ArticlePDF Available

Tips for Teaching: Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students

Authors:
Bob Algozzine, Column Editor
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Differentiating Instruction to Include All
Students
Kelly M. Anderson
IT IS THE FIRST DAY of school. Amanda is a very bright,
inquisitive fourth grader who loves science and math.
Amanda's parents travel extensively and often take her
along on trips. Sitting next to Amanda is Reno. Reno just
moved to America from Cuba and speaks limited English.
This is Reno's first year in an American school. He is appre-
hensive about going to school, his lack of English profi-
ciency, and how his peers will perceive him in his new class.
Seated across from Reno is Jacob, who is “high energy”
and rarely shifts into low gear. Jacob has not liked school
much since first grade. He has spent a lot of time from first
through third grade in the principal’s office because of his
“disruptive behaviors.” Needless to say, Jacob does not
look forward to the beginning of another school year where
his teacher’s expectations and his learning styles will clash.
In another pod of students across the classroom is Roger.
Roger’s mom is a single parent working two jobs so she
rarely has the opportunity to attend school functions.
Roger’s previous teachers concluded that he suffered from a
low self-concept and more than likely had an unidentified
learning disability.
It is August and Mr. Wright is ready and prepared to start
up another school year with his new group of fourth
graders. Mr. Wright loves teaching and has taught for five
years at the same school. He cares about his students and
expects “their best work at all times.” Because of increas-
ing accountability demands, Mr. Wright has relinquished
many of the creative teaching practices he once envisioned
implementing in his classroom. He cannot keep track of the
number of times he has heard his principal reiterate,
“Fourth grade is a testing grade so everything you teach
must be aligned to the test.” Because of the pressure from
the school’s administration, Mr. Wright uses a lot of work-
books and other material specifically designed to increase
students’ achievement on the statewide assessments. As a
result of the increasing demands and performance expecta-
tions, students typically work in fixed groups based on their
ability levels which Mr. Wright determines on the basis of
information obtained in their cumulative files prior to the
start of school. By the fourth week of school, Mr. Wright
knows he will be asked by his Curriculum Specialist to sub-
mit the names of those students who are not performing at
grade level. Mr. Wright starts another school year like those
before with introductions, a review of the rules and conse-
quences, and the classroom procedures, as well as passing
out and assigning student textbooks and materials.
The scenario above is neither uncommon nor unrealistic
in depicting some of the intricate student differences within
classrooms today, as well as the challenges K–12 teachers
face in responding to the differing needs of students in a
time of increased pressure of accountability and high-stakes
testing. Although teachers have yearned for decades for
more responsive and effective methods in addressing stu-
dents’ differences, many children perform daily on the
“margins” of their classrooms—never fully engaged and
rarely ever catching a glimpse of their brightest potential. Is
it too idealistic to think that the Amandas, Rogers, Jacobs,
and Renos in today’s classrooms can coexist, growing and
learning socially and academically despite their unique dif-
ferences and learning styles? Many argue that it is not at all
idealistic to think that K–12 teachers can differentiate
instruction to meet all children’s needs while also adhering
to standards and state performance testing (e.g., Baumgart-
ner, Lipowski, & Rush, 2003; Brighton, 2002; Brimijoin,
Marquissee, & Tomlinson, 2003; Lawrence-Brown, 2004;
49
Kelly M. Anderson is assistant professor at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, College of Education, Department of Spe-
cial Education and Child Development. Copyright © 2007 Heldref
Publications
TIPS FOR TEACHING
Smutny, 2003; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998; Tom-
linson, 1999; Tomlinson, 2000).
What Is Differentiated Instruction?
Differentiation is not at all a new concept. The one-room
schoolhouse is a prime example of teachers differentiating
to meet the needs of all students. Differentiated instruction
stems from beliefs about differences among learners, how
students learn, differences in learning preferences, and indi-
vidual interests. By its nature, differentiation implies that
the purpose of schools should be to maximize the capabili-
ties of all students. Differentiated instruction integrates
what we know about constructivist learning theory, learning
styles, and brain development with empirical research on
influencing factors of learner readiness, interest, and intelli-
gence preferences toward students’ motivation, engage-
ment, and academic growth within schools (Tomlinson &
Allan, 2000). Unlike Mr. Wright, teachers who differentiate
know they are incorporating best practices in moving all of
their students toward proficiency in the knowledge and
skills established in state and local standards.
