’t know and they don’t know how to best learn what they don’t know. How could they? If they did know the how, they would already know the what, especially if what was perceived as relevant to their immediate wants and needs.

Now, I’m not a stuffy autocrat who says “My way or the highway” and, of course, there is always another imaginative “way to teach this.” Sure, some choice can increase student motivation and “one-size fits all” ways to problem-solve or learn a concept or skill may not get the job done for some students; however, even these choices are most efficiently and effectively teacher-driven and modeled. For example, in composition, some students prefer to draft first and revise thereafter; others prefer to integrate the drafting and revision process. Teacher modeling, such as “teacher think-alouds” and guided practice in the two options are the most effective means to teach these choices. Students learn which option or combination thereof works best for them through teacher direction, not from a sink or swim, work it out yourself, trial and error process. Far from “getting out of the way and letting them learn,” teachers need to actively direct both the what and how of the learning process.

I am much more concerned about the what, than the how, in terms of differentiated instruction. If teachers buy-in to data-driven instruction, based upon diagnostic and formative assessments, the battle is chiefly won and DI is an easy sell. However, most teachers aren’t there yet, and until they get there, the how of instruction is a relatively fruitless pursuit. When more teachers get there, we can continue the “skirmishing” re: student choice and the how of effective instruction and learning.

Getting out of the way does not mean the teacher is marginalized. Quite the opposite. The structures and frameworks are developed with expertise and experience, while “listening” to students’ voices. A skillful and thoughtful educator can accomplish this. Even more effective is when teachers collaborate towards this end–that’s another conversation.

Thanks again for posting all this. It sure helps the conversation to have something substantive on which to chew! — Rick Wormeli

I love these 23 points and agree with the theory as my practice has demonstrated in a computer classroom utilizing DI and practical theory.

Thanks, Mark, for your comment on my blog that lead me here.

ted