CONUNDRUMS IN THE DIFFERENTIATEDLITERACY CLASSROOM

RUTHANNE TOBIN

University of Victoria

Based on extensive professional experiences in working with lit-eracy teachers to develop their skills in differentiated instruction,the author identifies six conundrums or puzzling challenges that'frequently arise as teachers adopt a more responsive approach tomeeting the needs of at-risk literacy learners in their regularclassroom. The six conundrums fall under two categories: foun-dational and instructional. Foundational conundrums includeteaching for understanding versus teaching skills; universaldesign versus differentiated design and assessing growth versuscomparative assessment. Instructional conundrums include pro-viding a robust literacy program versus activities based program;flexible small group instruction versus whole class approach andliteral feedback versus validating feedback. In addition to exam-ining these challenges, the author also suggests some ways tonavigate these dilemmas with the goal of better meeting theneeds of all literacy learners.

Teachers are seeking practical and the-oretically sound ways of responding to thediversity and range of literacy needs in theregular elementary classroom. In the pastseveral years in my capacity as teachereducator, I have worked extensively withnovice and experienced teachers to exploreways of feasibly addressing this range ofneeds and backgrounds. In doing so, I havedrawn on a model of differentiated instruc-tion (Tomlinson, 1999) to help teachersplan and enact responsive teaching in thelanguage arts curriculum. During theseinitiatives, teachers learning to differenti-ate have encountered a number ofconundrums. In this article, I identify sixof the most common conundrums andexamine how teachers may consider anddeal with these as they develop the skillsof differentiation.

What is Differentiated LiteracyInstruction?

Differentiation instruction (DI) meansthat teachers create different levels ofexpectations for task completion, andemphasize the creation of environmentswhere all learners can be successful (Wal-dron & McLeskey, 2001). DI addressesthe "how to" question for teachers and callsupon educators to be responsive to learn-ers. Examples of differentiating inlanguage arts include:(1) using reading materials at varying lev-

els(2) using literacy centers with varied tasks

designed to match students' readiness,interests and/or preferred modes oflearning

(3) meeting in small groups to re-teach anidea or skill (Tomlinson, 2003).

159

160/Reading Innprovement

At the heart of differentiating instruc-tion in language arts is the need to providelearners with choices about what they readand in the design of their work products sothat they are a better match for learners.This is particularly important for strug-gling students who can most benefit fromadditional supports, tailored activities, andexplicit and extended instructional read-ing time with the teacher. In DI all learnersfocus on the same essential understand-ings but are provided with multiple accessroutes to make sense of and demonstratethese understandings.

Differentiating does not mean that ateacher is taking into account the individ-ual interests, profiles, and readiness of thethirty students five hours per day in everycurricular and instructional decision. Tosuggest that would be ludicrous. Rather,differentiating means that a teacher isapproaching the literacy curriculum andher students with a responsive dis-position- an orientation to planning, deci-sion-making, curriculum selection andinstructional flow that is flexible andopportunistic.

Conundrums, ConundrumsWhile the principles and philosophy

behind DI have been well-articulated (seefor example Tomlinson, 2004; Tomlinson,& McTighe, 2006), less well documentedare the challenges/ dilemmas that typicalteachers contend with as they shift fromone-size-fits-all to a differentiatedapproach. The typical conundrumsencountered fall under two categories:foundational and instructional. Founda-tional conundrums include teaching forunderstanding versus teaching skills; uni-

versal design versus differentiated design;assessing growth versus comparativeassessment. Instructional conundrumsinclude providing a robust literacy pro-gram versus an activities-based program;flexible small group instruction versuswhole class approach; literal feedback ver-sus validating feedback. Each of thesedilemmas calls on teachers to consider boththeir beliefs and practices related to liter-acy learning and teaching.

