I work with many schools, coaching staff on the What and How of Differentiated Instruction. I’m consistantly asked, “What’s a good book to learn more about DI?”

That’s a difficult question to answer. It really depends on the experience of the educator with differentiated instruction and other quality instructional needs.

-Is the person a true, true, beginner?
-What examples exists for staff who are implementing a systemic format for Designing Units?
-Is assessment practices the person’s focus?
-What’s good for someone who takes courses or attends conferences on DI?
-Does curriculum play a timely role for the school or district?
-What examples exists for staff who are implementing a systemic format for Designing Units?
-What do you offer that person who seems to have read everything, and knows everything about DI?

Out of the many books, there are some true gems that can be transformative. I’m going to start with a list 5 books. Admittedly they are my all-time favorites that have impacted me and others. Not all are recognizable as books on Differentiated Instruction. Each book greatly impacts the mission that all educators share: How best can all student learning and achievement be supported? Perhaps your list would be different, or these books have had a similar influence on your practice.

Here they are…no special order…really…

-Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching (ASCD) by Carol Ann Tomlinson
-Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum (ASCD)
      *Grades K-5 by Carol Ann Tomlinson & Caroline Cunningham Eidson
      *Grades 5-9 by Carol Ann Tomlinson & Caroline Cunningham Eidson
      *Grades 9-12 by Carol Ann Tomlinson & Cindy A. Strickland
-Fair Isn’t Always Equal (Stenhouse Publishers) by Rick Wormeli
-A Repair Kit for Grading: Fifteen Fixes for Broken Grades (Allyn & Bacon) by Ken O’Conner
-Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement (Prentice Hall) by Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. Pickering, Jane E. Pollock

Honorable Mentions include, among others:
-How to Grade for Learning, K-12 (Corwin Press) by Ken O’Conner
-Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All (Corwin Press) by Gayle H. Gregory, Carolyn M. Chapman
-Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms (ASCD) by Susan Allan
-So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences (ASCD) by Harvey F. Silver, Richard W. Strong, Matthew J. Perini

So here is my list. In the posts that follow, I’ll explore each book. Check them out, or if you’ve read them, share your thoughts on them. I’m looking forward to this journey and, hopefully, it will be a crowded path.

I’ve long been a skeptic about the value of multiple intelligences and learning style theory. I think teachers should use a variety of methods, and if these theories help them break out of their boxes, great. But I ran across a book the other day that talked about giving the “culinary learners” (a new type of MI, apparently?) the role of preparing the food for the event that culminates a project, while students who had higher verbal or logical intelligence researched and presented on the topic. Sounds like tracking to me, and while I know this may be a corruption of the theory it’s where many teachers go with it. A study from Dec. 2009 by Pashler et al debunks a lot of practice involving learning styles - a good discussion of it is at:
http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/

This study is also discussed and critiqued in the May 2010 edition of Education Update from ASCD, which is where I ran across it.
A key point I take away is match the teaching approach to the content - something Daniel Willingham also says in his book, “Why Students Don’t Like School.”

Interdependence of Teaching and Learning (1 of 3)

Thanks for raising the concerns or skepticism that some of the educational literature raises about Learning Styles in general, and multiple intelligence in particular.

The co-authors, Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork - (PDF of study), as well as YouTube speaker Professor Danial Willingham, and proponents like them argue that either learning styles is overrated or mythical. I find their assessments narrowly focused to Gardner’s multiple intelligences, from which broad statements are made about validity for why teachers should plan lessons without consideration for how their students think. Their conclusion is that good teaching is good teaching. If instruction is well planned and incorporates different methods for students to explore concepts, then there is no need to consider how any individual student learns.

This kind of thinking misses a point that makes or breaks a lesson: The student.

The role of teacher and student is interwoven, and therefore success is interdependent on the cooperation of both parties. Good teaching occurs when students are learning. Great teaching is where the most challenged struggling student achieves and the advanced student gets a years growth in a class.

Carol Tomlinson speaks to this in her book, Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching (ASCD). Chapters Two through Four address the relationship between student and teacher. Curriculum is interwoven in chapters Five and Six.

Mr. Pashler admits that Robert Sternberg’s research met standards for studying the Triarchial Theory of Multiple Intelligences. It’s hard to know how much to consider the critique when not included in his study were Eric Jensen, Thomas Armstrong, Harvey Silvers, Bernice McCarthy, among other heavy weights. This was notably pointed out by Robert Sternberg.

I worked with a group of middle school math teachers who recognized the diverse skill levels of their students. They used Connected Math for instruction, which does a good job in providing teachers with resources and a variety of ways to help students explore concepts. Still, a group of students struggled, and, as one teacher commented, “I have a student who’s ready for advanced mathematics.” While they had tried learning styles, it was a blanket approach as recommended by Mr. Pashler and Professor Willingham. What they needed to know was how each student processes Math and be more strategic with such information.

As Carol Tomlinson addresses in her book, students must be considered as groups and as individuals in the construction of learning. Otherwise, lessons could be mistakenly develop for the teacher’s sense of organization and symmetry, rather than what students need to learn.

To be fair to the critics, a common mistake made with learning styles is when teachers place each student into a container with a label. It’s important to be aware that a person will have multiple learning strengths.

Gardner’s: Visual-spatial, Verbal-linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Bodily-kinesthetic, Musical-rhythmic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic (See source)
Sternberg’s: Triarchic Theory: Analytical, Practical, and Creative (See source)
A good article to read is Sternberg’s Recognizing Neglected Strengths from Education Leadership. (Google the title and find full pdf article)

The theorists and their proponents point out that people learn in different ways, and hold sources of strength in multiple areas. When teachers identify Alex as a visual learner, what’s lost is that he may have strengths in other areas like Interpersonal and logical. Or with Sternberg, Alex may be analytical and practical. And that’s just when he is studying Mathamatics. In Social Studies, there could be an emphasis on visual and logical, adding Sternberg’s practical.

Confused yet?

When teachers use learning styles, the approach needs to be adaptable to student’s multiple, not singular, strengths. In my experiences as a teacher, learner, and consultant, here’s what I found contributes to learning styles success for helping students learn:

Cross-training, Organization System, 3 Dimensional Instruction

Continue on next post

(Complete article attached)

Cross-training, Organization System, 3 Dimensional Instruction (2 of 3)

Cross-training
When using a learning styles approach, incorporate two or more. If you like Gardner’s MI than include Meyer’s Briggs, Triarchic Theory, or 4Mat. I’m a strong advocate for Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Multiple Intelligences. There’s much written and studied regarding the Triarchic Theory (a -b), and even Mr. Pashler acknowledges the quality of the scientific studies conducted in Mr. Sternberg’s research. What appeals to me is that Analytical, Practical, and Creative make strong connections to learners developing content meaning—an argument Professor Willingham makes to discredit learning styles—and they can be used as separate elements for different groups and products, or combined for heterogeneous grouping and shared products. Combined with Gardner’s MI or Meyer’s Briggs, I get deeper insight in how students might process information for critical thinking skills. For example, if Alex’s Meyers Briggs assessment indicates a preference towards Introversion, that informs me that he needs processing opportunities to internalize learning before class discussions. I may need to include more journaling, webbing, silent reflection, and 10 to 15 second pauses before calling on him to answer questions. Using at least 2 learning styles provides a deeper understanding of students that I can incorporate into lessons. Knowing their thinking approach, I can be deliberate in how to include the student’s “voice” in the learning process.

Organization System
Teachers who want to know their students learning strengths find the task daunting because the gathering of data for easy access seems too time consuming. It is important to have a system for such data so that a teacher can have learning styles information at their fingertips when needed. Here’s a no tech and low tech ways:
Learning Profile Cards
Carol Tomlinson first introduced this approach to me. The teacher passes out index cards to the students, who write their names on the back of the card. On the front, the student writes in the center 3 interests that they have outside of school. This provides avenues for connecting with learners when they become disengaged or need challenge. In the corners, students list their learning style based on the different assessments the teacher offers. An informal approach is to describe to students what each of the choices for learning styles with student related descriptions. My guidance to staff has been to have students write in the bottom right corner if they tend to be more of an Internal (Introvert) or External (Extravert) thinker. The top two corners are left to what learning styles approach the teachers want to include. In the bottom left corner, I strongly recommend that the teacher list the student’s reading and math levels. This is helpful data for when additional resources are needed because the text book or other reading material could have a reading higher than the student’s. The same can be true with Math used in non-math classes.

When the cards are complete, the teacher can change the data if during their ongoing observations they note that a student might be stronger in other areas of learning styles. These cards can be used for heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping based on a combination of learning styles, reading levels, and/or other needs.
Data-base
There are more schools with student data about academic scores and learning assessments. Teachers need a database that they can open when planning lessons and assessments or forming groups for learning.

Part 3 of 3 Next

(Complete article attached)

(3 of 3)

3 Dimensional Instruction
Okay, so I have all of this information about my students. How do I effectively use the data so that my students learn what I’m teaching? There are some good structures available. Project-Based Learning is an excellent structure because in the planning a teacher identifies the standards, key concepts and knowledge. The assessment is constructed to support the learning outcomes. This upfront planning provides the perfect setting to ask the questions:
What will we do for the students who do not succeed?
What will we do for the students who already have most or all of the achievements?
Differentiated Instruction plays a critical role here. Learning styles information can provided needed information for implementing supports and enrichments. 3 Dimensional Instruction is a lesson plan reflection format I developed to meet the needs of teachers and students for helping diverse learners succeed.

Step 1: Identify the Learning Target(s)
      —Start with a Bloom Verb

Step 2: Develop a (formative) assessment
        —Address the learning target(s)

Step 3: Brainstorm 10-15 ways to address key concepts of the learning target(s)
        —Think outside of the box, less abstract, more practical or contextual to students

Step 4: Plan instruction
        —Include 3+ ideas from Brainstorm
        —Include 3+ processing experiences

Teaching and learning is interdependent because the teacher needs to provide students with the knowledge tools and skills for a global society and students need ways to access the learning for academic achievement. I was reminded of this notion while working with an ELL teacher. During a coaching session that followed a staff pd I’d done a month prior, we talked about how she was differentiating. The meeting turned into a reflective commentary. She told me that after the initial workshop she signed up for a course on learning styles.
“It opened my eyes. Before, I’d look at a student who was not successful, and think that they might not be smart enough. Now I look at the same student and realize that he thinks differently than me. And I must help him by how he thinks.”

One way that the critics and I agree. Teachers who explore learning styles will discover new ways that they can connect with their students. That is a good thing. My hope is that those same teachers will take the next step. Think about how certain students succeed, fail, or get frustrated, and consider the student’s mindset and how they approach thinking. Experiment with learning profile cards and see the results.

How can knowing more about our students hurt?

(Complete article attached)