Rachel poses a question about differentiation and diversity with the classroom

Tomlinson and McTighe (2006, p. 108) impress upon us the fact hat there is a clear distinction between teaching for understanding and mere coverage of content area knowledge. They assert that “understanding must be earned.”  Teaching subject matter in greater depth allows students to construct and reconstruct meaning for themselves because, the authors contend, student  knowledge base increases and new learning alters student  perspectives over the duration of a unit. Teaching for understanding requires both teacher and learner to assume refreshing new roles within the classroom. In these new roles, students are required to think in new and innovative ways to solve problems, create problems, and apply old learning to new knowledge in efforts to effectively convey understanding. In this environment, the teacher is now the facilitator of student learning. The teacher is now focused on sparking student interest by, presenting counter arguments, requiring detailed explanations, asking probing questions, and presenting information in a manner that lends itself to authentic application; thus causing students to revisit and revise their thinking.

I believe that in an academically diverse classroom the successful teacher is aware of the academic needs of individual students and is able to maintain the integrity of the lesson while effectively differentiating instruction.  I argue that the effectiveness of the differentiation is, in fact,  what maintains the lesson’s integrity. Tomlinson and McTighe contend that  the ladder theory of learning is severely flawed in that lower- level students are doomed to an academic life of kill and drill and  rote learning.   Moreover, in this type of an approach the lower-level student is  rarely presented with authentic opportunities to convey understanding. These students are often excluded from opportunities to utilize acquired knowledge in meaningful ways. Primarily, this is due to what teachers perceive as insurmountable gaps in acquisition of foundational skills which, they believe,  make displaying understanding a ”mirage in an academic desert.”  As teachers, we are only as effective as our ability to differentiate instructional material thereby giving all students an opportunity to utilize learning in authentic ways. 

Ornstein speaks of a different, yet equally significant type of diversity within the classroom…cultural diversity. Who we are as individuals, our personal schema, socio-economic backgrounds and our environment all play a major role in what we learn and how we learn. As a result,  he believes that academics must be taught from a perspective of cultural relevance and sensitivity. If the material is not relevant to students they will merely digest and regurgitate sterile facts that have little to no impact on their understandings and learning outcomes.  Thus, I believe that student translation  will not truly be learned.  Without relevant material student opportunities to revisit and revise their thinking will be largely diminished as will their understanding of the material introduced.   

Educators must be aware that the term “diversity” has become an important classroom word and concept. Its implications within the classroom are tremendous. Even in a homogenous setting, diversity  still exists.  I believe that effective differentiation  produces material that is academically relevant.   Effective instructional differentiation leads to increased student understanding. While, I am unsure that  differentiation of content and teaching approach alone are the key,  I do believe that this approach is the most effective tool in a teacher’s arsenal for addressing the unique needs of learners.

Based on what I have stated above, I now ask……………….is there a distinction between an academically diverse classroom and a culturally diverse classroom?  What are the instructional implications of teaching for understanding in a culturally and an academically diverse classroom? To what degree does diversity affect what you teach and how you teach it?

Kachan asks us to solve some problems

In my opinion,  creativity and discipline are skills that can be developed with practice.  Schools could potentially provide the appropriate environment to which creative and disciplined minds are formed.  For example, educators can teach students how to use the following six required resources that foster creativity: intelligence, knowledge, intellectual style, personality, motivation, and environmental context.  Additionally, I believe that teachers can and should cultivate disciplined minds by teaching students  how to develop the following :   understanding the purpose of disciplinary expertise, understanding an essential knowledge base, understanding inquiry methods, and understanding forms of communication.

However, even though it is possible for schools to produce and foster creative and disciplined minds, Orenstein believes that the required environment to allow this to occur still has yet to be developed (2011, p. 139).  In fact, he believes that  curriculum structure has created obstacles that prevent this type of a setting to be created.   For example, we still have  educators who insist upon  teaching  students how to solve problems as opposed to letting them come up with their own problems to solve  (p. 140).  Thus, students cannot develop their skills in defining and redefining problems, two components of the first resource “intelligence” ( p. 140).  Short-term homework assignments as opposed to long-term ones are still routinely assigned in some schools (p. 143).  Additionally, it is still acceptable in many schools to teach students the facts in a history class instead of allowing them to be “deeply acquainted with a discipline’s fundamental perspectives on the world ( p. 192).” Do you agree with Orenstein’s concerns?   Do his concerns hold merit for you?   Why or why not?    Do you believe that the problems posed by Orenstein do indeed, impact upon the desired goals I have stated in the first paragraph?    Or do you feel that they are in no way connected?  Do you  have recommendations that might possibly address the issues posed here? 

Meghan asks: What makes a teacher effective?

What makes an effective teacher? Is it the individual who went the traditional route of schooling? Can an individual who went into teaching as a second career be an effective teacher? Finally, does one's style of teaching make that individual more effective than another?

I believe that an effective teacher is an individual who can see the differences in their students, one who  knows the knowledge that they want to teach their student s and one who is able to help their students learn the skills and knowledge that they are teaching. In all  careers, it goes without saying that  one needs to be knowledgeable about what they are doing. The same goes for a teacher, but that is not all. A good teacher wears many hats. I believe that the teacher who  embraces many different styles of teaching, and knows when to use  each of these approaches will be the most effective teacher. An effective teacher is able to see the differences in their students as well as those students' learning styles.   An effective teacher is able to change the way in which he/she teaches so that each learner can grasp the information being taught.             

Who Needs to Take Responsibility for Establishing Educational Goals? C. Murray

What, in your estimation, is the definition of the term “educational goals?”   Do this week’s readings convince you that educational goals are necessary?  And finally,  who should assume the responsibility for determining the educational goals in each of the schools throughout our nation: the federal government, the state boards of education, the members of the local boards of education, a representative community group,  the principals of each of the schools within a school district (as a group), or the faculty of each school? Why would you choose that particular constituency?