Characteristics and Challenges of a Differentiated Classroom

The key to a differentiated classroom is getting to know your students well enough to design lessons and units of instruction that will best meet his/her needs.   Differentiated classrooms utilize a variety of instructional strategies, offer a shared responsibility for learning, are student-centered, offer a variety of assignments measure student success by growth, include on-going assessments, assess authentically, and most importantly offer students a choice.  Differentiated instruction not only provides additional ways for students to take in new information, but increased ways to demonstrate what they have learned.  A differentiated classroom frequently give choices to students concerning topics of study, approaches to learning, ways of presenting evidence of learning, and learning environments while keeping constant with grade-level standards.  A differentiated classroom is not uniform lectures, repetitive activities, and homework assignments involving only memorization or recall.  Rather it’s student-centered, where students are not embarrassed by individual differences or learning difficulties.  Those individual differences are embraced, and as a result, teachers vary their instructional practices in response to their students’ learning styles and readiness levels to provide appropriate degrees of academic challenge. The goal is to work with students at their current level and to make provisions for those who need modifications, whether it be for special needs or to challenge gifted learners.

The greatest obstacles that I see in trying to authentically differentiate in my classroom are time, resources,  and grading practices.  Obviously the amount of time needed to dedicate to differentiation is enormous, especially in the beginning stages. Creating a variety of assignments that are both student-centered and engaging, while remaining authentic, is time-consuming.  Asking myself “does this assignment accurately asses what I want them to learn and know how to do” about multiple assignments in varying degrees of difficulty is a daunting task to undertake weekly or even daily.  Another obstacle to effectively differentiating in the classroom is the amount of resources, rather the over-abundance of resources available.  Many times I struggle with researching new ideas and activities, especially in interest areas that differ from my own, because there are too many ideas to comb through.  I can get “lost” for hours searching for ideas of how to modify or differentiate assessments and classroom activities.   I also struggle with how to grade differentiated assignments.  When the method of differentiation is in the final product or type of assessment, I often agonize on what is fair for grading purposes.  For many students, and more importantly-their parents, the grade is more valuable than the journey they took to get there.  Until we change the mind-set of many parents and students that not all activities must be assigned a grade, determining how to grade differentiated assignments will remain difficult. 

The most considerable challenge that I face is the enormous variation in the academic level of students coming into my classroom.  Consequently, a “one-size-fits-all” classroom is not an option if I want to successfully grow the students that enter my classroom and provide them with valuable educational experiences.  “Differentiated instruction is effective instruction that is responsive to students’ readiness, interests and learning preferences.  All three characteristics of the learner—readiness, interests and preferences—allow educators and students to build new learning through connections to existing knowledge and preferred ways of working.” (Edugains)  I reflect on what it was like for me when I was the student or how I felt in staff development sessions in which I gained valuable knowledge and I try to plan units, activities, lessons, assessments,  and projects that will be meaningful for the students in my classroom based on their interests and ability levels.  Oftentimes this includes students working by themselves, in random groups, or in groups according to similar readiness, similar interests, or similar learning profiles.  With the inconsistent levels of student ability and diverse learning styles and interests, differentiation is imperative to ensure that all learners’, from the below-grade level students all the way to the gifted learners, needs are being met. The ability to systematically and thoroughly meet the needs of the individual learner is central to the work we do as educators. (Edugains)

Characteristics of a Differentiated Classroom. (n.d.) Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://pdsupport.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/Characteristics of a DIfferentiated Classroom




Differentiated Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesDI/Brochures/DIBrochureOct08.pdf




Taking Center Stage, Sacramento: California Department of Education, 2001, pp.140, 141. Retrieved March, 16, 2015.


Willoughby, J. (n.d.). Differentiating Instruction: Meeting Students Where They Are. Retrieved March 16, 2015.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model In Connection With Creativity

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model is based upon a vision that "schools are places for talent development” providing the flexibility for each individual school to develop its own unique program.  (Gibson & Efinger, 2001)  The School Enrichment Model encourages higher learning standards and enriched learning experiences for all students, not just those identified as academically gifted.  The three goals of the SEM are developing talents in all children, providing a broader scope of advanced enrichment experiences, and providing follow-up opportunities for students based on their own areas of strength and interests.  Because the SEM model encourages high levels of student engagement and is based on the students’ interests, it inspires creativity and individual expression.  

Evident by over 20 years of research of topics such as student creative productivity, the SEM is perceived as effective by key groups of educational professionals as well as students and their parents. (NEAG Center) Curriculum driven by student preference and learning styles enables greater student creativity because the students are interested in what they are learning and have ownership in their own education.  

Through it’s focus of concepts and interdisciplinary curriculum, the SEM provides opportunities for students to “exchange traditional roles of lesson-learner for more challenging and demanding roles that require hands-on learning, firsthand investigations, and the application of knowledge and thinking skills to complex problems.” (Renzulli, 1995)  This process of student engagement promotes higher student involvement and creativity, while challenging students by increasing the number of in-depth learning experiences.  Because redundant material is removed and the curriculum is compacted based on student need, more time and resources are available for enrichment opportunities based on concepts and ideas which foster creativity in the students. 

“Three structural components help teachers apply Enrichment Learning and Teaching to the learning process. Type I and Type II enrichment experiences should identify situations that may lead to Type III experiences; which are the most advanced type of enrichment in the model and are pursued only on a voluntary and self-selected basis.” (Gibson & Efinger, 2001)  While all students can benefit from Type I activities (ie guest speakers, interest groups, demonstrations, etc.), gifted students benefit from Type II activities by developing higher-level thinking skills and research skills.  Type III enrichment activities foster gifted students’ creativity by engaging them in real-world problem solving situations. (Renzulli  1995)  Though this model can be used with all students, regardless of their ability level, enrichment is differentiated because gifted ability students will participate in higher level Type III activities whereas lower ability students will focus more on Type I or II activities.  Critical thinking skills, leadership skills, communication skills, problem solving skills and research skills, in addition to student creativity are all essential components of a successful gifted education program.  Through solving real-world problems based on their interests and what they view as important, students find the curriculum more meaningful and enjoyable, therefore they become engaged and committed to their learning and their creativity, as well as their self-confidence, flourishes.

Student learning is most satisfying when the students’ interest and abilities are maximized through real and relevant learning experiences.  Renzulli makes four basic assumptions about the nature of student learning.  First, each learner is unique and their learning experiences reflect their abilities, interests and learning styles.  Secondly, learning is most effective when students enjoy school, and thirdly when the content is presented within the context of a real-world problem.  Last of all, “formal instruction is best used to enhance student construction of meaningfulness.”  (Renzulli 1995) By making the student’s education relevant and important to him/her, the SEM enables independent and engaged learners who enjoy school and allow their creativity to thrive rather than passive learners dependent on his/her teacher for all instruction.  

Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1995). A Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The Education Digest, 61(4), 14-16.

“Revisiting the Schoolwide Enrichment Model- An Approach to Gifted Programming” by Gibson and Efinger, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, 48-53. Copyright 2006 by The Council for Exceptional Children.

"Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM)." gifted.uconn.edu. Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Web. 21 Feb. 2015. <http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/>.

Should Gifted Teachers Be Identified as Gifted Students

Just as all students are diverse and prefer certain learning environments, various teachers have distinctive teaching styles and reach their students in different ways. While there are many characteristics that teachers, who are themselves identified as being gifted, share with their gifted students, I don’t believe that being identified as gifted is a requirement to be a successful teacher of the gifted.  Saying that all teachers who teach gifted students should be gifted themselves is a difficult generalization to make. 

In my opinion as an educator, there  are misconceptions that some teachers, who are not identified as being gifted, have that can be destructive when teaching gifted students.  Comments such as “gifted students do just fine on their own,” “gifted students are know-it-alls who think they are better than others,”  “gifted students get an unfair advantage because those classes have better behavior,” or the school of thought that you just give them more work if they finish theirs early or allow them to act as a tutor for other students are all examples of negative stereotypes of gifted students that I’ve witnessed as an educator. “The characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted have been examined by many researchers over the past 40+ years (Bishop, 1968; Chan, 2001; Freehill, 1974; Hansford, 1985; Maddux, Samples-Lachman & Cummings, 1985; Mills, 2003; Newland, 1962; Renzulli, 1992; Torrance & Myers, 1970; Wendel & Heiser, 1989; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). While there seems to be a general consensus regarding the personal and professional characteristics of successful teachers of the gifted this research has typically focused on the identification of those teacher characteristics that seem to benefit gifted students in the classroom. (Table 1.) Little research exists that examines how these identified characteristics might actually be cultivated through teacher education and professional development.” (Stephens 2009 )

