It's interesting to read about "understanding by design" and "differentiated instruction" because (and I'm sure my fellow future educators would agree) we never realized how much work goes into a single lesson plan. It seems to me that understanding by design and differentiated instruction are two superior ways of looking at, making, and teaching a lesson plan because they cater to students more specifically. The fact that they flow so well together is just a bonus.
In chapter one of "Integrating Differentiated Instruction + Understanding by Design" we're given different "axioms" of what a teacher was trying to accomplish, the third of which discussed how the teacher Mr. Axelt was going about developing a curriculum on the Constitution. He gave students who are at different understanding levels of varying aspects different materials, which seemed strange at first— like the playing field wasn't level— but in fact, it was allowing everyone in the group to learn the same amount of new things based on their prior knowledge.
One of the points which people can forget about differentiated curriculum, is that even though group discussions may be different at each table, each person may choose or be assigned a different book, or anything similar, that the goals of the work assigned are to focus on the unit's understandings and skills. If these remain constant, then the curriculum is doing what it needs to. This is why it's best to plan what you want to achieve before making the actual lesson plan, which is where understanding by design comes in. Because of this, and my feeling that differentiated curriculum is actually more fair to the class as a group here to learn, I think that differentiating assignments slightly or simply suggesting alternatives will be something I will take part apply to my curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment