Differentiated Instruction in Elementary Math - Research Paper Example

Teachers today have responsibilities that are much more difficult to keep and have a requirement placed on them to ensure that their s succeed educationally. Schools are implementing new and improved ways of making this happen, but the success of any child in the classroom does not rely solely on the child himself. Teachers are under more pressure than ever to create within their curriculum the ability to teach differentially. This ability for an educator to improve the learning of children is based on their abilities as a teacher. According to the U. S. Department of Education’s 26th Annual Report to Congress on IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004) in 2005, around 96% of all teachers have students in their classrooms that have some form of learning disability. This leaves the teacher with a need to fulfill their educational requirements while tackling a disability or learning capability issue within the classroom. It is here that I will cover what research has proven to be effective, some examples that I have ascertained and how I can implement them in my own classroom setting. There are multiple researches that have been done in regard to differentiated instruction, but I will only be focusing on the examples of what has been shown to be effective and what appeals to me within this research. Keywords Differentiated instruction, interdisciplinary teaching, integrated learning, thematic learning, Universal Design for Learning, Multiple Intelligence Theory, IQ test. Differentiated Instruction Currently, there are more than 4 million students that lack grade-level proficiency in reading and mathematics. One reason for this is their need for individualized instruction, supplementation and modifications to ensure proper cognitive access within the general education curriculum. This need is rarely met, as teachers do not have the training that they need to ensure these lower functioning students are able to benefit from the instruction provided. Part of this issue is that students are coming from increasingly diverse backgrounds, in which the expectations of their parents and the normalcy within the community are at odds with the current schooling methods (Lapkoff &Li, 2007). These current schooling methods are ineffective to a large number of students, because of their diversity, ethnically, culturally and cognitively. These are the students that fall through the cracks, due to the standard approach to education. This, in turn, causes higher rates of drop outs, poorer performance on standardized testing and lower graduation rates. (Lipsky, 2005). The solution is differentiated instruction. According to Tomlinson (2004) differentiated instrcution is “ensuring what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student’s readiness level, interests and preferred mode of learning.” Literature Review This is particularly important in regards to students with cognitive disabilities. An educator that provides their students with a reduced emphasis on whole-class instruction and an increase in the use of peer-assisted learning, has been shown to heighten students learning abilities, whether considered gifted or not. There have been many studies that also verify the fact that differentiated instruction works much more efficiently than other forms of instruction, but show the reasons why this is not implemented in many schools. They are simply the demands of the teachers themselves to follow a set curriculum and learning sets within a given period of time, leaving many students behind. This has given birth to a creative solution called REACH (Rock, et al., 2008). This type of interdisciplinary teaching is used to highlight the steps necessary for implementation of differentiated instruction. The acronym stands for: Reflect on will and skill; Evaluate the curriculum; Analyze the learners; Craft research-based lessons; and Hone in on the data. It is imperative that the educator take these steps to seriously inquire about themselves, and thus implement differentiating instruction. The educator must first Reflect on their own knowledge and skills and come up with reasonable goals. They must Evaluate the curriculum to identify what the content is, and why the student should care about it. This can be found out through open ended questions. Then, Analyze the learners. Who are they? Who is on the back burner? This is to analyze each individual’s readiness, strengths and weaknesses. Crafting research-based lessons. This step is for the educator to create a plan that students will enjoy, giving them equal opportunity to participate in any learning format. Finally, Hone in on the data. This is very similar to effective learning, in as much as the educator must know how it went and how they know this answer by evaluating individual students styles of learning, their understanding, and measuring their performance (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). This Universal Design for Learning (UDL, 2011) has a particular reach into learning sciences, because it is broken down into its respective parts. They are: instructional goals, materials, methods and assessment (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008). The UDL is as unique as our own fingerprints, and it is imperative for any educator to understand this. They help the teacher to understand more fully the how, what and why of learning, so that they can more effectively place differentiated instruction in their classroom. These are overreaching methods, as they can be applied within the REACH acronym as well as within differentiated instruction. The REACH acronym and the UDL both branch themselves into interdisciplinary and thematic teaching. This can be done by an educator’s ability to understand their students’ abilities and use that to their advantage. A great example is of a student that is struggling can be taught through the use of a social concern or question the student may have, and relating that to the subject at hand. This allows the student to take into consideration what is being taught, but can apply it in a way that is more understandable to him. This integration is important, because it also helps to deal with some of the issues that may affect a student’s cognitive functions, namely inattentiveness caused by social or cultural unrest. This allows