This past Monday during our meeting at Calvin College, my colleagues and I

talked a lot about the UDL — Universal Design for Learning — guidelines. UDL learning

includes: “provide multiple means of engagement”, “provide multiple means of

representation”, and “provide multiple means of action and expression”. One subsection

that I focused and did the most research on was “provide multiple means of

engagement”. We talked about how the order of UDL learning has changed throughout

the years and if there is a “right” or a “wrong” way of going about UDL learning. I

challenged that I don’t think that it is linear, but rather it is cyclical. However, in any

cycle, something needs to start. I believe that engagement should be the starter

because if students aren’t engaged, they won’t be attentive to learn. I think a good

analogy is comparing the beginning of a lesson to the beginning of a piece of writing.

The first sentence should be the “attention-getter” and it should grab the reader’s

attention. The same goes for teaching and learning. The way that you introduce the

lesson will make or break the whole lesson. Although, just engaging them in the

beginning isn’t enough. The students will need engagement throughout the whole

lesson in order to fully learn. I have seen both instances happen in Ms. S’s classroom

— fully engaged and learning well, but also unengaged and uninterested which results

in no learning. This class is a very high-paced class that always needs to be engaged

and tasks to do. When they are uninterested or bored is when they start to act out.

These students have a lot of energy and have a hard time sitting in their seats without

talking for an extended period of time. This has shown me that I need to ensure that my

unit plan is interactive and meets their level of attention. I have seen some of Ms. S’s

lessons that go very well because of the high interest level and engagement in the
classroom at the beginning of the lesson, but I have also seen some lessons that end

horribly because no interest was peaked at the beginning. The students enjoy sitting by

their friends, but it often results in students getting left out and too much talking and no

work getting done.

Another piece we were assigned to look at for Monday was chapter 6 from

“Teaching to Change the World”. One subheading that particularly struck me for this

week was about students learning together. At first I saw it and thought, “Hm, I think it’s

weird that my teacher doesn’t do more group work. I never thought about the lack of

group work in my class until now.” However, after reading the subheading, I understand

the level of group work she does in her classroom. Ms. S never does groups, but often

does pairs. She also has a small class (16 students) so that could be a factor. But,

during my teacher interview with her, she explained that she often partners students

low-high. By that she means that she usually chooses one students on the lower end of

the spectrum who may be struggling, and one who is at the top of the spectrum to

encourage peer teaching/learning in the classroom. I thought this was really cool

because it allows the students to ask each other for help and it builds community

between the students. Usually students are conditioned to ask their teachers for help

when they are stuck, but this encourages them to go to their peers for help too. This

method allows teachers to “give away” some of their authority to make the students feel

like they share the authority. Not only does this encourage community, but “they

organize classrooms with the goal of preparing students for participations in a just,

democratic society” (Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, A. & Stillman, J. 2012, pg. 175). I

think that this is a really cool way to incorporate social justice into the classroom in a
way that prepares them for the world. It helps the students work together, and solve

problems they might face. I wonder if doing research projects, like we had seen done at

Meadowbrook, would be helpful for these students. I have seen how well partnership

teaching/learning has gone, so I would be interested to see if going a step beyond that

would hurt or help the situation.

Through a Christian perspective I have been struggling at this school. It hurts me

to see so many of the students struggling. This experience is way different than what I

have grown up seeing so it has been a bit of culture shock. It’s amazing how different

schools can be, even being 10 minutes away from each other. My initial instinct every

time I walk into this school is to love on and give them the kindness they need in their

lives. However, I have also discovered that what they want is often not what is best for

them. By that, I am trying to say that I want to be the loving teacher who doesn’t yell at

any of the kids, but that is not reality. These students need discipline, and they need

someone to be firm. Ms. S talked to me in her interview about the “behave with care”

program. This encourages the teachers to correct behavior and to discipline behavior,

but still with love and care. I think this was encouraging, especially seeing how they

react to the discipline. I think it’s encouraging to see the relationships between the

students and Ms. S and it shows how important being that disciplined “parental” figure is

for the children.

References:

Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, A. & Stillman, J. (2012). Teaching to change the world

(4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm

Principle III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23,

2018, from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle3