as a composition of various skills and areas of strength.  For example, an individual can exhibit areas of intelligence as diverse as:

• linguistic;

• spatial;

• interpersonal;

• intrapersonal;

• body-kinesthetic. 

Within the theory, while “all humans partake of each intelligence to some degree, certain individuals are said to be ‘at promise.’  They are highly endowed with the core abilities and skills of that intelligence” (28).  However, “while some individuals are ‘at promise’ in an intelligence, others are ‘at risk’” (28).  This condition can be critical to education because, “those at risk in an intelligence will be most likely to fail tasks involving that intelligence.  Conversely, those at promise will be most likely to succeed” (29). Fortunately, Gardner (Chapter Two) asserts that:

Under the multiple intelligences theory, an intelligence can serve both as the content of instruction and the means or medium for communicating that content. (32)

If instruction and assessment is structured exclusively around/in consideration of one intelligence, it may be an inaccurate way to gauge a learner’s abilities or advance his or her learning and achievement.

During Term III, I wrote, taught, and reflected on four small group lessons: one for literacy, one for math, one for science and one for social studies.  Gardner’s theory was not far from my mind as I wrote and taught my Term III lessons.  For each lesson, I attempted to incorporate a variety of modes of instruction. I employed visuals, graphic organizers, and manipulatives whenever possible.  I sought to provide options for the students.

My overarching goal was to supplement/compliment what the students had been learning in class. This took different forms for each subject. Differentiating my lessons in this way provided much for me to analyze. Reflecting on my experiences seemed to support my original belief that small group instruction may enable appropriate differentiation within a larger classroom. Moving into whole class instruction in the Spring, I planned to continue examining the role of small group instruction as an effective and feasible way to provide appropriate differentiation to a class as a whole. My spring placement is at a charter school in West Philadelphia, where my classroom mentor (CM) teaches two periods each of eighth grade science and seventh grade science. This, essentially, is the students’ first experience in a formal/structured science class. There are, on average, 25 students in each class. In each of these classes, there is a wide range of levels among all of the students, with many of them reading below grade level. Additionally, at least one student in each class has an IEP.

My CM sequences the instructional schedule identically for each week, with specific activities designated to each day of the week.  She does not use a textbook in her classes, but has written/developed the curriculum over the last few years since arriving at the school.  Content is tied to specific weeks in the instructional calendar.  Each topic covers precise curriculum standards, drawn from the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Science and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  As there is no textbook, every student receives a teacher-created notes packet each Monday.  This packet contains all of the materials and handouts for the week.  According to my CM, she was motivated to write the classroom curriculum in order to present the concepts at an approachable level for the students.

As I began planning my unit, I felt that I was operating with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.  Within the very specific instructional plan in the classroom—wherein material is covered sequentially and specific concepts have been tied to designated weeks—I was unable to select my own topic; I would cover visible light and the characteristics of technology.  Additionally, both weeks of my unit would fall during scheduled PSSA testing, when the length of each class would be shortened.  While these realities felt somewhat limiting, they also allowed me to focus directly on how I wanted the students to experience the information, and what I hoped they would take away from the experience.  The curriculum was mandated; my approach was not.

In addition to Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences, an additional differentiation strategy that I planned to explore was tiering.  According to the NSTA, individual lessons can be differentiated in terms of content, process, or product. Students then work in groups, which may be defined by readiness, learning profiles, and/or interests.

I believe that it is vital, with science in particular, to communicate to students that the material is relevant outside of a classroom or research setting.  As such, I planned with the intention of engaging the students as scientists (and engineers) in the material.  I sought to provide the students with multiple opportunities for hands-on exploration.  I attempted to differentiate instruction and assessment in terms of both learning modalities and student interests.  I also determined not to administer a formal test or quiz during state mandated testing, but to focus more deeply on formative assessment.  Throughout my unit, I hoped to position the students—and enable them to position themselves—for a deeper, lasting experience of science and technology.  As in the fall, I continued to examine tiering and small group activities—coupled with formative assessment—as an effective approach to differentiating instruction for a whole class.