Instructional Delivery

Introduction

               Throughout my coursework in the M.S.Ed. program, particularly in Differentiating Curriculum and Instruction, I have developed a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of instructional delivery. Delivering a lesson is not just about presenting content; it involves a thoughtful process of planning and implementing effective instructional practices. These plans can be enhanced with the use of AI platforms that specialize in active and engaging lesson planning. In this way, lessons become student-centered, inclusive, and grounded in inquiry or phenomenon-based learning. Research suggests that technology enhanced, inquiry-based approaches such as phenomenon-based learning can increase metacognitive awareness and deepen student engagement (Akkas & Eker, 2021). Preparing lessons that are differentiated, engaging, and student-centered has become central to how I approach teaching. I regularly incorporate AI tools and digital platforms that align with Finnish pedagogy to design lessons that are dynamic, inclusive, and grounded in inquiry and real-world relevance.

Tomlinson’s Differentiation and Tiered Strategy

             One of the key shifts in my thinking came from studying the work of Tomlinson, whose framework on differentiation influenced many of my assignments. In her words, “Differentiation is simply a teacher attending to the learning needs of a particular student or small group of students, rather than teaching a class as though all individuals in it were basically alike” (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 4). This framework became a foundation for the tiered strategies I developed in my Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction course, where I applied Tomlinson’s principles to scaffold readiness-based learning activities. For example, in my Tiering Strategy assignment, I designed space-themed activities for multiple readiness levels: some students built straw rockets, others used fine motor materials in a sensory bin, and still others created constellation art projects based on guided research. These were not watered-down tasks; each was appropriately rigorous and aligned with Tomlinson’s concepts of respectful tasks, which require that all students are engaged in meaningful and challenging work, and flexible grouping, which encourages students to work with a variety of peers based on readiness, interest, or learning profile (Tomlinson, 2001).  Students were asked reflective questions and grouped by similarities in answers. Collaboratively, they worked on their projects and later presented them to their peers. Each student was offered a set of task options based on their strengths and readiness. While I designed the choices, students were empowered to select the task that most interested them. I remember how excited they were when they realized they had a voice in choosing their own learning path.

Scaffolding and Vygotsky’s Influence

               Building on this foundation of differentiation, Lev Vygotsky’s work further deepened my understanding of effective delivery. His theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) reminded me that “what a child can do today with assistance, she will be able to do by herself tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 87). In designing instruction, I became more aware of the importance of scaffolding, not just in content, but in task complexity and independence. After studying scaffolding in my coursework at the University of Kansas and through professional development in Finnish pedagogy, I came to understand just how essential this skill is for effective teaching. Finnish educators emphasize the importance of scaffolding in supporting student agency and gradual independence (Sahlberg, 2015). A teacher with scaffolding skills can reach almost any child and connect their understanding to the learning outcomes. I applied these scaffolding strategies in my Learning Contracts project, where I guided students through a structured sequence of robot-building challenges. Younger students worked with materials like boxes and toy motors to construct physical robots, while older or more experienced learners applied coding skills using simple block-code apps. I functioned as a facilitator, adjusting my support as their confidence grew. For example, one of my 3rd graders was still struggling to read but was extremely interested in coding. We used Scratch, the coding platform which used colors, pictures, and shapes, to help students learn coding (MIT Media Lab, n.d.). I would read the prompts on the shapes and very quickly he was able to figure it out on his own and was coding the movements of the robot.

Multiple Intelligences and Learner Engagement

            A key development in my instructional approach was recognizing the importance of designing lessons that reflect students’ individual strengths and diverse cognitive approaches. Howard Gardner (1983) argued that intelligence is not one-dimensional and that learners express understanding in diverse ways. I explored this in my Cubing and Questioning assignment, designing activities that integrated visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal strengths. Students responded to prompts using yard-sized cubes, acted out vocabulary terms, and collaborated on problem-solving games. As Gardner suggested, “It’s not how smart you are, it’s how you are smart,” and honoring those differences through my instruction made a noticeable impact on student motivation. I observed increased interest and engagement across the class. Students asked more questions, expressed curiosity, and even became excited about topics they typically found uninteresting, such as independent research. By designing activities that appealed to these varied cognitive strengths, I saw learners connect more deeply with the content and take greater ownership of their learning. Often students were given opportunities to co-create their own tasks and shape their learning path, as a result their confidence and curiosity noticeably increased. They became more invested in the process, asked deeper questions, and demonstrated a genuine curiosity that extended beyond the assignment itself.       

Choice, Autonomy, and Motivation

                In my Choice Boards project, I applied my understanding of learner autonomy and differentiated expression by allowing students to choose how they demonstrated their learning in both math and language. The student response revealed an increased motivation, creativity, and pride in their work. Students were more eager to share their outcomes and showed a deeper investment in the learning process because they had a say in how they engaged with the content. Students who were often disengaged became invested in their work. Ryan and Deci (2000), in their work on self-determination theory, emphasized that autonomy supports motivation and achievement. I found that to be true. Giving learners agency helped them take ownership of the process and outcomes. The atmosphere in the classroom changed from sighs of discouragement and disinterest to “YAHs!” of excitement and enthusiasm for what was ahead.

Assessment as Part of Instructional Delivery
           Assessment, I realized, is another critical piece of instructional delivery. It should not be used as an end to learning but rather as an embedded, formative process that shapes instruction (Black & William, 1998). In my Assessment Strategies assignment, I used pre-assessments, formative check-ins, and student reflection tools to guide instruction. As Wormeli (2006) stated, “The most accurate and effective assessments are those that inform instruction and guide next steps” (p. 64). I saw this clearly when I adjusted a reading comprehension lesson after an exit ticket showed a gap in understanding. Instead of pushing forward, I paused, regrouped, and used a different strategy, resulting in a stronger grasp of the concept.

Summer Intervention and Responsive Assessment

            Assessment should not be confined to the traditional school year. Summer programs, although often less structured and rigorous, can also benefit from purposeful assessment practices, as demonstrated in my summer reading intervention program. We began with a group of struggling readers, many of whom had never read a book independently. Early in the program, we conducted informal assessments through phonics inventories, listening observations during partner reading, and fluency checks to identify each student’s strengths and needs. These formative tools allowed us to group students flexibly and adjust instruction in real time. We used phonics games, read-aloud partner activities, visual cues, and differentiated literacy centers tailored to ongoing observations and student progress. By mid-summer, confidence began to bloom. We ended the program with a reading celebration, where every student, including previous non-readers, read aloud to an audience of peers and parents. I saw firsthand how differentiated, engaging, and responsive instruction, informed by continuous assessment, could transform not only reading skills but students’ confidence and belief in themselves.

Conclusion    

            As I move forward in my professional practice, I plan to continue integrating what I have learned about instructional delivery into my classroom teaching, professional development sessions, curriculum planning, or teacher training workshops. Whether it is through learning contracts, choice boards, tiered assignments, or formative assessment loops, I am committed to honoring the needs of all learners. The work of theorists like Tomlinson, Vygotsky, Gardner, and Wormeli has given me not just strategies, but a philosophy. I have learned that teaching is more about experiences and exploration than just a lecture or lesson. It is about designing experiences that empower students to think, create, and grow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                           References

 

Akkaş, H., & Eker, C. (2021). The effect of phenomenon-based learning on students’ metacognitive awareness. Participatory

 

Educational Research, 8(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2021.4139

​

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,

 

5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

​

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

​

MIT Media Lab. (n.d.). Scratch. https://scratch.mit.edu

​

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,

 

and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

​

Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College

 

Press.

​

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD.

​

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

​

Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse Publishers.