I’ve organized the posts by theme to make it easier to navigate.

Each column includes:

• The title of the assignment/material

• A quick description of the work

• A reflection on how I plan to apply it in my classroom or professional practice

• Additional resources/materials

I drew from UDL principles, PBL practices, and my own classroom norms and needs to design something that could be used before adopting a tool or as a reflective check-in.

My goal is to prioritize tools that support learners and serve the real work of teaching—not just "shiny" ones.

It also includes reflections on how I evaluate whether a tool is actually working and how legal considerations like FERPA and CIPA impact decision-making.

After inputting text/or a PDF, the tool identifies Tier 2 and 3 vocabulary for the grade-level, which helps me frontload and provide grade-level instruction, ensuring all students can access grade-level content.

Specifically, the two tools that have significantly shifted my planning for the Fall semester (and beyond) are the Web Tools Evaluation Rubric that we created and the ASSURE instructional design model from the textbook (along with the other TIMS). I appreciate that, though these were homework exercises, they provided me with a usable tool/taught me a new skill that I can immediately incorporate into my instructional planning and bring with me into professional collaboration spaces.

Though I taught early childhood and younger grades for many years, beginning in APS with a multi-aged, middle school classroom where I am responsible for building all of the highly-differentiated curriculum for all subjects was very “thrown into the deep end”, quickly. In order to support my students and fulfill my responsibilities, I selected “Ed Tech” tools largely based on function, peer recommendation, or student input from their previous teachers— it just felt too overwhelming or untenable to spend my limited planning time investigating something new. 

Leaving this course I have a clear process for evaluating tools not just on ease or novelty, but with a focus on student agency, differentiation/support, alignment to instructional goals, and long-term support for learning. The “Web Tools Rubric” we designed will help me (and my PLC) examine a new tool before adopting/or experimenting. The rubric ensures that the tool improves classroom efficacy—defined by whether a tool supports student growth and access, not just convenience/holds attention. I plan to use this rubric as part of our team’s curriculum planning time, and to push back (in a constructive way!) when tools are pushed onto classrooms without context. 

Additionally, I plan to use the ASSURE model to guide my planning for our upcoming Workshop curriculum units, which are student-driven, inquiry-based projects, and are truly the “magic” of our school. Because we embed so much student learning into this instructional mode, it is easy to lose “sight” of the planning process— there is so much that goes into them (SEL, math, ELA, science, social studies, art… it is always a full, immersive experience). This eval. model emphasizes learners and reminds me to select supportive media and tools after establishing the learning outcomes. This supports me to stay grounded in student needs and outcomes rather than falling into the “this tool looks innovative and exciting” trap– which is easy to do– because Workshop is so fun! The reflective steps in the ASSURE model, specifically, push me to revisit my scaffolding and feedback systems, especially for IEP/504 students, and improve my practices before building the next mode– which is a benefit of beginning a new Workshop cycle. 

Implementing these tools will help me plan more intentional, inclusive, and meaningful learning experiences for my students, as well as focus on quality instruction, which is necessary when I only have students for 80% of their week.

Potential challenges include time (as always, particularly in a 80%/20% program) and trying new processes with colleagues who are often also overloaded. However, I think if I model how these tools improve planning and reduce “friction”, they’ll see the value and it can improve how we use tech more thoughtfully and effectively. 

In my multi-age classroom (6th–8th grade, all content areas), I differentiate every day, within every subject and mode. Technology helps me, specifically within whole-group projects– using tech tools helps me pinpoint each student’s needs, which is particularly tricky when my direct instruction needs to serve three different grade’s contents. A specific example was during our spring literary analysis unit, where all students responded to a common prompt (theme or character study), but the expectations and supports were personalized based on data from their i-Ready diagnostic reports.

To accomplish this, I reviewed each student’s iReady ELA report, identified specific skill areas of improvement, and used that information to adjust their project focus, under the umbrella of the same expectation for each student. For instance, a student below grade level might focus on identifying character motivation using sentence frames and scaffolded graphic organizers, while another student might explore imagery or identify themes in paired texts, but all within the same novel study, with common weekly writing and participation expectations. Everyone completed the “same” project, but the depth and standards focus were adjusted for each student grouping.

