167

Chapter 6
Thinking It Through:
Using the ADAPT Strategy to
Differentiate and Adapt Instruction

Michelle Chamblin
Molloy College, USA

ABSTRACT
The concept of differentiating and adapting instruction for all students, including
students with disabilities, is explored in this chapter. Preservice teachers, upon
exiting their teacher preparation programs, are expected to be fully developed and
know how to differentiate instruction for diverse learners and adapt instruction for
exceptional students who require more. However, the plethora of information on
differentiation of instruction and adapting instruction can be overwhelming, leaving
the preservice teacher overloaded. Concrete approaches must be available. This
chapter presents the ADAPT strategy, which models one approach of organizing
information and thinking through a process. With the use of lesson planning, universal
design guidelines, and evidence-based practices, the chapter presents a step-by-step
teaching model. Examples, work samples, and data derived from teaching the strategy
to preservice teachers are included. This strategy may help preservice teachers, as
well as more experienced teachers, approach the task of varying instruction in a
consistent, thoughtful, and manageable way.

INTRODUCTION

Adapted instruction is the hallmark of good education and is essential for students
with various learning needs, especially students with disabilities who are in inclusive
settings (Breitfelder, 2008; Goddard, Goddard, & Kim, 2015; Janney & Snell, 2000).
Without effective adaptations, these students are not able to access the curriculum,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-3111-1.ch006

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Thinking It Through

the learning targets, or the knowledge they will need to be informed citizens (Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Karns, 1995). As the number of students with disabilities
in inclusive settings has increased, their representation in high-stakes assessments
used to inform educational practices has also increased (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). These students and their families have become major stakeholders
in a system that addresses their education in the least restrictive environment. This
shift in paradigm is quite different from the historical perspective in which students
with special needs were taught mostly in segregated classrooms, only exposed to
specialized curriculum, and not considered an integral part of the school culture
(Lee et al., 2006).
In addition, as classrooms have become more diverse, the need to address various
learning modalities has grown apparent and essential (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008;
Tomlinson, 2001). Diversity in the classroom has challenged the outdated model
of teaching to the imaginary average student and the belief that all students in the
classroom should be engaged in synchronous learning activities, or doing the same
thing at the same time (Tomlinson, 2001). Differentiation of instruction compels
the teaching community to provide varied strategies to address students of different
ability levels, learning profiles, and interests (Tobin & McInnes, 2008). Thus, the
importance of differentiating and adapting instruction has become a major theme
and shift in mindset (Tomlinson, 2001).
Nonetheless, research shows that preservice teachers are not fully developed
in the skill of differentiating and adapting instruction when they exit teacher
preparation programs (Beyer & Davis, 2009; Chesley & Jordan, 2012; Ko, 2012;
Kurth & Keegan, 2012). For instance, a study by Dee (2011) found that early career
teachers developed adaptations that were disconnected to lessons and difficult to
implement and that did not address the needs of the learners. The adapted instruction
was not connected to learner profiles or other information, such as the goals on the
students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP). Other studies concluded that
veteran teachers were able to provide effective adaptations due to their classroom
experiences and not due to preservice teacher preparation (Chesley & Jordan, 2012;
Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998).
To address the lack of preparedness of teachers to differentiate instruction,
professional standards were set by several organizations such the Council for
Exceptional Children and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
with the mission to ensure that all teachers are well prepared. According to CCSSO
(n.d.), this preparation ensures that every child in K–12 will be ready for college or
a career. Standards such as those created by the Interstate Assessment and Support
Consortium further detail these aspects and provide guidance to higher education
(CCSSO, 2013). Other organizations such as The National Committee for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education, now Council for the Accreditation of Educator

168
Thinking It Through

Preparation (CAEP), mandate that teacher preparation programs prepare all teachers
to have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to educate all students (CAEP, n.d.).
Requiring preservice teachers to demonstrate proficiency in meeting the needs
of every learner is another strategy that has been implemented. One example is
the Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). Over the last few years,
edTPA has been used in some capacity in 35 states within the United States (edTPA,
n.d.). Within the assessment, the participant must provide evidence that he or she
can plan supports for a variety of learners. The participant must also show evidence
of planned specific strategies that are connected to the common development of
all learners, including exceptional learners who may have IEPs or 504 plans. The
concept of differentiating and adapting instruction, which is expressed in the notion
of supporting all learners, is a prominent theme. Participants in this assessment show
their “ability to effectively teach subject matter to all students” (edTPA, n.d., para. 6).
These efforts clarify the expectations of teachers who are exiting or graduating
from a teacher preparation program. However, preservice teachers usually begin a
teacher preparation program with no conception of how to differentiate or adapt
instruction. As a part of their teacher preparation experience, the goal is to grow from
an emerging knowledge at the beginning of a program to evidenced competency at
graduation. Therefore, learning how to differentiate and adapt instruction is a process
that all preservice teachers must engage in and master before beginning their careers.
Certainly, teacher preparation programs have taken on this charge, and teacher
candidates are educated in this area. Preservice teachers may learn many pieces of
information that need to be consulted before making adaptations or differentiating
instruction. For example, teacher candidates may learn about the characteristics of
disabilities, assessments, and content. However, with so many pieces that contribute
to differentiating and adapting instruction, preservice teachers may need a strategic
way to go through this process. A modeled thinking process can be beneficial for
preservice teachers so that they can understand how to manage the information,
articulate their ideas, practice, and develop. Thus, this chapter presents the ADAPT
strategy, which is a research-based approach of organizing information and thinking
through a process, to help preservice teachers, and even more experienced teachers,
approach the task of varying instruction in a consistent, thoughtful, and manageable
way.