Foundational ConundrumsTeaching for understanding vs. teach-

ing skills. One of the most prevalentquestions that arises in differentiated lit-eracy classes is how to emphasize teachingfor understanding while still addressingthe many reading skills students need tobecome fluent comprehenders. A DIapproach calls for teachers to be crystalclear on the essential understandings first,and then to design opportunities to prac-tice or engage in skills to support theessential understandings. A critical find-ing related to accelerating the growth ofstruggling readers, suggests an instruc-tional emphasis on the followingcomponents, fluency in reading connect-ed text, comprehension of text,phonological awareness, and phonologi-cal decoding (Mathes, Dentón, Fletcher,Anthony, Francis, & Schatschneider,2005). A differentiated approach basesinstruction on the observed needs of stu-dents in each of these areas. The teacherattends to behaviors that indicate the con-structions/understandings that each studentis forming and responds contingentlythrough scaffolding (Mathes et al., 2005).In a recent small study of 13 teachers, sue-

Conundrums Differentiated Literacy... /161

cessful differentiators in literacy clearlyidentified essential understandings relatedto reading comprehensions (i.e. identify-ing story structure, connecting with storycharacters) as well as content goals (i.e.connecting plant growth with environ-mental conditions). They introducedtargeted skills that they wished to devel-op with their students while carefullymonitoring their students' comprehension(Tobin, 2007). Teaching for understand-ing means that teachers clearly identifiedthe big ideas/concepts related to literacylearning and content and realized thatimportant skills such as decoding, picturecueing, question-posing were all taught inservice to gaining an understanding of theconcepts/ideas within the text.

Universal design vs DifferentiafeHinstruction. Universal design and differ-entiated instruction are highly compatibleconcepts. Differentiated instruction fallsunder the larger catagory of universaldesign. In fact, the core of good differen-tiated literacy lessons is an understandingof the importance of universal design. Uni-versal design refers to "designed-in"flexibility to accommodate the instruc-tional needs of as many diverse learners aspossible at the very beginning stages ofplanning and organizing for instruction.The underlying premise of universal designis that the largest number of people possi-ble should benefit from the products andenvironments without the need for addi-tional modifications beyond thoseincorporated in the original design. Uni-versal design in literacy learning assumesand anticipates individual differences atthe outset. For example, in a class enrollinga few English Language Learners (ELL);

context cues, repetition, visual support,removal of extraneous words in instruc-tions, vocabulary development andexpansion of background knowledge areall critical to their success (Alvermann,2000; Law & Eckes, 2000). A teacher usinguniversal design draws on all of these com-ponents when instructing the whole class.This is similar to the easy grip handles onkitchen utensils that were originally devel-oped for individuals with disabilities. Itturns out we all find such utensils easierto use (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). Suchis the case with the strategies for the ELLstudents — essential for them yet they alsomake learning easier for all students.

With universal design in place, teach-ers may then differentiate for individualswho need support beyond the considera-tions built-in for the whole class. In theexample of the ELL students, some of themmay need a pre-reading of less-complextext on the topic of inquiry before the unitbegins as a more effective way of intro-ducing the vocabulary and assessing theirreadiness for the unit. This would alsoenable the teacher to plan differentiatedlearning opportunities for these studentsin the upcoming theme or unit.

In summary, the sequence of planningneeds to emphasize universal design firstto advance the literacy of a maximumnumber of learners from the outset. Dif-ferentiated instruction goes a step furtherto tailor often small but significant adap-tations to ensure success for individualstudents sometimes outside the wholegroup context.

Assessing growth vs Comparative,assessment. Many teachers worry andwonder about the congruence of differen-

162 /Reading Improvement

tiated practices with evaluation practicesespecially in a context of increasing stan-dardization and testing. Exemplary literacyteachers evaluate student work and awardgrades based on effort and improvementnot just achievement, ensuring that all stu-dents have a chance to get good grades(AUington, 2002). This implies that teach-ers have a sound knowledge of students torecognize growth and estimate studenteffort. Improvement can be noted by show-ing students where they began and wherethey ended using rubric-based evaluations.Pressures regarding evaluation should notblind teachers to the realities that studentswho are of the same age differ in theirreadiness to learn, their interests and theirstyles of learning (Tomlinson, 2003). Moreimportantly such differences have a majorimpact on what students need to leam andthe pace and support required to meet sig-nificant learning outcomes(Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Tomlinson(2000) argues that educational approach-es that ignore diversity in favor ofstandardization are unlikely to be suc-cessful in meeting the needs of the fullrange of students. Evaluation practicesneed to be examined in light of the effectthey will have on academically diversepopulations. Standards or learning out-comes are meant to inform and guide thecurriculum not "be' the curriculum. Dif-ferentiation calls on literacy teachers toallow time, opportunities and support formaking sense of text, ideas and skills. Dif-ferentiation shows us how to teach thesame standard to a range of learners byusing a variety of teaching and learningmodes. Identifying the essential under-standings and skills in language arts and

intentionally targeting these during instruc-tion bodes well for achieving outcomes orstandards. Ignoring that students do nothave prerequisite skills and carrying onwith Grade level materials and conceptswithout addressing the gaps invites fail-ure and frustration. This is akin to racingat breakneck speed to the airport to catcha flight ignoring the fact that you forgot topick up your traveling passengers.

Students need to develop confidencethat teachers are teaching and evaluatingfor success, not to catch them at what theydon't do well. To ensure success for allstudents requires a knowledge of the cur-riculum and familiarity with students'understanding, skills, interests and back-ground. Without this, teachers areill-equipped to successfully teach suchlearners. The primary purpose of evalu-ation — giving feedback about whatstudents do well and how to improve ontheir weaknesses needs to be kept at theforefront. The grades need to reflect thedegree of growth and achievement. Tom-linson (2005) suggests aligning studenttasks with student needs and noting thatthe assignment or task has been differen-tiated. I echo her advocacy of report cardsthat include checklists of escalating com-petencies and indications of growth incombination with comparative marks orlevels (such as 1,2,3) to indicate below, at,or above grade level. If the current reportcard does not facilitate this type of equity,ensure that a note on the report card callsattention to this complete picture. Ulti-mately evaluation should require eachindividual to be their personal best notsomeone else's.

Conundrums Differentiated Literacy... /163

Instructional ConundrumsRobust literacy program vs. Activities

based program. Assessment of the robust-ness or substance of the overall literacyprogram as teachers strive to be moreresponsive often involves a move awayfrom using literacy activities as the dri-ving force behind instruction. Anactivity-based program often has childrenengaged in many different language andliteracy activities but these are often dis-connected from the overarchingunderstandings and goals of the program.They are also frequently not based on stu-dents' needs, interests or profiles. Researchclearly shows that responsive literacyteaching plays a critical role in the successof diverse learners (Vaughn, Bos &Schumm, 2000; Mathes, et al., 2005).Responsive literacy teaching focuses onan apprenticeship to model, guide, coach,scaffold and fade strategies and prompts toaccelerate independence while the studentsengage in reading and writing meaningfultexts. As teachers become clear about theirgoals, they match these up with meaning-ful, varied literacy response options andstrategies that promote critical thinkingand

problem-solving. In a recent study of dif-ferentiated instruction in language arts,researchers found that teachers often mis-takenly viewed a lesson as adequatelydifferentiated as long as students weredoing something related to the theme withlittle consideration of whether or how thestudents were reaching particular outcomesor practicing the targeted skill. In fact, attimes the activity was iiicongruent withthe overall goals of the lesson (Tobin &Mclnnes, 2008). For example, in some of

these researched Grade 3/4 classrooms,teachers would often have struggling stu-dents draw a picture in response to theirreadings. The stated goal was to engagechildren in writing authentic text that con-nected their lives to the characters in thestory. While drawing can be a worthwhileresponse option when embedded within arobust literacy lesson, children are notengaging in writing and may be furthermarginalized in their writing developmentbecause of an inappropriately differenti-ated lesson. A better option is to givereluctant or struggling writers a model ofa written response which scaffolds theirlearning as well as providing them withfading prompts. The robustness of a liter-acy program can be assessed by asking acouple of key questions:

1. Are students' literacy learning opportu-nities connected to my goals/outcomes?

2. Are these opportunities likely to resultin meaning making?Flexible small group instruction vs

Whole class instruction. In most class-rooms, whole class instruction remains thepredominant instructional grouping for-mat. Whole group instruction plays animportant role in literacy learning; in factit is a critical aspect of instruction for pre-senting particular kinds of concepts andskills. However, it may be unrealistic toexpect struggling literacy learners toreceive the support they need to navigatedifficult text that leads to growth in read-ing in the whole group setting only. Wholegroup instruction remains the dominantchoice of teachers regardless ofthe profileof students enrolled in the class and despiteample research documenting the benefitsof collaborative groupings and small group

164/Reading Improvement

instruction in which student voices are according to interest. One of the ways ofprivileged and learning is augmented keeping small groups functional and(Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & dynamic is to be clear about the purposeSchumm, 2000). of the group and to change the group's

Use of a variety of organizational for- composition often. Novice teachers of dif-mats is a key underpinning of differentiated ferentiation mistakenly assume that DIinstruction. The literature clearly indicates merely is an old model of smart and slowthat it is the small grouping and individ- groups as opposed to a flexible instruc-ual context in which optimum, desirable tional approach to respond to student needs.reading and writing behaviors are most If this misunderstanding takes hold, repro-likely to occur (Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, ducing tracking within the classroom can& Walton, 2003). Flexible small groups be an unintended consequence of theand a focus on student interest as a means change effort (Tobin, 2007). An impor-of maximizing acceleration of reading have tant emphasis needs to be placed onshown very positive results (Cunningham, actively avoiding fixed groups while stillHall & Defee, 1998; Vaughn, Linan- providing the benefits of small groupThompson, Kouzekanani, Pedrotty, instruction. This would avoid problemsDickson & Blozis, 2003). The latter associated with low expectations for stu-researchers found small group instruction dents in the "low group".(3 students) to be just as effective as 1-1 Flexible groupings for strategic pur-instruction in developing reading skills poses such as organizing an interest groupsuch as phoneme segmentation, fluency on spiders or an enactment group of aand comprehension, while the former study favorite evocative story is likely to facili-documents the success of mixed ability täte comprehension and engagement,groupings (4-5 students) to achieve flu- Enactment groups bring text alive and pro-ency and comprehension in primary vide much-needed redundancy givingstudents. As a further incentive to work readers another opportunity to make mean-in a variety of organizational formats with ing of text - sometimes as a bridge toyoung literacy learners, a longitudinal written responses. In addition to intereststudy of primary students, found that desir- groups, students also benefit from frequentable reading behaviors occurred most often heterogeneous groupings which have beenin the presence of peer tutors, reading part- found to achieve higher measures on read-ners, or teacher-led one-on-one, ing vocabulary, comprehension andsmall-group, or independent instructional reading fluency than those grouped sole-arrangements as compared to entire group, ly in homogenous groups (Cunningham,teacher-led instruction (Greenwood et al., et al. 1998; Jackson, Paratore, Chard, &2003). Gamick, 1999).

Grouping criteria in a differentiated Homogenous groupings are often use-classroom is flexible, sometimes accord- ful with beginning readers in the formating to their reading level or needs, while of Guided Reading which gives teachersat other times, students would be grouped the opportunity to work with small groups

Conundrums Differentiated Literacy... /165

of readers with similar needs. This is par-ticularly practical in contributing to earlyreading fluency since readers need toencounter text with which they are highlyfamiliar (95% known words) in order todevelop fluency. If Guided Reading usinghomogenous groupings is adopted, it iscritical that students belong to a variety ofother groups that are organized accordingto other criteria. A further cautionary noteis to ensure that students' reading diet iscomposed of more than leveled books fromthe Guided Reading program.

Explicit demonstrations of the cogni-tive strategies that good readers use wasfound to be a key feature among exem-plary literacy teachers (Allington, 2002).The whole group approach (which Alling-ton terms "watch me" or "let medemonstrate") speaks to the important rolethat explicit demonstration of skills andstrategies play. However, in a differenti-ated classroom teachers do not expect thewhole group demonstration to be sufficientfor all learners. Typical among successfuldifferentiators in one study (Tobin, 2007)was an acceptance that some studentswould need instructions and demonstra-tions given to them individually, or morethan once, with some students still need-ing the first steps in their reading or writingmodeled or scribed to get them started.Central to enabling these kinds of indi-vidual and small group interactions anddemonstrations is the skillful use of flex-ible groupings that anticipate andacknowledge misunderstandings and needsfor redundancy.

Validating feedback vs Literal feedback.While teachers are called upon to giveaccurate feedback to their students so that

they can improve their performance, teach-ers sometimes interpret this as a need toprovide very literal feedback regarding stu-dents ' task engagement or work-in-pro-gress. Such literal feedback, for example,involves comments on students' not com-mencing their work in a timely manner, ornot following the teachers' instructions andexpectations. Such comments as: "Youhaven't even put the date down yet," "Didyou listen to instructions?", or "Get work-ing" do little to accelerate task engagement.An alternative approach involves adopt-ing a vahdating stance or nudging approachtoward students who appear reluctant ordisengaged. Such commments as, "Whatdo you do first, next, now?" and " I'll beback in a few minutes to see how you aredoing," nudge children in ways likely toprotect the learning relationship.

Teachers who perceive students to below achievers (as is the case for manystruggling students) often come to thinkof these students solely in behavioral terms.Teachers have fewer interactions with themand the interactions they do have lackinstructional content because they feel theydo not know how to address their uniquecharacteristics and needs (Cook, Tankers-ley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000; Jordan &Stanovich, 2001). Teachers' attitudestoward at-risk and struggling students havebeen described as simply giving up (Cook,et al., 2000). Yet, the latest research indi-cates that the learning process is highlymodifiable and shaped by individual stu-dent characteristics in interaction withcontext. Student-teacher discourse is ofutmost importance in identifying studentsas capable members of a classroom liter-acy culture (Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon,

166 /Reading improvement

2002; Butler & Cartier, 2005; Gee, 1996;Rex, 2000). Teachers need tangible ideasfor how to interact in positive and pro-ductive ways with students who aresometimes challenging to instruct.

The teacher's talking can position vul-nerable students for academic success bycarrying out what Rex (2000) describes asinteractional inclusion. In such a context,vulnerable students are positioned to beobserved as capable classroom members.The teacher exercises discretion by care-fully using her own voice to elevatestruggling students' status in the classroom.The teacher's role is to create the condi-tions of active participation and to validatestudents' sense of themselves as success-ful learners. For example, one teacher andher teacher assistant in working withexceptional students would frequently tellthem: "You're onto something," as wellas encouraging them to show others whatthey were "onto" by preparing an aesthet-ic or creative response to the text, such asa taped conversation, a tableau, or a pic-ture. The idea that they could be "ontosomething," without completion of a sin-gle paragraph, seemed to motivate themto construct something with their ideas thatrelated to the text, while temporarily free-ing them up from the rigor and criteria oftext-based formats (Tobin, 2006). Nudg-ing students through validating discourse,assuming best intentions ("I see you'restill thinking about what to put downfirst.") often produces better results thanliteral feedback about their disengagement(Tobin, 2006). Using prompting andinquiring comments about the next step inwhich the teacher assumes the best inten-tions sometimes in light of contradictory

evidence is also useful. For example, theteacher may say: "When you're finishedworking on the first part, could you shareyours with me?" It may be that the studentis not working on the first part but this mayget him started. This type of communica-tion with at-risk students sends theimportant message that their intellect andcontributions are valued.

In working with reluctant students, let-ting them 'off the hook' by owning mis-understandings or offering alternativeexplanations such as: "Let's try this a dif-ferent way", "I probably didn't explainthis too well" " Let me try it again, okay?",or " I didn't put this exactly right" helpslearners save face and re-engage with thelearning task. Routine prompting phrasessuch as the following may go a long wayin encouraging students who are stalled,confused, or unmotivated: "Tell me onething you understand about it [the assign-ment]."; "You probably have lots of goodideas. Tell me the first one and I'll write itdown for you."; "Let's use one of yourgraphic organizers."; "I'll be back in a fewminutes to see the first part."; "What's thenext thing you need to do? Could you starthere?" (Tobin, 2005a). This dimension ofclassroom interactions is particularly crit-ical for at-risk students, whose perceptionsof how others will respond to their requestsfor help actually determine who they askfor assistance, or from whom they willaccept help (Marshall, 2001; Tobin,2005a).

Teachers need to engage students inpublic conversations about their literacylearning in ways that validate their worthand position them favorably within thepower relationships of the classroom. In

Conundrums Differentiated Literacy... /167

Tomlinson's encompassing work on dif- work, but would be more than willing toferentiated instruction, she refers to this work on what is meaningful for them." Ias the 'assignment of status' in which suggest the same may be said of strugglingteachers seek key moments in small group students who find that the work lackswork when a student makes a worthwhile meaning because of its complexitycomment or suggestion. The teacher abstractness or disinterest combined with'repeats what she heard the student say and the absence of appropriate scaffoldingwhy she feels it is a contribution to the Ultimately, teachers need to consider howwork ofthe group causing the group to see they share power in the classroom andtheir peer m a different hght. ^^ether students' needs, interest and readi-

demie growth. As Fairclough (1995) ^ '!''''"^'''. ""^^ .^^Pl^^^^^y ^"^ stu-

purported,teachers'talkpowerf;ilyshapes ^ T '" "'T'- ^""''^ ^'^'^'"^who students think they are, who they think "«en consider complexity in their match-

y ythey can be, and who they ultimately can ^become. This is particularly true for at- *^^ sometimes overlook the significancerisk populations because of their already °^ matching these with student interest,tenuous status as students challenged by ^^^^ ^̂ ̂ "̂̂ ^̂ ^̂ ^̂ considering the nutri-traditional curriculum and sometimes con- ^^°"^^ ̂ ^^"^ °^ ̂ ^^^ ^** ^i"!^ concern forstructed by educators and researchers as ^̂ ^̂ :̂ Offering literacy response optionsdeficit and inadequate. ^̂ ^̂ include equally substantive assign-

ments and tasks but draw on students'Summary preferences to work with a variety of mate-

My professional development work "^^^ in interesting ways is a critical featurewith teachers suggests that they may °^ ^ differentiated classroom. Adopting aencounter predictable dilemmas that need ™or^ responsive literacy model (fullyto be examined in order to make the change aware of the knotty conundrums) mayto a more responsive literacy program, result in maximum gain for children andThe first three focus teachers' energies on maximum flexibility in the literacy class-essential understandings, universal design room,and assessing growth in literacy. The nextthree highlight the importance of offeringa robust literacy program, using flexiblegroupings and providing validating feed-back to ensure the success of all students.

Winebrenner (2001), in reference to themost frequent complaint she hears aboutunderachievers —" They won't do theirwork".— suggests that the reality may becloser to "They won't do the teacher's

168 /Reading Improvement

ReferenceAllington, R. L. (2002). What I've leamed about

effective reading instruction from a decadeof studying exemplary elementary classroomteachers. Phi Delta Kappan, S3(10). lAQ-lAl.

Alvermann, D. E. (2000). Grappling witii the bigissues in middle grades literacy education.Paper presented at National EducationalResearch Policy and Riorities Board's Confer-ence. July 24-25. Washington, DC.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Pro-cedural facilitators and congnitive strategies:Tools for unravelling the mysteries of compre-hension and the writ process, and for providingmeaningful access to the general curriculum.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,77(0,65-77.

Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2005). Multiplecomplementary methods for understandingself-regulated learning as situated in context.Annual conference of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Montreal,Quebec.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Lan-drum, T. J. (2000). Teachers' attitudes towardtheir included students with disabilites. Exceptional Children, 67, 115-135.

Cunningham, P., Hall, D. & Defee, M. (1998).Nonability-grouped multilevel instruction:Eight years later. The Reading Teacher, 5/(8),652-664.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Moody,S.W., & Schumm, J.S. (2000). A meta analyt-ic review of the effect of instructional groupingformat on the reading outcomes of studentswith disabilities. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller,J.S. Schumm, & S.Vaughn (Eds.), Issues andresearch in special education (pp.105-135).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analy-sis. New York: Longman.

Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies:Ideology in discourses, London: Taylor andFrancis.

Greenwood, C, Tapia, Y., Abbott, M. & Walton,C. (2003). A building-based case study ofevidence-based literacy practices: Implemen-tation, reading behavior, and growth in read-ing fluency, K-4. Journal of Special Ed-ucation, 37{1),95-110.

Jackson, J. B., Paratore, J. R., Chard, D. J., & Gar-nick, S. (1999). An early interventionsupporting the literacy learning of childrenexperiencing substantial difficulty. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 14 (4),254-267.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns ofteacher-student interaction in inclusive ele-mentary classrooms and correlates withstudent self-concept. International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education, 48{\),33-52.

Law, B., & Eckes,M. ( 2000). The more-than-just-surviving handbook: ESLfor every classroomteacher. Winnipeg, MB: Peguis Publishers.

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiatedinstruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class.American Secondary Education, 52(3), 34-62.

Marshall, S. K. (2001). Do I Matter? Constructvalidation of adolescents' perceived matteringto parents and friends. Journal of Adolescence,24(4), 473-490.

Mathes, P. G., Dentón, C A . , Fletcher, J. M.,Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider,C. (2005). The effects of theoretically differ-ent instruction and student characteristics onthe skills of struggling readers. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.

Nolet, V. , & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Access-ing the general curriculum: Including studentswith disabilities in standard-based reform.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rex, L. (2000). Judy constructs a genuine ques-tion: A case for interactional inclusion.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,315-333.

Tobin, R. (2007). Interactions and practices toenhance the inclusion experience. TeachingExceptional Children Plus. Access from:http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus14 pages.

Conundrums Differentiated Literacy... /169

Tobin, R. (2006). Five ways to facilitate theteacher assistant's work in the classroom set-ting. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,2(6).

Tobin, R. (2005a). Co-teaching in language arts:Supporting students with learning disabilities.Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 784-801.

Tobin, R. (2005b). Responding to diversity: Dif-ferentiating in the language arts classroom.[Electronic version]. Language and Literacy,7(2). Access from:http://www.langandlit.ualberta.ca/. 27 pages.

Tobin, R., & Mclnnes, A. ( 2008). Accomodatingdifferences: Variations on differentiated liter-acy instruction in grades 2/3 classrooms.Literacy, 42(1)

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Class-room. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differ-ences? Standard based teaching and dif-ferentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1),6-11.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Eulfilling the promise ofthe differentiated classroom. Strategies andtools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). The Mobius effect:Addressing learner variance in schools. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516-524.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentia-tion:nd Paradox or good practice? Theory IntoPractice, 44(3), 262-269.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrat-ing differentiated instruction and under-standing by design: Connecting content andkids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Super-vision and Curriculum Development.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2000).Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk stu-dents in the general education classroom (2ndEd.). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani,K, Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A.(2003). Reading instruction grouping for stu-dents with reading difficulties. Remedial andSpecial Education. 24(5), 301-315.

Waldron, N. & McLeskey, J. (2001). Nancy Wal-dron and James McLeskey: Helping schoolsinclude all learners. Intervention in School &Clinic, 36(3), 115-181.

Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids inthe regular classroom (rev. ed. ). MN: FreeSpirit.