Written by Amanda Weinrich
The Issue
As I began my teaching ministry, I quickly realized that I was underprepared to help the students with disabilities that I had in my classroom. I did not know the best way to teach them. I concluded that other WELS teachers might experience the same problem.
Since teachers who receive even a brief introduction about creating diverse lesson plans have been shown to include more modifications, alternatives for communications, and activities that involved students (King-Sears, 2008), I decided to help a fellow teacher learn about differentiation as part of my capstone work in my master’s program. The results are important for all teachers because all teachers will at some point have students with disabilities, and the number of students with disabilities is on a steady increase (Allsopp, Kyger, & Lovin, 2004).
The Research Background
Empirical research supports the inclusion of children with mild disabilities in the general education classroom (Carter, Ernest, Heckaman, Hull, & Thompson, 2011). Reading is often a big struggle for students with disabilities. They often struggle with not only basic reading concepts, but all reading skills (Kostewicz & Selfridge, 2011).
After determining that a student is struggling, teachers need to decide on the best course for differentiation. Teachers could think about the seven multiple intelligences in children to determine how various students think and prefer to learn (Beam, 2009). No matter what method teachers decide on for differentiation, teachers need to be patient with students. Allow students time to process and understand new information, and to prepare a response (Alton, 1998). Additionally, teachers need to be constantly assessing students to check for progress. Ongoing monitoring informs teaching and learning (King-Sears, 2008).
The Implementation
The project involved three parts. The first involved improving a classroom teacher’s knowledge and skills in differentiation. The second focus was on an eighth-grade student, John, with a specific learning disability (SLD). The teacher taught him for most of the subjects. The third focus was on a sixth-grade student, Lee, who has an SLD. The teacher taught him for math and science. Both of the students struggled with reading comprehension.
I gave the classroom teacher a questionnaire to determine how knowledgeable he was with differentiation. We discussed the results, and I taught him more in the areas he was not strong in. We focused mainly on how to differentiate the content, process, and product.
For John, we gave him a Maze Assessment, which showed that he reads at a slower rate and cannot comprehend text at grade-level. I gave the classroom teacher an idea on how to differentiate the content: John was reading texts too difficult for him, but he would benefit from reading texts matched with his abilities. To differentiate the process, I gave the teacher two ideas: have John read the novel instead of having it read to him by a website, and have John practice self-monitoring and fix-up strategies. The recommendation I had for differentiating the product was to have John practice summarizing and use that as another method to check his comprehension.
For Lee, we gave him a Maze Assessment, which showed that he tends to skim or only read part of the sentence, rather than taking in the whole meaning of the sentence. I suggested the teacher differentiate the content by presenting the science material in a different manner, since the science textbook is above Lee’s reading level. For differentiating the content in math, I suggested using teacher think-aloud to model working through word problems. To differentiate the process for math and science, I recommended the teacher use think-pair-share. Lastly, for differentiating the product, I suggested the teacher use assessments that are written at Lee’s reading level since many questions were at a level too difficult for Lee to understand.
The Results
I gave the teacher the questionnaire again at the end of the project. The results of that questionnaire showed an increase in understanding how to differentiate in the three areas—content, process, and product.
We gave John a Maze Assessment again at the end. He showed a slight increase in his score. The teacher observed a higher quality of work in his homework. We also gave Lee a Maze Assessment again at the end. The score showed fewer incorrect answers than in the first assessment. The teacher observed an increase in the quality of Lee’s answers, as well as a higher understanding of the content material. I anticipate that if I would carry out the field project for a longer time, I would see a more significant increase in the scores of the two students.
CLICK HERE to read the rest of Amanda’s field project.
Amanda Weinrich (’13, ’18) is a recent graduate of the Master of Science in Education program with a double emphasis in special education and instruction. She teaches at Martin Luther School-Neenah WI.
Resources
Allsopp, D., Kyger, M., & Lovin, L. (2004). Differentiation for special needs learners. Teaching Children Mathematics, (3), 158.
Alton, S. (1998). Differentiation not discrimination: Delivering the curriculum for children with Down’s Syndrome in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 13(4), 167. Beam, A. P. (2009). Standards-based differentiation: Identifying the concept of multiple intelligence for use with students with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4).
Carter, S. W., Ernest, J. M., Heckaman, K. A., Hull, K. M., & Thompson, S. E. (2011). Increasing the teaching efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: A case study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191–201.
King-Sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: Differentiation and the general education curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 23(2), 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00371.x
Kostewicz, D. E., & Selfridge, K. A. (2011). Reading interventions for four students with learning disabilities. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 27, 19–24.