DIFFERENTIATED AND ADAPTED INSTRUCTION

There are many examples of what an adaptation can be or what a teacher can do to
an activity to differentiate it (Beyer & Davis, 2015; Salend, 2005). These examples
are extremely helpful but, if not used correctly, can be potentially harmful. As

169
 Thinking It Through

mentioned earlier, research shows that preservice teachers might make adaptations or
differentiate instruction in ways that are disconnected. Perhaps using lists, suggestions,
and recommendations for finding the “what” of an adaptation is the cause of this
disconnect. In a focus group facilitated by Chamblin (2014), preservice teachers
reported that their preferred method of selecting adaptations and differentiating
instruction was to do a Google search either by activity type or disability category.
Although they had been exposed to at least three courses covering content on
special education and/or diverse learners, these preservice teachers used the Google
search at much higher frequencies than using information covered in the courses.
Preservice teachers from the group commented that they selected adaptations from
the Google search because the information they had learned was voluminous, and
they lacked a way to organize it. In addition, the Google search was quicker and
produced recommendations that seemed appropriate and contained promising ideas.
To further illustrate, one of the preservice teachers from Chamblin’s (2014)
focus group reported that she did a Google search of emotional behavioral disability
(EBD) adaptations, which led to the following list:

• Set up goals that increase social interactions.

• Use role-playing situations in instruction.
• Create seating arrangements to encourage social interaction.
• Include students with EBD in the planning process of the IEP.
• Discuss IEP goals with the student.
• Set up personalized goals and strategies.
• Challenge students to keep them learning new skills instead of giving into
outbursts and disobedience. Giving in only validates the child’s behavior. (A
Child With Needs, 2012).

The preservice teacher selected “set up goals that increase social interactions,”
which is the “what” of an accommodation that can help better understand what
teachers can do in instruction, but making that connection needs to be facilitated.
In a submitted lesson, the preservice teacher explained that she would make
adaptations for the EBD student by setting up goals that increased interaction. She
further explained that she was going to have a goal chart to check off every time
the student interacted with others. This is a good starting place, but the “how” of
making adaptations to instruction was lacking. There seemed to be confusion about
differentiation of instruction and the adaptations that accommodate students with
disabilities, including instructional modifications.
Additionally, another preservice teacher from the focus group reported that she
did a Google search of learning disabilities and a web search for adaptations, which

170
Thinking It Through

led to the following information by the National Center on Learning Disabilities

(2006, para. 4):

• Presentation:
◦◦ Provide on audio tape.
◦◦ Provide in large print.
◦◦ Reduce number of items per page or line.
◦◦ Provide a designated reader.
◦◦ Present instructions orally.
• Response:
◦◦ Allow for verbal responses.
◦◦ Allow for answers to be dictated to a scribe.
◦◦ Allow the use of a tape recorder to capture responses.
◦◦ Permit responses to be given via computer.
◦◦ Permit answers to be recorded directly into test booklet.
• Timing:
◦◦ Allow frequent breaks.
◦◦ Extend allotted time for a test.
• Setting:
◦◦ Provide preferential seating.
◦◦ Provide special lighting or acoustics.
◦◦ Provide a space with minimal distractions.
◦◦ Administer a test in small group setting.
◦◦ Administer a test in private room or alternative test site.
• Test Scheduling:
◦◦ Administer a test in several timed sessions or over several days.
◦◦ Allow subtests to be taken in a different order.
◦◦ Administer a test at a specific time of day.
• Other:
◦◦ Provide special test preparation.
◦◦ Provide on-task/focusing prompts.
◦◦ Provide any reasonable accommodation that a student needs that does
not fit under the existing categories.

The preservice teacher also reported that she had used this chart to address what
she would do as an adaptation of instruction and was confused by the abundant
information.
Without proper training in the “how” of differentiating instruction and making
adaptations, preservice teachers may over-rely on these suggestions and not develop

171
 Thinking It Through

the capacity to deepen their skills in this area and comprehensively understand how
to orchestrate lessons for all learners. A fragmented approach to thinking about
differentiation of instruction may occur at the emerging level; consequently, clarity
is needed.
Preservice teachers may benefit from a thinking model to help clarify this
confusion. Udvari-Solner (1996), Ornstein (1997), and Kurth (2013) examined the
thinking process of teachers and concluded that teaching a model may be beneficial
for novice teachers because they can replicate the process and generalize it to various
teaching situations. Perhaps having a thinking strategy will help preservice teachers
develop formal plans that will help them respond constructively and proactively to
students in their class (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Furthermore, by having a
strategy in place, the many creative ways teachers can differentiate instruction and
adaptations can be ignited.
A study by Weselby (2017) found that classroom teachers who effectively
differentiated instruction reportedly designed lessons based on the students’
learning style; used flexible groups of students separated by interest or ability for
assignments; created classrooms that were conducive for learning; and continually
assessed students to adjust content to meet the students’ needs. Teachers also (a)
varied reading materials, (b) reorganized content, (c) varied the support provided
to students, (d) used graphic organizers and concept maps, (e) used tiered activities,
(f) engaged centers, (g) incorporated task-specific sheets for the whole class and
individual students, (h) used manipulatives/hands-on activities, (i) presented learning
through multiple means such as customizing visual displays, (j) allowed students
to work on different products, (k) provided expectations that allowed for varying
degrees of difficulty, and (l) used rubrics that were developed based on the varying
ability of the students (Ernest, Heckaman, Thompson, Hull, & Carter, 2011).
Students with disabilities in the general education classroom may require further
adaptations. In this sense, adaptations allow students with disabilities to participate
in inclusive environments by compensating for the learner’s weaknesses. According
to the Positive Environments Network Trainers (PENT), educators must make
“changes permissible in educational environments which allow the student equal
opportunity to obtain access, results, benefits and levels of achievement” (Browning
Wright, 2003, p. 1).
An accommodation that is different from an adaptation—which allows access
without changing the curriculum—is a modification; a modification changes or
lowers expectations and changes the standards of the instruction and how students
are evaluated. For example, letting a student use a modified text when reading a
novel and not requiring that student to be as accountable in knowing everything
about the novel that the other students are required to know is an example of a
modification (Wright, 2003).

172
Thinking It Through

To allow for built-in differentiation of instruction and decrease the number

of permissible changes, the concept of universal design (CAST, n.d.) advocates
diversifying the lesson from the very start and proposes that lessons and curriculum
should have multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. Principle 1
of universal design suggests that there should be options for how the visual information
will be displayed and alternatives for auditory and visual information. Principle 2
suggests that there should be options for language, mathematical expressions, and
symbols. Clarification of vocabulary and syntax should be considered, and instruction
should support decoding, comprehension, and understanding across languages.
Principle 3 suggests that there should be options for student participation in varying
student response modalities and options for communication and expression. Goal
setting and supports to help the students with self-determination are also suggested.
Although the above examples are different approaches, all have a common goal,
which is access for the learner (Stanford & Reeves, 2009). By using components
of these approaches, novice teachers can be guided to think through a lesson more
holistically by considering what they need to do to ensure that all students can
participate.

THE ADAPT STRATEGY

Prerequisites for the ADAPT Strategy

In order to teach those at the emerging and developing level how to differentiate
or adapt instruction, two things are needed: a description and understanding of the
learner(s) and an intact lesson.

Understanding of the Learner

Adapting instruction serves one purpose: to bridge a gap or a mismatch between the
instruction and the learner in order to support him or her in achieving the learning
target or goal (Janney & Snell, 2000). First, teachers must understand each learner.
Artifacts such as IEPs, assessments, parent reports, teacher reports, and student
interest inventories can be used to help teachers develop an understanding of a
learner; this practice is used in special education and even on state certification
exams (Chamblin, 2017). A case study is presented below to illustrate this process.

A class is comprised of 25 students. From the interest surveys given to the students
at the beginning of the year, there are few commonalities to note. The students are
very interested in art, especially animation.

173
 Thinking It Through

Five students are first-generation Americans and receive English as a New Language
(ENL) service. Mario, Ming, Vasmir, Linda, and Zenobia have different home
languages, and although they are all ENL students, their achievement of cognitive
academic language proficiency is at varying levels. Zenobia is very strong in
academic vocabulary, whereas Ming, Vasmir, Mario, and Linda struggle. One
student, Michael, does poorly with unstructured activities that disrupt the class.

The school uses a multi-tier system for support, and 10 students have received
intensive support at Tier 2 and 3 for literacy. Seven students have received support
only at Tier 1, which indicates that they have achieved expected benchmarks. One
student, Hassan, is academically gifted and is a very talented musician. He excels
but quickly becomes bored, which has been problematic. Michelle and Jason have
IEPs. Jason has an oppositional defiant disorder and a classification of EBD. He
loves sports and responds well when given choices. Michelle is classified with a
speech and language impairment that affects her ability to process information.

As part of the above case study, Michelle’s science teacher wants to adapt
instruction but needs to first develop a better understanding of her as a learner. The
teacher decides to consult several artifacts, including conference notes, assessment
data, and the IEP (see Tables 1–3).

Table 1. Excerpt from science teacher’s conference notes.

Michelle is always on time to class, but she is always the last to have her materials ready for instruction. She
seems very disorganized and is constantly losing items. Her homework is usually in the wrong section of the
binder, and her social studies notes were in the science section. I have told her several times that she needs
to make sure that she is in the correct section of the binder. I have observed her writing science notes in the
social studies section of her binder as well. This disorganization slows her down, and she seems frustrated.
She disrupts the entire class with many questions concerning directions that are written on the board.
She needs clarification for everything, as though she cannot read from the board and listen to directions
simultaneously.
Michelle does well on multiple-choice exams when she has extended time. In class, however, it is very
difficult to read her lab reports due to her writing, which looks like a long string of letters with no spaces.
When she reads aloud, she jumbles the words and reads them as if there are no spaces between the words.
This has a negative impact on her reading the textbook, following lab directions, and filling out the lab
reports.
When given an opportunity to redo the lab assignments, Michelle’s work looks the same. The writing is still
incomprehensible. Her ability to read scientific text is lacking.

174
Thinking It Through

Table 2. Michelle’s assessment data for the marking period.

Test Number Type Score

1 Multiple Choice 78% (Resource Room)
2 Lab Report 1 50%
3 Multiple Choice 75% (Resource Room)
4 Essay 40%
5 Lab Report 2 35%
6 Lab Report 3 53%
7 Lab Report 4 40%

Table 3. Michelle’s IEP information.

Focus Area Notes

Testing • Woodcock Johnson III ACH Tests
• Broad Math Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Reading Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Written Language 82 (standard score)
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
• Full Scale IQ 97 (intelligence quotient)
Academic Achievement, Functional • Reading: Michelle is functioning below grade level in decoding
Performance, and Learning skills and reading comprehension. She demonstrates difficulty
Characteristics understanding concepts and benefits from graphic and visual
organizers.
• Writing: Michelle is functioning below grade level in written
expression. She continues to demonstrate difficulty with mechanics
of writing.
• Math: Michelle has difficulty with multistep math equations. The
visual spatial needs and organization of math problems are difficult
for her.
Social Development Michelle is excellent in social skills. She is very friendly and well
accepted by her peers.
Student Strength: Michelle works well in small groups and is
receptive to assistance.
Management Needs Michelle requires additional support of special education services to
be successful in the general education classroom.
Annual Goals • Study Skills:
     o Michelle will arrive to class on time with the needed materials.
     o Michelle will use organizational strategies to study class notes
and prepare for exams.
• Reading:
     o Michelle will use comprehension skills of root words, synonyms,
antonyms, and multiple meanings to define 10 unknown words.
• Writing:
     o Michelle will use the process of prewriting, drafting, revising,
and proofreading to produce a 5-paragraph essay.
Services • Resource Room 5:1—in the Resource Room
• Organizational Strategies—Daily in the Classroom

175
 Thinking It Through

Focus Area

Notes

Testing

• Woodcock Johnson III ACH Tests

• Broad Math Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Reading Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Written Language 82 (standard score)
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
• Full Scale IQ 97 (intelligence quotient)

Academic Achievement, Functional Performance, and Learning

Characteristics

• Reading: Michelle is functioning below grade level in decoding skills and

reading comprehension. She demonstrates difficulty understanding concepts
and benefits from graphic and visual organizers.
• Writing: Michelle is functioning below grade level in written expression.
She continues to demonstrate difficulty with mechanics of writing.
• Math: Michelle has difficulty with multistep math equations. The visual
spatial needs and organization of math problems are difficult for her.