Teachers who differentiate believe that every child is
unique, with differing learning styles and preferences. They
may differentiate based on students’ readiness by varying
the levels of difficulty of the material covered in class.
Teachers may opt to differentiate key skills and material to
be understood by aligning them with particular students’
affinities and topics of interest (i.e., geography, music,
foods, wildlife, and architecture). Differentiation may be
made by the teachers based on what they know about stu-
dents’ learning preferences (i.e., intelligences, talents,
learning styles), allowing students’ choices in working inde-
pendently, with partners, or as a team; or providing varied
work spaces that are conducive to various learning prefer-
ences (i.e., quiet work spaces, work spaces with tables
instead of desks). Of the utmost importance to the teacher
who differentiates is providing a learning environment and
opportunities that exclude no child.
Critical Elements of Differentiated Instruction
Most important to differentiated instruction are the ele-
ments of choice, flexibility, on-going assessment, and cre-
ativity resulting in differentiating the content being taught,
or how students are processing and developing understand-
ing of concepts and skills, or the ways in which students
demonstrate what they have learned and their level of
knowledge through varied products. Teachers determine at
the onset of their planning what their students should know
and what each child should be able to do at the conclusion
of the lesson or unit (Tomlinson, 2000).
When differentiating the content aspect of a lesson,
teachers may adapt what they plan for the students to learn
or how the students’ will gain access to the desired knowl-
edge, understanding, and skills (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
Instead of varying the learner objectives and lowering per-
formance expectations for some students, teachers may dif-
ferentiate the content by using texts, novels, or short stories
at varying reading levels. The teachers may choose to dif-
ferentiate the content by using flexible grouping, affording
students to work in alike groups using books on tape or the
Internet as a means for developing understanding and
knowledge of the topic or concept. Some students may
choose to work in pairs, small groups, or independently, but
all are working toward proficiency on the same perfor-
mance standards or curriculum objectives.
Differentiating the process within a lesson refers to how
the learners come to understand and assimilate facts, con-
cepts, or skills. In traditional lesson planning, the process
is the guided and independent practice within a lesson.
Despite differences in abilities, learning styles, and stu-
dents’ prior knowledge, this component of a lesson is typ-
ically a stable constant in most instructional lessons,
meaning that all students complete the same type and
amount of practice.
In the opening vignette of Mr. Wright’s class, Amanda,
Reno, Jacob, and Roger might all practice identifying parts
of a story using the same workbook page with completion
expected at the end of the day’s literacy block. Instead, the
teacher may have chosen to differentiate based on students’
readiness resulting in clustering the children in “alike” lit-
eracy circles; giving each group leveled questions based on
their readiness skills related to the objective of the lesson.
For example, because of his limited English proficiency,
Reno may work with a group of peers who have less devel-
oped skills and need more direct instruction by a teacher,
assistant, or parent volunteer. The questions for his group
may be more concrete and less multi-leveled (e.g., Who are
the characters within the story? Where does the story begin?
What is the plot of the story?). In contrast, Amanda may
work in a group that is also expected to know and under-
stand the parts of the story, but because her reading and
vocabulary skills are more developed, Amanda's group
responds to more abstract and multi-leveled questions (e.g.,
Who is the main character in the story? Can you name at
least two other fictional characters from other novels that
have similar characteristics? Who are the supporting char-
acters and why are they important to the story? What is the
main problem of the story? Describe a time when you, or
someone you know, had a similar problem.). Other ways to
differentiate the process aspect of a lesson include tiering
the independent work activities, learning centers, and indi-
vidualized homework enrichment projects (e.g., Baumgart-
ner, Lipowski, & Rush, 2003; Brimijoin, Marquissee, Tom-
linson, 2003; George, 2005; Lawrence-Brown, 2004;
Madea, 1994; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000; Wehrmann, 2000;
Winebrenner, 1996).
