All Posts

Introduction: Learning as a Professional Conversation As I moved through Modules 1–9, I found myself thinking about instructional design less as a set of technical decisions and more as an ongoing conversation, between research and practice, between teachers and learners, and between who we are and who we aspire to be as educators. The course readings, action research, interview data, and multimedia analyses challenged me to reconsider how curriculum becomes equitable, rigoro

Designing for clarity Module 1 pushed me to examine the internal structure of lessons with far more intentionality. I began to recognize that objectives, checks for understanding, scaffolds, and practice structures are not procedural formalities; they are equity levers that either open or close access to rigorous thinking. When these elements lack clarity, multilingual learners and students with processing needs often lose the cognitive thread of a lesson. But when learning g

Module 2 reframed how I view student diversity by shifting my lens from categorical labels to individual learner profiles. Instead of grouping students as ELL, SWD, or gifted, I learned to examine linguistic repertoires, cultural communication patterns, background knowledge, processing needs, and sources of motivation. This more nuanced understanding illuminated why universal accommodations are essential. They proactively reduce barriers for entire groups before differentiati

Module 3 was transformative in helping me see that literacy is inseparable from disciplinary learning, especially in science. Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) argue that disciplinary literacy is not generic reading and writing; it is discipline-specific inquiry and communication. In chemistry and anatomy, students cannot model phenomena, construct explanations, or evaluate claims without tools such as guided annotation, contextual vocabulary routines, CER writing, mentor texts, a

Module 4 highlighted the value of teacher perceptions in shaping student-centered instruction. The qualitative data pointed to consistent concerns: unclear routines, cognitive overload, uneven modeling, misaligned technology use, and insufficient scaffolding time. These insights revealed a core truth emphasized by Hammond (2015): student-centered learning requires meticulous teacher-centered design. Strong pedagogical structures enable student agency.

Module 5’s survey data made systemic gaps impossible to ignore. Teachers expressed inconsistent comfort with discourse routines, uneven use of culturally responsive strategies, limited training with technology, and lack of disciplinary literacy integration. The quantitative results reinforced the qualitative patterns: universal accommodations only function equitably when teachers have the training and structures necessary to implement them well.

Module 7 pushed me to think about classroom management not as a set of rules, but as an integrated system of instructional design that supports teacher clarity, student belonging, and equitable participation. Creating the guide for novice teachers required me to translate research into practical routines: predictable structures, culturally responsive norms, scaffolds for discourse, and clear expectations that reduce cognitive load for diverse learners. This module highlighted

The Module 8 interview with an experienced ELA teacher brought coherence to the entire course. Seven key themes surfaced: literacy as the foundation for thinking; emotional and cultural safety as prerequisites for rigor; scaffolding as a mechanism for sustaining challenge; technology as meaningful only when purposeful; learning partnerships as central to meaning-making; strong pedagogy transferring across disciplines; and education as fundamentally human development. Aligning

Module 9 helped me synthesize all prior learning into a cohesive instructional framework. I came to understand that whole-group routines can function as differentiation when they are predictable, culturally responsive, literacy-rich, cognitively intentional, and supported by purposeful technology. Peer feedback strengthened the presentation considerably. I clarified how flexible grouping complements whole-group routines for multilingual learners, added distinctions between pr

Across multiple modules, I learned that technology does not transform learning; design does. Tech becomes instructional when it reduces cognitive load, multiplies access pathways, amplifies student voice, supports multimodal processing, and enables collaborative meaning-making. Conversely, it becomes a barrier when tools misalign with learning goals, students lack digital literacy, teachers lack training, or platforms overwhelm rather than support thinking. These patterns ech

This course made me a more intentional, reflective, and equity-focused educator. I now see literacy as the backbone of scientific reasoning, predictable routines as anti-racist design structures, technology as a cognitive partner rather than entertainment, qualitative data as essential for understanding teacher experiences, and quantitative data as critical for identifying systemic patterns. Most importantly, I design with the belief that every learner deserves clarity, acces

Drawing from research and the action studies completed in this course, five recommendations stand out for designing equitable and rigorous instruction. Teachers should embed disciplinary literacy across subjects by modeling annotation, teaching vocabulary in context, and using CER writing universally. They should also rely on universal routines, such as turn-and-talk, structured notes, and collaborative problem-solving, as predictable equity structures. Technology must be int

Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2020). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning . Alliance for Excellent Education. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice  (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain . Corwin. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32 (1), 7–18.