Social Development

Michelle is excellent in social skills. She is very friendly and well accepted by her
peers.
Student Strength: Michelle works well in small groups and is receptive to assistance.

Management Needs

Michelle requires additional support of special education services to be successful

in the general education classroom.

Annual Goals

• Study Skills:
◦◦ Michelle will arrive to class on time with the needed materials.

176
Thinking It Through

◦◦ Michelle will use organizational strategies to study class notes and

prepare for exams.
• Reading:
◦◦ Michelle will use comprehension skills of root words, synonyms,
antonyms, and multiple meanings to define 10 unknown words.
• Writing:
◦◦ Michelle will use the process of prewriting, drafting, revising, and
proofreading to produce a 5-paragraph essay.

Services

• Resource Room 5:1—in the Resource Room

• Organizational Strategies—Daily in the Classroom

Focus Area

Notes

Testing

• Woodcock Johnson III ACH Tests

• Broad Math Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Reading Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Written Language 82 (standard score)
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
• Full Scale IQ 97 (intelligence quotient)

Academic Achievement, Functional Performance, and Learning

Characteristics

• Reading: Michelle is functioning below grade level in decoding skills and

reading comprehension. She demonstrates difficulty understanding concepts
and benefits from graphic and visual organizers.
• Writing: Michelle is functioning below grade level in written expression.
She continues to demonstrate difficulty with mechanics of writing.
• Math: Michelle has difficulty with multistep math equations. The visual
spatial needs and organization of math problems are difficult for her.

Social Development

177
 Thinking It Through

Michelle is excellent in social skills. She is very friendly and well accepted by her
peers.
Student Strength: Michelle works well in small groups and is receptive to assistance.

Management Needs

Michelle requires additional support of special education services to be successful

in the general education classroom.

Annual Goals

• Study Skills:
◦◦ Michelle will arrive to class on time with the needed materials.
◦◦ Michelle will use organizational strategies to study class notes and
prepare for exams.
• Reading:
◦◦ Michelle will use comprehension skills of root words, synonyms,
antonyms, and multiple meanings to define 10 unknown words.
• Writing:
◦◦ Michelle will use the process of prewriting, drafting, revising, and
proofreading to produce a 5-paragraph essay.

Services

• Resource Room 5:1—in the Resource Room

• Organizational Strategies—Daily in the Classroom

Focus Area

Notes

Testing

• Woodcock Johnson III ACH Tests

• Broad Math Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Reading Cluster 87 (standard score)
• Broad Written Language 82 (standard score)
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
• Full Scale IQ 97 (intelligence quotient)

178
Thinking It Through

Academic Achievement, Functional Performance, and Learning

Characteristics

• Reading: Michelle is functioning below grade level in decoding skills and

reading comprehension. She demonstrates difficulty understanding concepts
and benefits from graphic and visual organizers.
• Writing: Michelle is functioning below grade level in written expression.
She continues to demonstrate difficulty with mechanics of writing.
• Math: Michelle has difficulty with multistep math equations. The visual
spatial needs and organization of math problems are difficult for her.

Social Development

Michelle is excellent in social skills. She is very friendly and well accepted by her
peers.
Student Strength: Michelle works well in small groups and is receptive to assistance.

Management Needs

Michelle requires additional support of special education services to be successful

in the general education classroom.

Annual Goals

• Study Skills:
◦◦ Michelle will arrive to class on time with the needed materials.
◦◦ Michelle will use organizational strategies to study class notes and
prepare for exams.
• Reading:
◦◦ Michelle will use comprehension skills of root words, synonyms,
antonyms, and multiple meanings to define 10 unknown words.
• Writing:
◦◦ Michelle will use the process of prewriting, drafting, revising, and
proofreading to produce a 5-paragraph essay.

Services

• Resource Room 5:1—in the Resource Room

• Organizational Strategies—Daily in the Classroom

179
 Thinking It Through

After reviewing these artifacts, the teacher has a much clearer understanding of
Michelle as a learner and can move forward with determining appropriate adaptations.

Lesson Plan

The second prerequisite is a lesson plan. It is recommended that the lesson plan
be aligned to state or national standards and have the following components: an
objective, motivation, materials, strategies, developmental procedure, assessment,
and independent practice or homework. The survey and focus group data collected
by Chamblin (2014) from preservice teachers revealed that receiving instruction in
differentiating and adapting instruction simultaneously with learning how to write
a lesson plan was overwhelming and unmanageable. Therefore, it is necessary to
first have preservice teachers learn how to write a lesson plan.
Although there are various approaches to lesson planning, this section presents
the lesson plan approach utilized by Schiering, Bogner, and Buli-Holmber (2011)
that includes determining the objective, motivation, materials, strategies, procedures,
assessment, and independent practice.

• Instructional Objective: The objective of the lesson states what the student
will know and be able to do as a result of the lesson. The objective is
described as behavioral, which means that the goal in the learning situation
includes and employs behavior as a measured outcome of learning. There is
an expectation that the objective will result in observable behavior. To fully
express the objective, there are four parts to be addressed: the conditions,
process, product, and criteria.
◦◦ Conditions: The conditions are antecedents, or what happens just
before observing what the student will do (performance). An example
of a condition may be a discussion, viewing a video, participating in a
game, or listening to a reading passage.
◦◦ Performance: Performance is a learning task in which the student
engages in order to interface with information. Performance can be
described as a learning outcome or skill used to acquire knowledge.
State or Common Core Standards can be used to select the learning
task. In most cases, performance is expressed as a verb. Often, Bloom’s
Taxonomy is used as a framework to implement verbs that induce higher-
order thinking. As noted by Kugelman (n.d.), Bloom’s model contains
six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation. The verb used in performance at the comprehension
level may be to “classify”; however, when moving higher in the model to
the next level, the application verb may be to “solve.” At an even higher

180
Thinking It Through

Table 4. Performance verbs.

Level Verbs
Knowledge list record underline state define arrange name relate describe tell recall
memorize recall repeat recognize label select reproduce
Comprehension explain describe report translate express summarize identify classify discuss
restate locate compare discuss review illustrate tell critique estimate reference
interpret reiterate
Application apply sketch perform use solve respond practice construct role play demonstrate
conduct execute complete dramatize employ
Analysis analyze inspect test distinguish categorize critique differentiate catalogue
diagnose appraise quantify extrapolate calculate measure theorize experiment
relate debate
Synthesis develop revise compose plan formulate collect build propose construct create
establish prepare design integrate devise organize modify manage
Evaluation review appraise choose justify argue conclude assess rate compare defend score
evaluate report on select interpret investigate measure support

level of analysis, the verb used may be to “make conclusions.” Table 4

contains a list of performance verbs compiled by Clinton Community
College (n.d.).
• Product: The product is the final expression of the learning task that
results in something that can be measured or evaluated. For example, the
student will discuss (performance) the events that led to the bombing of
Pearl Harbor by writing … (product). Or, for another example, students will
classify (performance) butterfly wings by drawing two sizes (product). A final
example is the following: students will locate coordinates (performance) by
writing the correct structure found at the x/y coordinates given (product).
Words that signal product are by, in, though, according to, containing, and
so on.
• Criterion: Criterion describes the expected level of performance that
indicates the student has reached the learning target for the lesson. The product
is measured or evaluated to determine if the student achieved this expected
level. For example, in an observed lesson, the teacher created an objective
in which the product was a retell of the story she read to the students. This
measure may be expressed as a ratio, percentage, or duration of time or can
be connected to a rubric score. These are just a few ways in which a criterion
is expressed.

Below are examples of objectives that have conditions, performance, product,

and criterion put together.

181
 Thinking It Through

Example 1: After reading a passage about living in colonial America (conditions),

students will compare and contrast (performance/learning task) what it would
be like to be a child living then versus in modern-day America by writing a list
(product) containing no less than six similarities and six differences (criterion).
Example 2: After reading The Pigeon Wants a Puppy by Mo Willems (conditions),
students will distinguish between fragments and sentences (performance) by
using five fragments found in the story and transforming the five fragments
into complete sentences (product) with 90% accuracy (criterion) based on the
teacher’s rubric.
Example 3: After a class discussion based on reading excerpts concerning the
Holocaust (conditions), students will identify the importance of primary
resources (performance) by explaining in a well-written paragraph (product)
with no less than three contributions (criterion) from the Diary of Anne Frank
to understanding the lives of those who were persecuted.

1. Motivation: Motivation is an opportunity to engage the learners and recruit their

interests. Motivation gets learners excited, curious, or wondering. It can also be
an opportunity to activate prior knowledge or prime the student’s knowledge
so that the new content will connect with a past experience. Motivation also
serves as an opportunity to begin the lesson on a positive and fresh mental set.
Examples of motivations include but are not limited to a video clip, a funny
story, a riddle that connects, an imagination game, or role play. For instance, a
teacher could read a kindergarten class The Listening Walk by Paul Showers and
role play what it means to use their eyes and ears to remember what they see and
hear on a walk, and the teacher can within the actual lesson take students on a
walk outside. Another example might be for a second-grade teacher to put on
a fireman’s hat and ask the children everything they know about the hat, who
wears it, and why. This motivation can be used for a lesson about community
helpers. Another motivational exercise might be to have the students close
their eyes and imagine their favorite place in the world and then describe that
place as the motivation to an ELA grammar lesson on adjectives and adverbs.
2. Materials: The materials or instructional resources for the lesson include
everything that the teacher will use, including but not limited to books,
worksheets, manipulatives, technology, and rubrics. Anything that is used to
engage the learner is part of the materials. For example, in a lesson in which
a teacher used the book Max Takes the Train, her materials were as follows:
a. The book Max Takes the Train.
b. A YouTube video reading of Max Takes the Train.
c. A smartboard.
d. Journals.

182
Thinking It Through

e. Pencils.
f. Crayons.
g. A dry erase board.
h. A dry erase marker.
3. Strategies: As teachers envision their lesson, they should contemplate the
activities that they will use to move the students through the concepts presented.
These are called strategies. Think of strategies as little wagons of various
shapes, sizes, and colors. Teachers should begin the lesson with a motivation
and then begin the procedure. The procedure involves getting the students
through various points, and at each point is a concept that they need to know.
If they pick up each concept upon arrival to the final destination in the lesson,
they will have all the knowledge and achieve the goal.

Teachers may need different wagons to move through the terrain of a lesson. Just
like some wagons might be better equipped to move through grass while another
wagon is better equipped to move through sand, different strategies may be needed
at different points in a lesson.
Examples of strategies include the following: group discussion, direct teaching,
questioning, cooperative learning, teacher demonstration, and indirect instruction
strategies such as role play, interest/learning centers, group investigations, reflective
thinking, and brainstorming. Below are hypothetical examples of specific strategies
used by teachers.
Mr. Zane was teaching a writing lesson on editing. The goal of the lesson was
for the students to edit their essays that were completed the previous day. In the
beginning of the lesson, Mr. Zane used teacher demonstration and direct instruction
as he modeled and informed the students of the editing skills they would use. This
was a full-class demonstration. Students then worked in cooperative groups on a
sample editing piece to practice the skill modeled and instructed. After completing
and reviewing the editing done in the cooperative group, Mr. Zane used another
grouping strategy. The students worked in pairs on one challenging sentence to
create a sentence strip and then presented their sentence to the class. The students
then worked independently as they applied the editing skill to their essay.
In another example, Ms. Jones decided to use interest centers in her fifth-grade
class. During the math period, Ms. Jones created five centers in her classroom,
and students moved from center to center in small groups. Each center reviewed
the concepts taught earlier in the week and employed a game format with detailed
instructions so that students were able to participate with minimal teacher assistance.
The games had criteria for mastery and self-corrective components. Students had
to reach the criteria in 15 minutes to win. As the students moved from one center

183
 Thinking It Through

to another, Ms. Jones used transition music that provided a cue for ending at one
center, reorganizing the materials for the next group, and moving to the next location.
In a final example, Mr. Goodman planned a lesson on writing an opinion speech
with his eighth-grade class and wrote the following strategies for one of the lessons
in his unit:

• Think Pair Share: Students will share and discuss information from various
texts.
• Cooperative Learning: Students will select a position or opinion based on
the texts and their topic.
• Reviewing Material: Students will use the handouts to organize their ideas.
• Note Taking: Students will take notes based on discussions and text
concerning their opinion.
• Independent Work: Students will write their opinion piece independently
and go deeper into different reasons for the group opinion. For example, if
there are four people in the group, there will be four reasons to support the
shared opinion.
• Collaborate: Students will collaborate, consolidate, and review the opinion.
• Oral Presentation: Students will share their opinion with the class.

