Word.

The article by Tomlinson offers useful tools for handling many of the problems of differentiation that I have struggled with this year. While many of the examples in the text are descriptions of elementary school classroom situations, the methods described are applicable, with appropriate modifications, to middle and secondary instruction. Differentiation is increasingly important in our diverse classrooms; it is necessary to adequately assess progress and effort?
I have had long discussions with my mentor teacher about the differentiation process. The clearest product of our discussions is recognition that differentiation is necessary; it
Is important, however, to ensure that regardless of the means of assessment, students are performing work that demonstrates that standards are being met.
One of the biggest challenges in the general education classroom is maintaining the interest of students who have the capacity to work above the classroom instruction level. Two strategies proffered by Tomlinson that I see as useful solutions are “compacting” and the idea of “superscripting” grades. “Compacting” allows students with sufficient mastery of a skill to move on in a subject and be excused from the class work or homework assigned to achieve mastery of a skill. These students are allowed to move on to the application of the skill and further more intensive study of a subject. This affords the opportunity for student-initiated fields of study, which heightens engagement in the subject and lesson boredom… I currently have a number of students who would probably benefit from the concept of “compacting.” Coasting “A” students would most assuredly benefit from the opportunity to pursue additional concepts using the skills that need to be mastered.
Superscripting the grades of students allows both the recognition of effort by struggling students and an indicator of “coasting” by students with more advanced skills. Tomlinson describes a system where “1” indicates working above grade level, “2” is at grade level, and “3” is below grade level. I think this can be modified to reflect degree of effort, rather than grade level, thus making it a more useful system for illustrating whether students are actively engaged in pushing themselves in class. The “A” student who puts no effort into class and does not actually learn something new should not be judged the same way that a student who struggles and makes great progress.
One concern that I have with differentiated grading is that it may undermine the GPA structure. Many facets of secondary and post-secondary education pin criteria and rewards to these numbers. How can grade differentiation be used without effectively undermining these hierarchical structures?

—Ludlow

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

I am very excited about using new technologies to foster literacy. I found Swenson et al (2006) to be an extremely interesting read, and caught myself nodding along at times as I read. This article addresses some of the complications I have found in working with “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001); these students are so wholly immersed in their digital lives that the antiquated interface of books with paper seems uninteresting and devoid of meaning. Swenson et al point out that students spend the time equivalent of a full time job each week interacting with various forms of media. How can a book, a seemingly static artifice devoid of hyperlinks, actually tell us anything?
All pessimism aside, I have seen fascinating projects utilizing a blend of new and old technologies. I have seen the digital equivalent of the ‘commonplace books’ that Swenson references in her article. I have also seen the adaptation of business technologies to didactic practice, and been enthralled by the power of computers to convey information elegantly.
Some may be surprised to hear me praise the rise of digital texts; at one time I was practically a Luddite, clinging to my battered Smith typewriter or lugging around an old Skywriter to do my correspondence. I actually used carbon paper to make copies of documents I was typing. Now, I know this may date me a bit; I am not actually that old, but I have seen the remarkable spread of communication technology during my adult life, and I find it fascinating. The amount of information available is difficult to fathom. Examining the Leu et al document and its veritable cornucopia of hyperlinks was staggering. The ease with which one goes from information source to information source, from database to library stack to periodical reference boggles my mind. This may be the root difference between gen X and the digital natives of today; they expect nothing less than this synergy of interface and information, and when they have it, they can create amazing things. It is up to the rest of us to try and keep up.

—Ludlow

Leu, D. J., Leu, D. D., & Coiro C. (nd). Teaching with the Internet K—12: New Literacies for New Times. Accessed April 5, 2008 from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~djleu/fourth.html.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(55), 1-6.
Swenson, J., Young, C. A., McGrail, E., Rozema, R., & Whitin, P. (2006). Extending the conversation: new technologies, new literacies, and English Education. English Education, 38(4), 351-369.