Unfortunately very few teacher preparation programs provide instruction on the specific needs of gifted students.  Because of this dilemma, the majority of teachers in classrooms today have not been trained to meet the learning needs of these students so they rely on their own educational experiences as students.  Being identified as gifted certainly is beneficial for many teachers as it oftentimes allows them to be empathetic to their students’ emotional and education needs and situations.  A teacher identified as being gifted may have a better understanding of what it means to be a gifted student and he/she can plan their classroom management accordingly.  On the flip side, not all teachers identified as being gifted are gifted at teaching.  Additionally, not all gifted students prefer identical learning environments.  As a result, those students may flourish with a teacher who was not formally identified as being gifted, but instead has a favorable teaching style for their particular preference.  Primarily, teachers must be able to recognize students with high-abilities in order to provide them with more depth and complexity in instruction.  Gifted students require educational content that is relevant to their own lives and educational opportunities that allow them to process ideas at an elevated level.  In order to provide that, a teacher has to have a desire to pace their instruction to the student’s individual needs; provide both structure and choice, and respect the students and their ability to learn at an increased paced-not merely be identified as gifted themselves.  In my opinion, empathy for gifted students can certainly be nurtured in any teacher who has a desire to successfully and teach the gifted student as a whole being. 

National Standards in Gifted and Talented Education (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2015, from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/national-standards-gifted-and-talented-education


Stephens, Kristen R. (2009) "Can Empathy for Gifted Students Be Nurtured in Teachers?," Gifted Children: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol3/iss1/2

Student Profile Analysis: Josh

I just made a new Voki. See it here:

http://goo.gl/BxDEMv

Gifted Characteristics

• has a strong curiosity and is inquisitive on a variety of topics
• is a zealous reader of many different genres
• thinks and processes information quickly and logically
• is observant and empathetic
• can recall facts and has a powerful memory
• understands sarcasm and humor
• is creative
• is responsible and a good leader 
• enjoys research and gaining new knowledge
• questions authority
• is morally conscience
• is self-motivated

Classification
I would classify “Josh” as a Social Leader.  He is an excellent leader and communicator among his classmates.  He previously attended the Summer leadership academy in Davidson County.  He is also a leader on the football field.  One of his coaches stated that he is always the first player back to practice after a water break, helps guide other players who are struggling and inquires on what he can do to play more effectively.  In the classroom, “Josh” takes a leadership role when working in small groups and during whole class instruction and discussion.  He very social (in a good way), is well-liked and seems to get along with students of all levels and backgrounds.

Gifted Program Setting
Josh is grouped with other high-performing students in the accelerated or advanced class for all of his core subjects.  

School Life
“Josh” appears to “have it all”-intelligence, popularity, and athleticism.  However, he is very complex.  He battles a fine line between being inquisitive toward teachers and being disrespectful.  While he is viewed as helpful and encouraging to some classmates, others see him as arrogant and condescending.  He is always willing to offer an answer, most of the time before others have had a chance to get their answer.  Occasionally I see an eye roll or two from his classmates.  I love having him as a student and enjoy his questions, his eagerness for new knowledge and complex thought processes.  But there are some teachers who view him as a know-it-all who always wants to argue.  He likes to know the "why" and the meaning behind answers.  I think he makes me a better teacher because he keeps me on my toes and encourages others to gain a deeper understanding. 

Ideal Learning Environment

In an ideal setting, “Josh” would profit intellectually from a smaller class size, a variety of readily available technology, and more authentic instruction.  He's in a class of 29 students now and that's much too large.  A I don't think we have an appropriate learning environment for "Josh" in Davidson County.  He already takes advantage of the extras that we offer (Leadership Academy, Duke TIP, Alpha Mu Math Society competition, Battle of the Books, etc.)  I'm torn on where the best location is for "Josh" to gain his formal education.  He's well-rounded and excels in all subjects, but the School of Math and Science may be a good choice for "Josh".  

The Autonomous Learner Model

After researching the various curriculum models presented in class,  I narrowed my decision down to the Osborne-Parnes Creative Problem-solving process, Kaplan’s Grid Model, and the Autonomous Learner Model.  Ultimately I decided that the Autonomous Learner Model would best integrate within my teaching style and my preferences.  Self-directed learning, being responsible for one's own self, being a decision-maker, and the ability to work independently are skills essential to being a 21st Century learner and becoming a productive adult in the future. Developed to encourage students to become more independent and responsible for their own learning, the Autonomous Learner Model gives students the opportunity to guide their own learning and make their education more meaningful.  In this model, teachers modify their traditional role to become more of a facilitator of the learning process.  An Autonomous Learner; by definition is "one who solves problems or develops new ideas through a combination of divergent and convergent thinking and functions with minimal external guidance in selected areas of endeavour." (Betts and Knapp, 1981)  The major goal of this model is to facilitate the growth of students as independent, self-directed learners, with the developed skills, concepts and positive attitudes.  Self-directed learning provides the students opportunities to accomplish the following:  develop more positive self-concept & self-esteem; comprehend their own abilities; develop skills to interact effectively; increase knowledge in a variety of areas: develop critical and creative thinking skills; develop decision-making and problem-solving skills; develop individual passion areas of learning; demonstrate responsibility for their own learning, in and out of the school setting; and become responsible, creative, independent, life-long learners. (Betts, 1999)  Meeting the student’s individual needs is emphasized in the ALM model through the five major dimensions: orientation, individual development, enrichment, seminars, and in-depth studies.

In the Orientation dimension, learners discover more about themselves and their abilities, and are supplied with opportunities to interact in groups and provided a foundation for concepts of the gifts and talents that they possess.  In the second dimension, Individual Development, students establish necessary skills and concepts to develop into life-long learners and become self-sufficient in their learning.  This dimension of the ALM promotes the education of the entire student, not just the academic aspects in a more conventional education.  The Enrichment dimension, dimension three, provides students with enhanced opportunities to examine curriculum and topics uncommon in the typical classroom.  Students are allowed the freedom to select content meaningful to them and to engage in cultural and service activities to encourage humanitarianism within the students.  Learners also investigate, design, execute, and present a product.  Dimension four, the Seminars, is designed to give students several chances to complete research on a specific topic and introduce the topic in a group forum.  This provides the students the chance to transform from students to facilitators.  The final dimension of the ALM is the In-depth Study dimension, which encourages learners to seek and develop new knowledge in fields they are passionate about.  The students designate what topics they will learn about and the methods in which they will learn and present their information.  Presentations and assessments are completed at the conclusion of the self-driven project.

The aspect of the Autonomous Learner Model that appeals most to me is the emphasis on creating a learner who is responsible for his/her independent learning, and as a result, he/she can develop a hunger life-long learning.  The ALM increases a students’ knowledge base, independence, and ability to make decisions and find creative solutions to problems, while developing interpersonal skills to interact more effectively with surrounding people.  When students take ownership of their own learning, it becomes more worthwhile and important to them, increasing their passion for acquiring new knowledge throughout their life.  This model is also easily adaptable and is beneficial for gifted students who often are able to work independently and possess the maturity needed to reflect on their own learning.  Education of the whole student, another favorable aspect of the ALM model, inspires learners to be charitable and believe that they can make a difference in their society.  “A life-long learner seeks truth, friendship, knowledge, and wisdom.  He accepts himself and others and strives to make the world a better place.  The journey is the key to new discoveries every day and is never-ending.”  (Betts, 2005)

Betts, G. (2005, January 1). The Journey of Lifelong Learning. Retrieved November 23, 2014.

Betts GT & Kercher JK. (1999). Autonomous Learner Model: Optimizing Ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS.

Betts GT & Knapp J (1981) The Autonomous Learner Model: A Secondary Model. In Secondary programs for the gifted and talented. Los Angles, CA: National/State-Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and Talented.

Culturally Diverse Bias in Gifted Education

There is no denial that prejudice and discrimination, whether intentionally or not, remain in our world and in our educational system today.  To be completely unbiased in any aspect of education sounds perfect, but is impossible because we are all human and we are diverse.  Just like the students we teach, we teachers come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and our own different cultures.  I believe very few educators purposely discriminate against culturally diverse groups; however studies show that the number of minority students enrolled in gifted programs is historically lower in proportion than their white peers.  I feel that the main underlying causes for the under-representation of African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and other culturally diverse groups lies in the procedures and practices used to identify and educate gifted students.  Teachers are less likely to identify them to be tested; minority students score lower on the current assessments due to test bias; and once in a gifted program, culturally diverse students are not able to work to their potential. 