4. Developmental Procedures: Developmental procedures are the activities and

learning tasks that will occur in the progression of a lesson. The activities and
learning tasks should be structured in a list and in sequential order. Much like
a recipe that lists each step, the developmental procedure is the recipe for the
lesson.

Below is the developmental procedure from one of Mr. Goodman’s lessons from
his Opinion Writing Unit:

• Students will be asked to choose an envelope that contains a part of the text
“Social Media: For Better or For Worse?” and will be asked to read their part
to the class. (Is social media beneficial or harmful for society? Use reasons
and evidence to support your opinion.)
• Students will read their piece of the text independently and will share with
three classmates something new that they learned from their piece of the text.
(Students will underline something new that they learned from the text and
then share with fellow classmates.)
• Students will be asked to write down their new piece of information that
they learned on the white poster board and will record these facts into their
notebooks.

184
Thinking It Through

• Students will be able to identify the difference between reason and evidence
by using examples from the text. (What is the difference between a reason
and evidence? Where can these be found in the text?)

5. Assessment: The assessment measures whether the student met the previously
identified objective for the lesson. Teachers will know this if the student
demonstrated the performance and product to the level expected, which is the
criterion. Planning for assessment during the lesson requires that teachers list
check points in the lesson, including a final one.

An objective discussed earlier in this chapter was the following:

After reading a passage about living in colonial America, students will compare
and contrast what it would be like to be a child living then versus in modern-day
America by writing a list containing no less than six similarities and six differences.

The assessments for this particular lesson would be the following:

• Student successfully read the passage on page 7–10.

• Student used the Venn diagram and wrote “then” and “now” above each
circle.
• Student used the categories provided in the text for activities done both in
colonial and modern-day America and filled in the “then” and “now” with no
less than six on each side.

6. Independent Practice: Independent practice serves as a rehearsal of the skill

or concepts presented in the lesson. In some cases, it may be homework. For
example, following the lesson on opinion writing and social media, students
were assigned to write two reasons why they agreed or disagreed with the
statement “social media is harmful to society.” Using the text read in class,
they were directed to use at least three evidences from the text to support their
opinion.

Steps in the ADAPT Strategy

The steps involved in the ADAPT strategy correspond with the acronym itself:

• A: Analyze the student’s needs, strengths, and assets.

• D: Dig into the lesson.
• A: Ask reflective questions.

185
 Thinking It Through

• P: Put it in writing.
• T: Tessellate (does the adaptation fit in the lesson without causing potentially
embarrassing attention)?

Each step is discussed in detail below.

Step 1: Analyze the Student’s Need, Strengths, and Assets

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, teachers must have two things in order to
differentiate and adapt instruction: information on the learners and on the lesson.
Knowing the learners’ needs, strengths, and assets is imperative. So how do teachers
learn about the learner?
Information about the learner can be derived from interest inventories, surveys, and
artifacts that may be in a student’s file, such as assessments and grades. Information
about the learner’s needs and strengths can be extracted from these various readily
available sources. In the case of students with disabilities, a student’s IEP is an
available source that details this information and therefore should be reviewed. The
IEP provides present levels of performance that include evaluative data, academic
achievement, and physical, social, and management needs. This section of the IEP
is extremely important because it describes the strengths and needs more so than
the IEP goals. The goals are created based on the present levels of performance
and a projection of an educational outcome at the completion of the goal. The goal
is recommended so that the student can be involved in and progress in the general
education curriculum.
For this reason, it is important to review the present levels of performance and
not just the IEP goals when trying to understand the student’s strengths and needs.
By definition, the IEP goal does not fulfill this purpose only, yet teachers often just
read the goals and overlook the present levels of performance.
Additionally, the related services and accommodations are key factors in
understanding the strengths and needs of a student. The related services might be
viewed as an activity that occurs outside of the teacher’s responsibility. However,
knowing the service the student is receiving provides a fuller description when
reading the IEP for information about strengths and needs. In addition, interest
inventories, conversations, and classroom observations all serve as ways to learn
about the student’s strengths and needs.
To practice the ADAPT strategy, the case studies such as the one provided earlier in
the chapter can be used. As teachers read through the information about the learners,
they should list areas of strengths, concern, and interest. Teachers might approach
adapting instruction as they consider the entire class. They think of the learners
and begin to differentiate; again, it is for the entire class. As they move forward in

186
Thinking It Through

the thinking process, specific needs of certain children may arise. For example, a
teacher may have a student like Michelle in a class. Although she has an IEP, she
is considered as the teacher differentiates instruction. The teacher may need to add
additional modifications and/or accommodations based on Michelle’s special needs.
The point here is that from a thinking model perspective, differentiating instruction
and adapting instruction are similar thought processes, where one leads into another.
For example, another student in the same class may have an IEP and requires
extended time on particular types of tests. The student has a learning profile that
is varied, and he excels greatly in some areas but struggles in others. The extended
time on tests is an accommodation separate from his need to receive differentiated
instruction that addresses his learning needs.

Step 2: Dig Into the Preplanned Lesson Parts

The next step is to read and reflect on the lesson. Teachers must have a complete
lesson so that they can envision the lesson from beginning to end. A teacher should
think about what will be happening in the lesson—what the students will be doing,
what the teacher will be doing, the materials, transitions, and all aspects of the plan
he or she composed—and keep that vision in mind when moving on to the next step.

Step 3: Ask Reflective Questions

In this step, teachers reflect on the information they have about the learners and the
lesson. They inspect the lesson for potential mismatches between the learners and
the lesson so that they can consider if the content, process, and product need to be
varied and if special accommodations and modifications need to be implemented
in connection to the lesson plan. The following questions were created based on
common concepts from different approaches, such as differentiation of instruction
strategies (Subban & Round, 2015), universal design (CAST, n.d.), and adapting
instruction for students with disabilities. These reflective questions are effective tools
to dig through the lesson to isolate areas that need to be addressed for the learners.

• Content:
◦◦ Does the lesson vary in the presentation of visual and auditory
information?
◦◦ Are there options so that learners can access the language (vocabulary,
functions, syntax, and discourse) in the lesson?
◦◦ Are options available in the lesson to foster and develop comprehension?
◦◦ Is the key information presented repetitively?

187
 Thinking It Through

• Process:
◦◦ Are there varied activities and techniques used in the lesson plan?
◦◦ Is there a combination of whole-group and small-group activities or
strategies in the lesson plan?
◦◦ Is the lesson paced appropriately?
◦◦ Are there transitions in the lesson that will exclude learners?
• Product:
◦◦ Are there choices for which the learners can demonstrate what they
know?
◦◦ Is the lesson scaffolded effectively so that the learners can manage the
information to achieve the product?
◦◦ Are the learners able to monitor themselves to know if they are achieving
the end product during the lesson?

Teachers should highlight the questions that they answered “no” to and then
highlight the area in the lesson plan related to the response.

Step 4: Put It in Writing

After highlighting areas that need to be addressed, teachers begin the task of
considering what variations they will make. If they have found areas that will be
especially problematic for someone like Michelle, for instance, they should note
the individualized variations (accommodations or modifications) needed. Teachers
should take time to brainstorm and research the possibilities. This is an opportunity
to explore possible ways to make lessons accessible and engage every student. Once
a teacher has decided what to alter, he or she should write it down, note it in the
plan, and/or revise the lesson plan.

Step 5: Tessellate

Have you ever seen a mosaic? Mosaics are wonderful pieces of artwork that are
created by different pieces and shapes that all fit together in a way that enhances the
overall picture. This process is referred to as tessellation. In elementary education,
children are sometimes taught patterns and shapes through tessellation activities.
When you tessellate, you form and arrange different shapes so that they beautifully
fit together.
Differentiating and adapting instruction requires organization of the students.
The need to arrange them in groups and have them move about the room requires
orchestration. In the case of specialized adaptations for students with disabilities,

188
Thinking It Through

the question “Does the adaptation fit the lesson without causing attention that is
potentially embarrassing?” should be asked. The ways in which we provide supports
can be seamless or cumbersome. Attention to this should be preplanned thoughtfully.

Possible Outcomes

The ADAPT strategy was used in a study by Chamblin (2017) to determine if

such a strategy would help preservice teachers incorporate more universal design
for learning (UDL) strategies into their lessons. Chamblin based the study on the
previous work of Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) and
Al-Azawei, Serenelli, and Lundqvist (2016). Two classes were directed to write the
lesson plans that addressed students with diverse learning needs. Both classes were
exposed to UDL training; however, the second class received additional training
on the ADAPT strategy. Using a rubric designed by Spooner et al. and also used
by Al-Awazei et al. (2016), Chamblin found that the class exposed to the ADAPT
strategy used more strategies than the class that did not learn the strategy. It was
concluded that having a structured way of thinking about the process was helpful
for the students.

CONCLUSION

Differentiating and adapting instruction is an important skill that must be developed

in teachers. Although there are several approaches, it is important to make sure
that teachers have a fundamental understanding in the process as a holistic practice
that involves a mindset to meet the needs of all the children in the classroom,
particularly students with disabilities. Practice in this skill is essential to becoming
more developed. Using a strategic way to approach this task can bring clarity as well
as ignite unlimited creative ideas and ways in which teachers can operate in order
to meet student needs. Helping teachers think through the task using the ADAPT
strategy can contribute to this very important process.

REFERENCES

A Child With Needs. (2012). Emotional behavioral disorder: Accommodations

and modifications. Retrieved from http://www.achildwithneeds.com/disabilities/
emotional-disability/emotional-behavioral-disorder-accommodations-and-
modifications/

189
 Thinking It Through

Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Universal design for learning
(UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. doi:10.14434/
josotl.v16i3.19295
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics,
19(3), 502–530.
Beyer, C., & Davis, E. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique
and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 17–36.
Breitfelder, L. (2008). Quick and easy adaptations and accommodations for early
childhood students. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 4(5), Article 2. Retrieved
from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/teplus/vol4/iss5/art2
Browning Wright, D. (2003). Common definitions: Adaptations, accommodations,
modifications. Retrieved from http://www.pent.ca.gov/acc/commondefinitions_
accom-mod.pdf
CAST. (n.d.). UDL guidelines educator’s worksheet. Retrieved from www.udlcenter.
org/sites/udlcenter.../Guidelines_2.0_Educator_Checklist%20(1)_0.pd
Chamblin, M. (2014). Curriculum and content volume one. Unpublished manuscript.
Chamblin, M. (2017). Using the ADAPT strategy to facilitate the thinking process
of creating universal design-based instructional adaptations and differentiation in
lesson plans for diverse learners. Open Access Library Journal, 4(5). doi:10.4236/
oalib.1103585
Chesley, G., & Jordan, J. (2012). What’s missing from teacher prep. Educational
Leadership, 5(2), 41–45.
Clinton Community College. (n.d.). List of measurable verbs used to assess
learning outcomes. Retrieved https://www.clinton.edu/curriculumcommittee/
listofmeasurableverbs.cxml
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (n.d.). About CAEP.
Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals
Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO). (2013). InTASC model core
teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for
ongoing teacher development. Washington, DC: Author.