the student to learn, while addressing some of the issues that are preventing learning from taking place. However, it is also important to note, that although an interdisciplinary approach may be used, there is no blurring of the differences of related subjects. They are related, but maintain their unique characteristics and distinctions. (Lederman & Niess, 1997). The line is slim between interdisciplinary and thematic teaching, but it is extremely important to note them, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. In thematic teaching, it tends to surpass traditional subject matter, but maintains a broader focus than integrated teaching. These two forms of instruction are often difficult to differentiate between, but for an educator to be effective in either, they must understand these subtleties and not blend them together. The same line often becomes blurred between integrated and thematic teaching approaches. This is due to the lack of empirical support for either one of them. It creates blurred lines, rigorous restrictions thematically and overall does not have a very sound framework. This is imperative for the educator to understand fully, so that they can differentiate between them, and better understand what they are teaching their students and how they are teaching them. Once the educator has an understanding of differentiated instruction, UDL, REACH and the differences between thematic, interdisciplinary and integrated learning, they will be more apt to recognize the slower students and help them to learn more efficiently. However, they will also be more able to recognize those students who are considered gifted. This allows for the educator to take a look at, and better understand Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Howard Gardner argued that this concept, traditionally defined through the use of an IQ test, is ultimately wrong. Cognitive psychometrics are a great tool for measuring general intelligence, however, there is little correlation between general intelligence through this testing, according to Gardner. In 1999, he added naturalist intelligence, existential intelligence and moral intelligence to his list; although he has claimed that it remains incomplete. However, according to Robert Slavin, there are eight intelligences in Gardner’s theory. They are: spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic (Educational Psychology, 2009). Although traditional IQ tests generally focus on linguistic and logical intelligence, this theory ultimately states what educators already know: children learn differently. Results and Discussion My horizons have been broadened by this research, in as much as I have a better understanding of IQ testing, and how it really does not have much relevance in how a child learns. The REACH acronym has been a large influence, as it allows new educators a step by step instruction on the how, wherefore and why of the individual learning ability. The UDL seems a bit of an oxymoron, as the name implies it is universal, but in its uniqueness it is anything but universal. It is as individual as the person, but still bears understanding and research, as its objectives are overreaching into differentiated instruction. This, in turn, lends itself to the implementation of IQ testing and studies, which although somewhat antiquated, still allow for insight into the individual. Thus, the educator has better insight into how to implement differentiated instruction on a more tangible level fro the individual. Conclusion In the aforementioned research data, I have learned that for me to be a truly great educator, I must look at each child as an individual, and do what I can to assess his/her personal needs within the scope of education. I have further learned that there are a multitude of theories that apply themselves to my field of education, which is mathematics. This is especially lucrative for me as an educator, to have read and better understand the REACH acronym, as it has provided step-by-step instruction on how to better create and implement my given curriculum. It also allows me to be more observant of my students, with emphasis on the Universal Design for Learning, as the UDL has special implications on science and mathematics. This will only help me in my pursuit of education, because I will be able to understand on a deeper dimension how children learn, and how I can implement these strategies in my classroom so that I successfully educate my students, not just pass them through. The only limitations that I found were on the differences between interdisciplinary, integrated and thematic learning. There are a multitude of theories, some with empirical evidence, and others without. That made it more difficult to draw a concise conclusion from the information, but I feel that I was able to glean important information from it. References Gardner, Howard (1983). Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Harvard University. Lapkoff, S., & Li, R. (2007). Five Trends for Schools. Educational Leaderships, 64, 8-15. Lederman, Norman G. & Niess, Margaret L. (1997) School of Science and Mathematics. Integrated, Interdisciplinary or Thematic Instruction? Is this a Question or is it Questionable Semantics? Retrieved from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3667/is_199702/ai_n8745005/pg_2/?tag=content;col1 Lipsky, D. (2005). Are We There Yet? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 156-158. McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven Practices for Effective Learning. Educational Leadership, 61, 38-43. National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2011). What is Universal Design for Learning? Retrieved from: http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html Rock, Marcia L., Gregg, Madeleine, Ellis, Edwin & Gable, Robert A. (2008). REACH: A Framework for Differentiating Classroom Instruction. Preventing School Failure, Vol. 52, No. 2, 31 - 47. Slavin, Robert (2009) Educational Psychology, p. 117 Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing Responsibility for Differentiating Instruction. Roper Review, 26, 188. United States Department of Education (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Pub. L. 108 - 446, 20 U.S.C. United States Department of Education (2008). Higher Education Opportunity Act Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html Read More