Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 1

Student-Centered and Differentiation Instruction

Kimberly Peltonen
Regent University

In partial fulfillment of UED 495 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2020.

Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 2

Introduction
The differences in learners as represented in any single classroom can be as broad and

deep as the ocean, and the task of “differentiating instruction to meet the needs of every student

lies squarely on the shoulders of the classroom teacher”. (Levin & Nolan, 2014, pg. 141)

Teachers must understand that a student’s learning needs are innumerable and can differ on level

of readiness to learn, amount of prior knowledge of subject matter, willingness to learn, ability to

think, ability to understand, level of interest in a subject, and learning styles, just to name a few.

(Levin & Nolan, 2014, pg. 141) Only after student needs have been determined can a teacher

develop effective differentiation strategies to meet the individual academic needs of their

students. This paper reflects the competency of student-centered and differentiated instruction as

demonstrated through the carefully chosen learning activity to teach Kindergartners a

challenging computer science concept and through a creative strategy of an acrostic anchor chart

to reinforce content the class was struggling to remember.

Rationale of Selected Artifacts

Kindergarten Computer Science Coding Lesson

The first artifact I chose demonstrates the Kindergarten objective of Virginia Computer

Science SOL K.1 that requires students to “construct sets of step-by-step instructions

(algorithm)”, K.2 that requires students to “construct programs to accomplish tasks as a means of

creative expression”, and K.3 that requires students to “create a design document to illustrate

thoughts, ideas, and stories in a sequential (step-by-step) manner”. (Virginia Department of

Education, 2019, pg. 7) This lesson introduced Kindergarten students to the computer concept of

coding, which is challenging due to its unfamiliar vocabulary, lack of exposure to computer

programming concepts, and the abstract ideas it represents. After an in-depth whole group
Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 3

instruction about how computers communicate to people using a language called a code, students

were tasked with making a pumpkin pie in a cup to meet the objectives. Working collaboratively

with their table groups, students were given a baggie that contained a colored picture of a

finished pumpkin pie in a cup, and black and white pictures of each of the five ingredients used

to make the pie. They first had to put the black and white pictures of the ingredients in the

correct order, using the colored photo of the finished pumpkin pie as a reference. After students

ordered the ingredients correctly, they then were instructed to glue the ingredient cards on their

worksheet, referred to as their recipe, which they then used as a step-by-step set of instructions to

make their pumpkin pie in a cup. The final step for the students was to take their recipe to the

ingredients table where they used it to build their pumpkin pie in a cup by following the

instructions.

Fourth Grade Science Astronomers Acrostic Anchor Chart

The second artifact I chose is a collection of acrostics of ancient astronomers and their

contributions compiled into an anchor chart that demonstrates the objective of Virginia Science

SOL 4.8e that requires students to “describe the historical contributions that have shaped our

understanding of the Earth-moon-sun systems”. (Virginia Department of Education, 2019, pg. 8)

After spending a significant amount of time instructing, completing a graphic organizer, and

reviewing in various formats about ancient astronomers, a majority of the class still struggled to

remember which astronomer to associate with each accomplishment. To remedy the problem, I

wrote on the white board a simple acrostic for each astronomer that used the astronomers name

and listed a couple of their accomplishments. I then required each student to copy the acrostics

on a piece of paper to serve as an individual anchor chart to be kept in their binder for personal

reference. Relying on rote memorization techniques, I then orally reviewed each of the acrostics
Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 4

every day in a rapid question-response format. Spending no more than five minutes, I would

quickly say the astronomers name, ask a question to the class, and the class would respond in

chorus with the answer that was contained in the acrostic before quickly moving to the next

question. I used the same wording every day for the questions, and as the students became

confident in their answers and responded more quickly, I would erase one or more of the clues

until they knew the information by memory. Around the third day of review using the acrostics,

the students showed a significant improvement in their ability to match the appropriate

astronomer and their accomplishments. Consequently, I was able to ask more detailed questions