I also use Achieve the Core to pull grade-level vocabulary words from texts/materials. This helps make sure that my IEP/504 students are explicitly taught the same academic language as their peers, with added support like definitions, visual organizers, or sentence stems. I use Achieve the Core’s resources to frontload tier II/III words and embed them in a word wall or guided notes.

In addition, I track individual goals and resources in Google Docs, share leveled templates through Google Classroom, and encourage the use of UDL tools (Read&Write or Cowriter) for accessibility. This flexibility allows all students to work on the same timeline as their peers, with support in how they access content and demonstrate their understanding.

As an aside, I’ve seen "Book Maker" advertisements, which allow students to response to ELA projects with multimedia/varied responses and have also been recommended “Mote” by a peer, which offers teachers opportunities to provide students with audio feedback or instructions-- helpful for students who benefit from hearing expectations read aloud. These tech-based differentiation options might be good resources for reaching different types of learners and offering responsive, accessible formative feedback. 

#2

For this assignment, I chose the article “AI in Education in 2024: Educators Express Mixed Feelings on the Technology’s Future” from EdTech Magazine (Schaffhauser, 2024). The article details how artificial intelligence is being used in some K–12 settings, particularly in ways that can enhance teacher productivity and support differentiated instruction– key areas of interest for me in my program. 

One of the main ideas of the article is that teachers using AI report positive gains in areas like personalized learning (25%), student engagement (18%), and learning outcomes (17%) (Schaffhauser, 2024). AI tools are helping these educators with planning tasks, creating resources, and generating levelled prompts or individualized learning paths for their students. Schaffhouser emphasizes that the use of AI isn’t about “replacing” teachers— at its best use, AI is about freeing up time so we can focus on the meaningful work of adapting to students’ needs.

This connects with how I differentiate in my own multi-age (6th–8th grade) classroom. In our Differentiation #1 assignment, I detailed how I use i-Ready diagnostic data to plan curriculum and personalize student expectations within whole-group projects. Every student may respond to the same prompt, but their focus, scaffolds, and depth of analysis are centered on their individual strengths and needs. I also use “Achieve the Core” to identify grade-level, tiered vocabulary to improve my instruction and ensure access to academic language for all students.

After reading this article, I’m considering how I can use AI to streamline my planning even more. For example, I have peers who use AI tools to pull out standards that match their lesson plans, or embed a list of differentiation strategies, or enhance their work based on the banks, resources, or previous work that they’ve given the AI model. Simple, but time-consuming tasks, such as creating sentence frames, vocabulary scaffolds, or aligning to standard/scope are a great place for AI to support the teacher’s mental load (Schaffhauser, 2024). IEP and 504 students benefit from more accessible versions of tasks, while advanced learners could be offered higher-level (“HOT”) questions or extensions—all with less prep time for the teacher, who is likely doing these tasks at the expense of other planning, grading, or personal/professional development.

That said, not all AI-generated material is accurate or developmentally appropriate, often failing to consider student’s backgrounds or nuances of teaching– a specific reminder of how AI could never “replace” a good teacher. There is a clear challenge of vetting materials and ensuring alignment with classroom goals. Another challenge is simply the learning curve of new tools– it is important to use AI to brainstorm or plan modifications rather than implement full lessons, and like all things... proofread, revise, and polish. It may be beneficial, as the district is opening their mind to AI tools supporting teachers, and research is showing benefits for teacher and student, for their to be PD of how to use these tools, how to effectively write prompts/generative language, and also long-term consequences/environmental impacts of overuse. 

Overall, this article reimagined and reassured how AI might support and extend the differentiation strategies I already use– that, frankly, for three grades and all content areas, occupies a large amount of my mental load and time. AI can’t replace the intentional work and planning—but it may reduce prep time and expand my ability to meet students where they are and do the meaningful work of instruction with a clearer “plate”. 

Schaffhauser, D. (2024, September 25). AI in education in 2024: Educators express mixed feelings on the technology’s future. EdTech Magazine.

https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2024/09/ai-education-2024-educators-express-mixed-feelings-technologys-future-perfconLinks to an external site.