Search results

Purpose – To provide differentiated teaching models and a set of instructional reading strategies and materials for current and future classroom teachers to help them enhance the quality of reading instruction for English Learners (ELs).

Design/methodology/approach – The instructional reading strategies and materials and differentiated teaching models presented in this chapter are drawn from a body of current literature on ELs' English language development and on effective reading instruction for ELs. The instructional reading strategies and materials are categorized into five subcomponents of reading instruction: sight words, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Findings – Provides differentiated teaching models and specific instructional strategies and materials that target each of the five specific subcomponents of reading instruction for ELs (i.e., sight words, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).

Research limitations/implications – Some publications related to instructional reading strategies and materials may be limited to specific ELs in United States who speak a predominate native language (i.e., Spanish). These instructional reading strategies and materials may not be appropriate for ELs speaking another native language.

Practical implications – A very useful source of differentiated teaching models and practical instructional reading strategies and materials for current and future classroom teachers of ELs.

Originality/value – This chapter provides specific information and resources for current and future classroom teachers of ELs to support them in delivering high quality reading instruction.

The use of differentiated instruction has increasingly become a part of the daily practices in classrooms across the country. This approach is important for many students with academic difficulties but can be particularly important for students with learning disabilities. Although differentiated instructional practices can have a positive impact on student learning, these strategies need to be implemented with fidelity to prove the most effective. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the various components and strategies that teachers can use to differentiate their instruction for students with learning disabilities. These components include the classroom environment, student groupings, tiered instruction, collaboration and co-teaching, and student assessment procedures. Applied examples are provided through the use of a hypothetical classroom scenario.

The purpose of this study is to examine effects of classroom-level and student-level factors on student engagement in the context of a higher education system vertically differentiated into research, applied and comprehensive university types.

The study used a cross-sectional multilevel design to explain student engagement based on class and student variables. Specifically, the study collects data from 656 students and 61 randomly selected teachers at both levels and uses multilevel modeling to explain relationship patterns.

The results show that institutions vary significantly in student engagement scores. In addition, while a significant variation is found at the student and classroom level, the effects of academic achievement, instructional quality, teaching experience and teacher qualifications on student engagement vary across classrooms in institutions. However, the interaction effect of classroom and student-level variables on student engagement remains non-significant.

The main contribution of this lies in the explanation of student engagement using classroom and student level factors in a vertically differentiated higher education system using multilevel modeling. Student engagement varied in classrooms research universities applied and comprehensive universities.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on teacher coachees’ perceptions of why some coaching goals (selected by coaches or coachees) were more achievable than others and how this knowledge might advance a coaching culture that has the potential for sustainable improvements to teaching and learning.

As educators, the authors took a constructivist approach to grounded theory because the authors believe learning is socially constructed. The relationship between coach and coachees is underpinned by their constructed meanings and co-constructed learning. constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 1996) requires researchers not to start with a theory or hypothesis but to engage with data in a manner (coding, categorising, theorising) that allows for a theoretical understanding to emerge. In total, 22 teacher coachees from one school participated in this research. They were asked to complete an online questionnaire about their coaching experiences, speculating about why some goals (related to improving student reading, writing, speaking and listening, and math) were more achievable than others. One of the researchers had been a coach in the school, but not at the time of the research. Nonetheless online questionnaires were used as they offered teacher coachees anonymity to share their lived experiences (Charmaz, 2006). This data collection method also assisted in limiting accidental leading by an interviewer (Charmaz, 2006).

The investigation into longitudinal coaching (one to six years) indicated how coachees positioned themselves or peers, when reflecting on and seeking to establish why some coaching goals were more achievable than others. Coachees clustered around one of the following themes: Pragmatic I, Pragmatic We, Student Driven, Team Driven, Data Driven, Research Driven. Theorising within and across themes highlighted that while coachees shared the same concerns, they differed in terms of how much they each focused on them. This allowed the authors to gauge the intensity of the concern (dominate, moderate or slight) for each participant. Notwithstanding the overlap, the seventh theme (temporality) serendipitously aligned with their exposure to coaching. Differentiated models of coaching appears to be a way to establish a coaching culture as multiple models could be responsive to divergent coachees’ learning needs. In doing so it is more likely to support sustainable improvements in teaching and learning.

The sample size (n=22) was appropriate for an in-depth analysis which allowed an understanding of coaching from the coachees’ first-hand experiences although it does limit generalisability. Another limitation is that coachees were not asked about teaching experience, hence the relationship between years of teaching and coaching exposure was not analysed. This is something that the authors feel now needs to be included in further research. Implications of the findings are that instructional coaches within schools may need to be more cognisant of the developmental stages and therefore differentiated needs of teacher coachees. This is particularly so if the aim is to promote sustainable pedagogical improvement.

This is a case study of the effects of longitudinal coaching (one to six years) in a school where all teachers are involved in being coached.

The principal purpose of this article was to identify supervisory approaches available to instructional leaders in education. Selected supervisory approaches served as the basis for creating the Supervisory Options for Instructional Leaders (SOIL) Model. Instructional leaders in a variety of educational settings could use this model. The SOIL Model is divided into three levels of supervision. The supervisory approaches included in each level are placed along a continuum of reward and risk. Reward is defined as “something given or offered for some service or attainment” (Mish, 1989, p. 628). Risk is defined by Mish (1989) as “the exposure to possible loss or injury” (p. 632).

As the instructional leader and teacher develop in the supervisory process, it is proposed that the approach of supervision used should change. As professional readiness increases and as the circumstances dictate, the instructional leader should progress in an upward direction on the continuum and facilitate more teacher-directed approaches of supervision. With teacher-directed approaches of supervision, instructional leaders and teachers may experience greater reward from the supervisory process.

Purpose – To provide educators with an overview of issues and strategies important for preparing preservice teachers to plan instruction, engage students, and assess learning in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and cognitive literature that informs differentiated instruction for linguistic diversity. It then offers a case study example of a preservice student teaching seminar where this knowledge was put into practice.

Findings – Content provides detailed information about the design of a preservice seminar that included the role of a nationally piloted performance assessment. It demonstrates how preparing the assessment portfolio provided a vehicle for a structured and useful focus on diversity within the seminar.

Research limitations/implications – The chapter highlights literature that is specifically useful for preservice teachers and their instructors who are seeking to address the specific needs of English Language Learners and the culturally diverse population of students found in U.S. classrooms. This is important to those who seek to expand this attention to diversity within general teacher education practices.

Practical implications – This chapter serves as a resource for all clinical instructors, providing ideas for incorporation into their clinics and classrooms.

Originality/value of paper – Culturally responsive teaching and a specific focus on teaching English Language Arts for linguistically diverse students are infused in clinical teacher education practices rather than as “add-on” practices.

This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of discourses on equity found in OECD and Norwegian policy documents. This is an interesting area to study as the OECD is found to be an important agenda setter for many countries' educational policies. A comparative analysis of OECD and Norwegian educational policies is especially interesting because the OECD is often found to be pressing for a neo-liberal agenda, while Norway has a socialist-alliance government. Combining Basil Bernstein's theoretical framework with key principles from Critical Discourse Analysis, the author investigates power relations within OECD and Norwegian educational policy documents. Two equity models serve as analytical tools: equity through equality and equity through diversity, which can be described along the three dimensions: de-/centralization, de-/standardization and de-/specialization. Using the analysis of two key documents on equity in education from the OECD and Norway, the author points out the similarities and differences in two documents. Both the OECD and Norwegian approaches to equity in education can be related to a centralized decentralization or a conservative modernization of education. However, there are also important differences between the two documents. For example, the Norwegian ministry has more emphasis on equity through equality and is less influenced by neo-liberalism and authoritarian populism than the OECD. In conclusion, the author argues that neither of the two described approaches appears to improve the inequities in education. A different way of targeting these inequities could be based on critical theory and research.

We consider the theory and evidence supporting learning styles, and contrast these with the related concepts of learning preferences and student choice. Although the theory of learning styles remains popular in the field of education as one guidepost teachers might use to maximize the effectiveness of instruction for individual students, including students with learning and behavioral disabilities, a review of the evidence supporting a learning styles approach suggests that it offers little benefit to students with disabilities. In contrasting learning styles with the related concept of learning preferences, we posit that interventions based on student choice may offer a more parsimonious and evidence-driven approach to enhancing instruction and improving outcomes for students with learning and behavioral disabilities.

Written in dialogue form, the benefits and equality of Universal Design vs. Differentiated Design taking into account individual student needs will be explored while integrating literature, research, and both K-12 and higher education experiences. The danger of a singular lens is highlighted as well as the need for educators to be lifelong learners. Both Universal Design and differentiation theories will be tested against and/or aligned with disability studies, multicultural education, critical pedagogy, democratic education, LGBTQ voices, and educational leadership.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering all library types.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, reports and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2018.

The paper provides a brief description of all 422 sources, and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians and anyone interested as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.