(content they had learned but was not included in the acrostics) of which they also showed a

proficient understanding. Interestingly, when the assessment for this objective was given,

several students had written the acrostic in the margins of their paper as a strategy to help them

recall the information. This creative teaching technique proved to be just what the students

needed as evidenced by all but two students receiving a passing grade on their assessment.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

Effective differentiated instruction can only be accomplished when a teacher knows and

understands the learning needs of each of their students, or is student-centered, and allows it to

be the foundation in the development of their instruction. (Levin & Nolan, 2014, pg. 141) Both

artifacts I chose demonstrate student-centered instruction because the resulting teaching

strategies are derived from the observed or understood needs of the students. The pumpkin pie

in a cup learning activity for the Kindergarten class took into consideration the age appropriate

developmental needs of high physical activity, short attention span, and low amount of prior

knowledge. The astronomer’s acrostics used with the fourth graders took into consideration the
Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 5

student’s inability to recall and match the astronomers and their accomplishments as observed

during review.

Once I had determined the individual learning needs of the students, that data was used to

develop appropriate instructional strategies that would be effective and considered the needs that

were presented. For the fourth graders, I decided to focus on strategies that would meet each of

the three primary learning modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic. (Rutherford, 2008, pg. 204)

Visual learners’ needs were met through the nonlinguistic representation of the acrostics that taps

“into students’ natural tendency for visual image processing, which helps them construct

meaning of relevant content and skills and have a better capacity to recall it later”. (Dean,

Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, pg. 64) The learning needs of the auditory learners were met by

the oral repetition of the same questions and responses each day, in addition to the written

material. (Rutherford, 2008, pg. 129) Kinesthetic learner’s needs were not expressly addressed

with movement, but were considered by having each student write their own anchor chart and by

keeping the amount of time we took to review the material to less than five minutes. For the

lesson with the Kindergartners, I chose to differentiate the process by providing verbal

instruction during whole group, followed by a creative hands-on learning task that kept them

engaged and active, and also included a cooperative learning experience that helped to “enhance

and deepen their learning”. (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, pg. 37)

As I first begun to hear and learn about differentiation in my college classes, I remember

feeling overwhelmed at what seemed to be an impossible task. I wondered how it was possible

to meet every academic need of every student in my class in every subject every day of the

school year. My resolve in my decision to be a teacher was significantly shaken because I did

not think I could do what was being asked. During my prayer time, God drew my attention to
Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 6

the fact that I was relying on my own abilities and not on His. He reminded me to trust in Him

and “lean not on my own understanding” and to submit to Him in all my ways, and He will make

my paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6, New International Version). As I continued in my education

classes at Regent, my Professors methodically exposed me to detailed instruction and

demonstrations of strategies that exemplified differentiation. Their instruction was so effective

for me that I would say now that differentiation comes almost naturally to me, except that I

remember it did not come naturally, but instead it came supernaturally. As a result of my choice

to trust in God’s path through every stress inducing assignment, long class, and schedule

dominating semester, I did not realize that a habit had developed in my life that began with my

insecurity about differentiation. The habit of turning to God for direction when I am

overwhelmed or need clarity, and then trusting in His ways instead of my own has been proven

to be effective. One very small example of effectiveness of this habit is the use of the acrostics

used to reinforce the astronomers and their accomplishments for my fourth-grade class. Because

the students were struggling with the concept after I had already tried several strategies to

increase their understanding, I relied on God’s help to think of a strategy that would work. I

submitted to God’s plan, which included a simple acrostic, and He helped me to overcome this

challenge as evidenced by the blessing of almost all of my students successfully passing the

assessment for that objective.

Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 7

References

Dean, C., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Levin, J. & Nolan, J. (2014). Principles of classroom management. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Rutherford, P. (2008). Instruction for all students. Alexandria, VA: Just ASK Publications.

Virginia Department of Education. (2019). Standards of learning: Computer Science Grade K.

Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/computer-

science/2017/stds-compsci-k.pdf

Virginia Department of Education. (2019) Standards of learning: Science Grade 4. Retrieved

from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/2010/k-

6/stds_science4.pdf
Running Head: STUDENT-CENTERED AND DIFFERENTIATION 8