Classroom Mangement Independent Work Time

Differentiate This! Part 2A

While we await part 3 about when to “fit in” differentiation, I wanted to share some of the great info I’ve received in comments or e-mail from web site visitors.

Ken Pendergrass, elementary music teacher from Seattle, shares a differentiated lesson with impressive use of enhanced Garageband podcasting.

Alice Mercer, Sacramento computer lab teacher and founder of the superblog In Practice, shares the Pyramid Plan which is a good visual for a differentiated lesson with multiple objectives for students at different levels. (All students will learn X, some students will learn Y, a few students will learn Z).

Nancy Bosch, who has nearly three decades experience teaching gifted students offers these tips:

I think one of the things people miss about differentiation is they think it’s like the old days where every kid had a different plan. In a differentiated classroom the same material is taught, what the kid does with the material and how he makes sense of it is what is different. So the process and product is differentiated by ability, interest and learning preference.

Be sure to mention the work of Carol Tomlinson–she is the differentiation guru. Susan Winebrenner’s book, Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom is also helpful to some.

And I thank Steven Kimmi for helping me to clarify my thinking on differentiated instruction. While this conversation started from comments by a gifted parent, let’s not forget that it’s not only the gifted students who are bored in typical classrooms. Let’s make sure that everyone has access to technology, research and inquiry, and independent thinking. Otherwise the academically rich only get richer and the poor get much poorer.

Please keep the ideas coming.

1 thought on “Differentiate This! Part 2A”

  1. Mathew,
    Alice’s pyramid plan reminds me of something that I used to do but have forgotten about. I used to let kids contract for what they wanted to learn. The contract looked much like the pyramid in that kids could contract for the basic minimum (C) which corresponds to what all kids will learn, or they could contract for (B) what amounts to what most kids learn or they could contract for (A) what some kids will learn. I found that my reluctant students would begin by contracting for the lowest level but then move up to the higher levels. I have very fond memories of using that strategy. I wonder why I forgot about it? It was great for the reluctant academic at risk learners I taught at that time.

Comments are closed.