For the longest time I thought that differentiated instruction was offering a completely different version of the curriculum to each student based on need. Often in conversation I would say, "I don't have the time, resources, or manpower to meet students needs in this way." Not until now do I realize how foolish that must of sounded. The funny thing is nobody ever disagreed with what I was saying. It could have been out of courtesy, it may have been out of our knack for agreeing with teachers when complaints are offered involving what we all need, but don't have. Or, and I believe most likely, people didn't really know what was meant by differentiated instruction.
Wormeli's myth, that this type of instruction is about offering individualized instruction, is what I was always taught. The perpetuation of this myth is not only discouraging and overwhelming to new teachers, but quickly becomes an impossibility once significant time is spent in the classroom.
I like what Wormeli had to say about changing modality not content, and grouping based on what you've learned about them. If we were going to group for the sake of grouping, then we would all just track our students. Gifted, Special Education, and everybody in the middle.
It turns out, shocking as it sounds, that differentiated instruction is just simply good teaching. I always thought I was no where near where I wanted to be as a teacher because of this myth. It turns out I'm a lot closer then I thought, we all are. Good teachers are teaching with multiple intelligences in mind. Good teachers are meeting kids at the level they learn best. Good teachers not only believe that fair isn't equal, but they show it in their classroom by helping kids reach high expectations at their pace, within the methods they need.
Over the last few years the differentiated instruction question has come up in every interview I found myself in. With classroom diversity at an all-time high I always knew this question was going to come up, but I always worried what I would say, and more importantly what others wanted to hear from me. I think now I have the correct answer that I wasn't sure I had. So next time I'm asked, "what does differentiated instruction mean to you?" I'll say with confidence, "differentiated instruction equals good teaching."
.jpg)
Well said, sir! Let me know if you want to talk further. This posting is a testament to your professionalism -- the capacity to revise one's thinking in light of new ideas and evidence. How lucky for your students and colleagues to have you there as both model and encourager! -- Rick Wormeli, Herndon, VA
ReplyDeleteGood DI is not solely about the HOW of instruction, but also about the WHAT. The curriculum does need to be adapted to meet the individual needs of students. If a solid reading diagnostic assessment indicates that Johnny needs remediation in r-controlled vowels, your first thought should be that WHAT--not HOW Johnny would prefer learning that skill. No amount of clever massaging will ever get us to the point of success by "teaching the same curriculum, but just differently." We teach both students and WHAT they need to know--and, of course, that varies from child to child.
ReplyDeleteGood DI begins with diagnostic assessment and caters instruction according to the indicated skill deficiences of each student. Check out http://penningtonpublishing.com/assessments.php for some helpful free assessments to center attention on WHAT needs teaching.