MILLER MASTER’S PORTFOLIO !

Diversity Statement

Goal #3: Teach with respect for student individual and cultural characteristics.

Ensuring that each student’s education is equitable means embracing an individualized

approach to planning, implementing, and assessing learning experiences. The level of diversity

and “chronic” achievement gap in our schools continues to create “dependent learners

unprepared to do the higher order thinking, creative problem solving, and analytical reading and

writing” required by standardized tests (Hammond, 2015, pg. 12). Educators are faced with the

noble challenge of adapting teaching strategies, materials, learner expectations and assessments

to a myriad of different abilities, backgrounds, learning styles and preferences. In this

presentation on my comprehension of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model, I apply

UDL to teaching fourth grade students fraction concepts while exploring how the human brain

benefits from differentiation and an individualized, flexible approach to curriculum planning.

The UDL approach provides educators with a framework to consider individual learner

needs and abilities, and maximizes differentiation for curriculum planning. In UDL, Meyer,

Rose, and Gordon (2014) address the disabilities of schools and curriculum, not the disabilities

and deficits of students. They draw upon neuroscience and education research to make education

more responsive to learners. In my exploration I consider teaching students a math concept

characterized by frequent misconceptions and misunderstandings, equivalent fractions. Jo Boaler

(2017) has found that students frequently fail to see fractions as relationships between the

numerator and denominator, and therefore often lack the key underlying idea that a fraction is a

single number, which is necessary for performing operations (pg. 143). The UDL approach

encouraged me to consider the diversity of my students and design learning opportunities

MILLER MASTER’S PORTFOLIO !2

tailored to benefit and challenge the individual abilities, needs, background knowledge, and

learning styles of each student.

In the lessons I designed to teach equivalent fractions, I followed UDL’s guidelines for

establishing learning goals that separate the goals from the means by unpacking and streamlining

two Alaska State Standards to allow for maximum student diversity and flexibility of expression.

Tomlinson & McTighe (2006) address various barriers inherent in diverse learners and stress the

need to teach responsively. UDL’s tenets for developing learning goals highlights removing

barriers by increasing flexibility and responsiveness.

Tomlinson and Moon (2013) liken assessment in teaching to diagnosis in the medical

profession. Through assessment we come to understand a student’s learning needs and abilities

enough to plan for the best instruction possible. The assessments for the goals of this lesson were

ongoing, measured both product and process, and were flexible, construct-relevant indications

that actively informed not only myself but students as well. I encouraged students to use

strategies that worked best for them, and checked for understanding frequently through open-

ended inquiry.

The methods and materials I used to teach fraction equivalence were adjusted several

times to meet student needs, providing multiple learning styles and varying levels of prior

knowledge with multiple entry points and engaging real-world scenarios. Using Boaler’s (2017)

recommendations for giving students the opportunity to discover the concepts of fraction

equivalence through explorations of geometric art, I found that all of my students came up with

the same strategies for finding fractions of colors within art pieces, and none of them used a

strategy more sophisticated than counting individual squares of the smallest size. Tomlinson
MILLER MASTER’S PORTFOLIO !3

(2014) views teaching strategies in differentiated classrooms as appropriate or not only in terms

of learner needs and readiness. I realized that my students were not ready for the discovery of

equivalent fractions through exploration without more scaffolding. So I offered them several

other models of viewing equivalent fractions, including pie-piece fraction tiles, number line

exercises, and portioning of area through a garden plot scenario. As Sousa and Tomlinson (2011)

point out, “readiness is not a synonym for ability” (pg. 86). As such, teachers who look for

students’ readiness needs rather than focusing on ability (or inability or disability) can more

easily exude growth mindset beliefs and influences on their students.

Another culturally and diversity responsive touchstone I rely on is cooperative learning.

As Sousa and Tomlinson (2011) assert, the human brain has neurons and regions dedicated to

socio-emotional interactions. These networks also release endorphins or cortisol depending on

whether the interaction is positive or negative (pg. 21-23). Endorphins increase engagement and

motivation, while cortisol limits function to handling stress. Students are not learning if they are

dealing with stress, so enhancing endorphin release is in the best interest of both students and

teachers. Ensuring that students have plenty of variation in group and independent work, and

facilitating students in mentoring and teaching their peers gives them opportunities to build

community and extend their perspectives, while remaining sensitive to individual learning

profiles.

Designing curriculum from a UDL foundation maximizes these individual and varied

learning profiles of students by providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and

expression throughout objectives, methods, materials, and assessments. Differentiating

instruction for multiple learning styles, preferences, cultures, genders, and abilities involves
MILLER MASTER’S PORTFOLIO !4

stimulating interest and motivation, presenting information and content in different ways, and

allowing students to express their understandings in different ways. As Freire (1970) contended,

children are not simply empty bank accounts which adults fill with facts. All students need to be

challenged and supported in learning how to learn. Regardless of a learner’s culture, race,

socioeconomic status, ability, gender, or needs, all student’s need to be engaged in tasks higher

on Bloom’s taxonomy in order to become independent thinkers who can succeed on standardized

tests and narrow the achievement gap.

References

Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:

A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boaler, J. (2017). Mindset mathematics: Grade 4. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic

engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., and Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and

practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

Sousa, D.A. and Tomlinson, C.A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience

supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

MILLER MASTER’S PORTFOLIO !5

Tomlinson, C.A. and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction + Understanding

by Design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C.A. and Moon, T.R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated

classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.