Oftentimes students in minority groups are less likely to be recommended for entrance into gifted programs due to teacher referral bias.  Given the responsibility to suggest students for gifted assessment procedures, educators must consider that students who are economically disadvantaged and/or cultural minorities may lag behind their peers in their life experiences.   As a result, their giftedness may not be as visibly obvious as students who were given more opportunities as young children.  For example, students raised in economically poor homes may have experienced less time reading with a parent if that parent had to work multiple jobs and was absent from the home much of the time.  This doesn’t signify that those students were cared for any less.  On the contrary, having a parent work more than one job in order to provide for their family illustrates their devotion to providing for their family.   However, the student may still suffer negative effects from the lack of parental involvement in their earlier developmental years.  Teachers commonly identify students who appear to be bright in math, reading, writing, or advanced critical thinking as potentially gifted, recommending additional assessments.  On the other hand, minority students may shine in less conventional ways, and those students who exhibit their giftedness in other uncommon areas may be overlooked.  Potentially an educator may not consider an African American, Native American, Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged student as gifted if that student hides his/her brilliance.  Giftedness is not always appreciated in some minority groups, and subsequently students don’t value their talents, especially if it makes them appear different and separates them from their friends.  African American students, especially, are accused of “acting white” if they are enrolled in gifted education programs, where being white is the norm.  Overcoming teacher bias in identifying potential for further evaluation for gifted programs is just the first obstacle many bright minority students must encounter.

Despite their popularity and widespread use, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the use and usefulness of intelligences tests for making decisions about culturally diverse students. “Decades of research have proven that standardized tests are an unreliable and inaccurate measure of student achievement and do not measure student potential. In fact, the data reveal that the strongest correlation is between test scores and socio-economic status.”  (Strauss)  The documented culture bias of many standardized tests contributes to the issue of under-representation of minority students in gifted education programs.  Theres is a distinct bias in the validity of many intelligence tests.  Basically, does the test measure what it’s intended to measure?  Testing a Hispanic student in English, who is not yet proficient in English, does not evaluate his/her intelligence.  Rather it assesses his/her language skills.  That student may know the right answer, but cannot show it if they do not understand the question.  Another concern is that certain students from culturally diverse backgrounds my not have the knowledge or experiences necessary to correctly answer a question.  If a question is posed about a topic unknown to a student due to lack of exposure or experience, he/she is at a disadvantage.  For instance, if a Hispanic student is asked a question about football on an evaluation, he/she may misinterpret the question to mean what we consider the sport of soccer, since it is known by that name in most countries other than the United States.  Often, intelligence tests are given too much power, and if a student scores poorly, there is a reasonable probability that they will be denied the chance to enter a gifted education program.  Educators should not interpret test scores in isolation.  Instead various forms of data should be collected and utilized to form a more comprehensive decision.

Finally, gifted education courses, themselves, may discourage participation by culturally diverse students.  “A study by Moore, Ford, & Milner (2005) identifies that attrition is common among minority students in gifted programs.” (Pauley and Johnstone)  Minority students can feel isolated from their friends if they are separated and served in different classroom or group setting.  Further isolation may occur if the content is not relevant to the student, taking into account his/her cultural background, or if the instructional methods of the teacher are culturally mismatched to the student’s needs.  Minority students who feel uncomfortable with the differences between themselves and the other gifted students may adjust to conform to the social and behavioral norms of their own culture in order to fit it, thus becoming an underachiever.   They don’t want to appear different from their friends and would rather not be detached from what they find comfortable.  Nor do they want to confront ridicule from fellow classmates for trying to “act white.”

The methods used to identify and programs designed to educate gifted students are key defects in classifying culturally diverse students as gifted.  Whether they are overlooked by their own teachers, score a less than desirable score on intelligence tests, or receive inadequate instruction once accepted into a gifted education program, minority students are lagging behind their white counterparts in the area of gifted education.  If culturally diverse students are continuously denied access to gifted education programs, then those programs will increase the gap between those students and their peers that are accepted into the gifted programs. The difficult challenge to ensure gifted students in all groups benefit from gifted programs equally in our educational system continues, and needs to be corrected by getting to the root of the inconsistencies and then creating a real and credible plan that can be authentically assessed.  

Pauley, Gayle and Johnstone, Kristina (2009). Addressing Under-representation of Student Populations in Gifted Programs. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Olympia, Washington. http://www.k12.wa.us/HighlyCapable/pubdocs/2010/UnderRepresentationGiftedPrograms.pdf

Strauss, V. (2013, March 20). Do Schools For ‘the Gifted’ Promote Segregation? The Washington Post. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/20/do-schools-for-the-gifted-promote-segregation/

Whiting, G., & Ford, D. (2009, December 23). Cultural Bias in Testing. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cultural-bias-in-testing/