Cimermanova (2018) completed a study that revealed that learning styles have no significant effect on academic achievement. A form of teaching has no significant effect on academic achievement. Students with different learning styles do not statistically significantly differ in their academic performance. Hence, it explains why viewpoints one and two resonate with me in proportions, especially when keeping the 504 and IEP at the forefront of decision making. Early intervention entails intensive additional instructional services delivered early enough to assist pupils in swiftly reaching a level where they can succeed in a general education classroom (Ortiz & Yates, 2001).
Viewpoint one ascertains that all students can learn and succeed.
Furthermore, it states that learning styles must be kept at the forefront when designing instruction. Langberg, Epstein & Becker (2012) assert that interventions to improve organizational and time management abilities and homework challenges in children with ADHD proved to be highly beneficial. Hence, supporting that if individual instruction is provided, all students can learn.
Moreover, viewpoint two references that the systematic approach to teaching and learning will support all learners in the classroom. However, Null (2017) addresses two different curriculum theories: systematic and deliberative.
A systematic curriculum is a “one-size-fits-all” learning approach that does not support students with disabilities. However, the deliberative curriculum calls for the teacher, the student, the subject matter, context, and curriculum makers to come to a unified table and develop a curriculum that is liberated or, better put, a curriculum specific to the learner. Hence, this leads to teachers improving instruction for the whole child. Schools exemplify excellent principals and instructors when high amounts of time, energy, and devotion are present (Blosveren, Melvin, & DeWitt, 2014).
Heading #1: Why Is This Topic So Important?
Heading #2: What are the Nuts and Bolts of Your Guide?
Heading #3: Is Your Reader Feeling Empowered?
As ambitious experts, our students require preparation to utilize writing successfully to achieve these similar goals; one or two writing classes cannot provide enough practice to improve student writing quality (Saulnier, 2016). Skillful writing helps also improve student learning, promote professional growth, and assist fiscal success (Langer & Applebee, 2011). On the other hand, secondary students do not receive excellent writing instruction across the curriculum since instructors are subject matter experts, and secondary higher education institutions are not obliged to train that level for literacy leadership. This paper will determine which tactics will be most advantageous to each unique learner group, introduce writing across the curriculum (WAC), how teachers can employ fiction or nonfiction activities, and finally, the drawbacks and benefits of technology and literacy. In addition, a detailed lesson plan utilizing the best strategies will be supplied for review.
Identify Strategies Which Will Be Most Beneficial to Each Diverse Learner Group
Teachers found in classrooms throughout the country have a melting pot of students within the four walls in the classroom. However, some of these students are English Language Learners (ELLs), students with learning disabilities, or have other culturally diverse needs. However, teachers are held accountable to provide the best practice of instruction for all students. Best practices that will enhance a culturally diverse classroom instruction to enhance reading and writing consist of many.
The difficult demands and the need for cognitive skills found in argumentative writing requires teachers to be experts in the classroom, (Nippold & Ward-Lonergan, 2010). Making a case to maintain a claim, locating supporting evidence from numerous sources that connects the claim logically, employing warrants that establish the relationship between the claim and with support are all examples of argumentative writing (Saulnier, 2016).
In addition to argumentative writing, explicit instruction or layering the instruction in scope and sequence, and directly teaching new content has afforded students to understand because the teacher models the new content, first (Collins, 1998). This modeling allows students to reciprocate and take an active role in guided practice. As pupils gain knowledge, the teacher progressively draws back to allow them to become self-sufficient.
How should instructors decide on whether to use fiction or non-fiction activities when incorporating writing across the curriculum (WAC)?
Writing Throughout the Curriculum is the duty of the whole academic community and must be incorporated across all subject areas (Saulnier, 2016). However, fiction activities should only be utilized when Writing to Learn is being utilized as an instructional routine. Hence, WTL is given an impromptu and usually are not graded on correctness but more of mastery of learning new content (Ediger, 2017). Therefore, non-fiction texts should be found within Writing In the Discipline (WID) is designed to enhance the learners ability to learn specific content, terms, and concepts about a specific subject matter.
While technology can support classroom writing, what disadvantages does it hold for literacy lessons and how can instructors balance technology advantages with disadvantages when writing across the curriculum?
Literacy instruction focuses on the reading, writing, speaking and, listening (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). While technology can aid in instructional supports in the areas of digital literacies, it is difficult to master communication skills such as listening and speak with a computer. However, teachers have discovered ways to improve this by adding specialized apps and or microphones and interactive instructional videos. One difficult area in writing while using the technology is the frailty of penmanship from the students. Communication is a standard that must be addressed through the curriculum (Null, 2017).
Conclusion
Our students, as aspiring scholars, require training in order to successfully use writing to reach these comparable aims; one or two writing lessons are insufficient to increase student writing quality (Saulnier, 2016). Writing skills may also aid in student learning, professional development, and financial success (Langer & Applebee, 2011). Secondary students, on the other hand, do not receive great writing training across the curriculum since teachers are subject matter experts, and secondary higher education institutions are not required to train that level for literacy leadership. This review identified which methods were most beneficial to each individual learner group, presented writing across the curriculum (WAC), explained how teachers might use fiction or nonfiction activities, and ultimately discussed the disadvantages and benefits of technology and literacy.