190
Thinking It Through

Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO). (n.d.). Our promise. Retrieved
from http://www.ccsso.org/Who_We_Are/Our_Promise.html
Dee, A. L. (2011). Preservice teacher application of differentiated instruction.
Teacher Educator, 46(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/08878730.2010.529987
Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). (n.d.). About edTPA. Retrieved
from http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa
Ernest, J., Heckaman, K., Thompson, S., Hull, K., & Carter, S. (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.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., & Karns, K. (1995). General educators’
specialized adaption for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
61(5), 440–459.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Kim, M. (2015). School instructional climate and
student achievement: An examination of group norms for differentiated instruction.
American Journal of Education, 122(1), 111–131. doi:10.1086/683293
Janney, R., & Snell, M. (2000). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 45(3), 215–223. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3
Ko, E. (2012). What is your objective? Preservice teachers’ views and practices
of instructional planning. The International Journal of Learning, 18(7), 89–100.
Kugelman, F. (n.d.). Bloom’s Taxonomy cheat sheet. Retrieved from http://www.
bloomstaxonomy.org/Blooms%20Taxonomy%20questions.pdf
Kurth, J. (2013). A unit-based approach to adaptations in inclusive classrooms.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(2), 34–43. doi:10.1177/004005991304600204
Kurth, J., & Keegan, L. (2012). Development and use of curricular adaptations for
students receiving special education services. The Journal of Special Education,
48(3), 191–203. doi:10.1177/0022466912464782
Lee, S., Amos, B., Gragoudas, S., Lee, K., Shogren, K., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer,
M. (2006). Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to
the general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 199–212.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Fast facts: Students with disabilities.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

191
 Thinking It Through

National Center on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Accommodations for students with

LD. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/8022
Ornstein, A. C. (1997). How teachers plan lessons. High School Journal, 80227–80237.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices
for all students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schiering, M. S., Bogner, D., & Buli-Holmberg, J. (2011). Teaching and learning.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Scott, B., Vitale, M., & Masten, M. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations
for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A literature review. Remedial
and Special Education, 18(2), 106–119. doi:10.1177/074193259801900205
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M.
(2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development.
Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 108–116. doi:10.1177/07419325070280
020101
Springer, K., Chamblin, M., & Balligeron, A. (2016). NYSTCE students with
disabilities. Piscataway, NJ: Research Education Association.
Standford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction,
retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children,
5(6), 2–9.
Subban, P., & Round, P. (2015). Differentiated instruction at work: Reinforcing the
art of classroom observation through the creation of a checklist for beginning and
pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 117–131.
doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.7
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in
differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3–9.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2008.00470.x
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction
and understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

192
Thinking It Through

Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking, constructing a process to

design curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 245–254.
doi:10.1177/074193259601700407
Weselby, C. (2017). What is differentiated instruction? Examples of strategies.
Retrieved from http://education.cu-portland.edu

ADDITIONAL READING

Acosta-Tello, E., & Shepherd, C. (2014). Equal access for all learners: Differentiation
simplified. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 7(1), 51–57.
Baecher, L., Artigliere, M., Patterson, D., & Spatzer, A. (2012). Differentiated
instruction for English language learners as variations on a theme.. Middle School
Journal, 43(3), 10–15. doi:10.1080/00940771.2012.11461807
Burns, M., Pierson, E., & Reddy, S. (2014). Working together: How teachers teach
and students learn in collaborative learning environments. International Journal
of Instruction, 7(1), 17–25.
Cheema, A., & Mirza, M. S. (2013). Effect of concept mapping on students’ academic
achievement. [JRRE]. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education, 7(2), 125–133.
Dack, H., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2015). Inviting all students to learn. Educational
Leadership, 72(6), 10–15.
De Jesus, O. N. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Can differentiated instruction
provide success for all learners? National Teacher Education Journal, 5(3), 5–11.
El Bouhdidi, J., Ghailani, M., & Fennan, A. (2013). A probabilistic approach for the
generation of learning sessions tailored to the learning styles of learners. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(6), 42–49. doi:10.3991/ijet.
v8i6.3084
Farah, Y. N. (2013). Through anothers eyes. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 209–212.
doi:10.1177/1076217513485584
Jones, R. E., Yssel, N., & Grant, C. (2012). Reading instruction in Tier 1: Bridging
the gaps by nesting evidence-based interventions within differentiated instruction.
Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 210–218. doi:10.1002/pits.21591

193
 Thinking It Through

Mitchell, D. (2013). Twenty evidence-based strategies for enhancing learning.

Transylvanian Journal of Psychology, 4(6), 13–32.
Reddy, L. A., Jimerson, S. R., & Fabiabo, G. A. (2013). Assessment of general
education teachers Tier 1 classroom practices: Contemporary science, practice, and
policy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 273–276. doi:10.1037/spq0000047
PMID:24341924
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiated instruction: Can it work? Education Digest,
65(5), 25.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2),
6–11.
Tomlinson, C. (2005). Differentiated instruction. Theory into Practice, 44(3),
183–184. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_1
Tomlinson, C. (2009). Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction:
Shared principles worth sharing. The New England Reading Association Journal,
45(1), 28–33.
Tomlinson, C., & Kalbfleisch, M. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for
differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction
and understanding by design. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tzu-Chi, Y., Gwo-Jen, H., & Jen-Hwa Yang, S. (2013). Development of an adaptive
learning system with multiple perspectives based on students’ learning styles and
cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 185–200.
Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker
Dalhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions.
The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303–314. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01126

194
Thinking It Through

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Accommodation: Changes how a student learns; alters environment, curriculum,

or equipment in a way that allows a student with a disability to access content and/
or complete tasks.
ADAPT Strategy: A teaching model based on organizing information and
thinking through a process.
Adapted Instruction: Change to instruction that allows access without changing
the curriculum.
Developmental Procedures: The activities and learning tasks that occur in the
progression of a lesson.
Differentiated Instruction: Designing and delivering instruction in diverse
ways to best reach each student.
Individualized Education Program: A plan developed by a team of stakeholders
that outlines the learning needs for a child with a disability, the services the school
will provide, and how progress will be measured.
Instructional Objective: What the student will know and be able to do as a
result of the lesson.
Modification: Changes what a student learns; alters or lowers expectations and
changes the standards of the instruction and how students are evaluated.
Universal Design: A framework that employs a variety of teaching methods in
order to remove barriers to learning and provide all students equal opportunities
to succeed.

195