50 Preventing School Failure Vol. 51, No. 3
Differentiating the performance measure or product com-
ponent of a lesson means affording students various ways of
demonstrating what they have learned from the lesson or
unit of study. Differentiation of assessments or products
may be constructed in various ways by the teacher such as
using choice boards (with predetermined options), or the
use of open-ended lists of potential product options from
which students’ select or contract for their final product.
The purpose of the product (regardless of its format) is for
students to recall what they have learned in the lesson or
unit. Differentiated products challenge students at all levels
to make decisions, be responsible for their own learning, as
well as affording them opportunities to demonstrate what
they know through products that are representative of their
unique learning preferences, interests, and strengths.
In Mr. Wright’s classroom, products differentiated on the
basis of students’ interests may mean that Amanda and
Roger work together on demonstrating what they have
learned about their state’s geography, whereas Jacob, Reno,
and others may work as a small team to present on the main
industry of the region. All students can work toward demon-
strating what they have learned through varying representa-
tions on the basis of their unique interests. Each individual
is assessed using established criteria (typically, a rubric) by
the teacher assessing students’ mastery of the knowledge
and skills outlined within the lesson or unit. This approach
to assessing students’ knowledge not only yields reliable
assessment of their knowledge and skills but also provides
evidence of each individual’s value to the learning process
within the classroom.
Getting Started
For Mr. Wright, starting differentiation may begin with
the creation of learning profiles; simple profiles of each stu-
dent containing pertinent information specific to learning
preferences, family structure, favorite hobbies and interests,
and other aspects of interest. Each profile may also contain
specific grade-level information for each child such as state
assessment scores, Lexile reading scores, and fluency
recordings. These individual student profiles are central to a
teacher’s inspiration in planning engaging, student-centered
differentiated lessons and instructional activities. Mr.
Wright will use individual student profiles to plan flexible
groupings and build tiered lessons that address the unique
talents and abilities of Reno, Amanda, Jacob, and Roger
without sacrificing rigorous curriculum standards and per-
formance expectations.
Mr. Wright may choose to start off by introducing his stu-
dents to differentiated instruction by modifying the process
of a few lessons. For example, he may create a “choice
board” from which his students can select activities he has
carefully constructed on the basis of his knowledge of their
readiness levels in reading (see Appendix A). By develop-
ing a choice board, Mr. Wright has provided his students
with important options, flexibility in how they demonstrate
the knowledge and skills they have learned after direct
instruction has occurred, as well as affording them the
opportunity to make decisions and actively participate in
their own learning. Every child has a choice board with only
Mr. Wright knowing the differing levels of the activities
from which the students have to choose. Every student will
complete two out of the six activity options and each indi-
vidual will have demonstrated skill toward the objective of
the lesson; only they will have taken varying paths of “how”
they demonstrated their performance.
Next, Mr. Wright may decide to introduce differentiated
projects to his students. For example, at the conclusion of a
social studies unit on regions of the state of North Carolina,
Mr. Wright may provide his students with a list of possible
projects from which students must decide how to best
demonstrate their newfound knowledge and skills (see
Appendix B). Students may choose to work in pairs, small
groups, or individually. Mr. Wright’s responsibility in plan-
ning the differentiated product selections is to include pos-
sible project options that afford every student an opportuni-
ty to be successful in demonstrating knowledge and skills.
Some of the options created by Mr. Wright will require stu-
dents to receive some guidance and direct instruction from
him, whereas other selections may release the student(s) to
work independently only requiring teacher assistance when
needed or requested. Some students may create their own
timeline for completion of their projects depending on their
abilities to do so, whereas others may require direction and
more frequent monitoring by Mr. Wright. What is important
is that Mr. Wright’s students are not only achieving the cur-
ricular performance benchmarks, but they are exploring,
creating, making decisions, and playing an important role in
their own learning process.
Taking the First Step
Mr. Wright surrendered his ideals toward teaching to the
needs and talents of all of his students (much like many
teachers) because of increased pressures in meeting bench-
mark proficiency standards and student performance expec-
tations. Can he justify using differentiated approaches to
learning within the framework of accountability? Some
individuals in the field of education continue to question
whether differentiated instruction can withstand rigorous
accountability standards and high-stakes testing. More and
more research is beginning to emerge within the field of
education supporting the potential for differentiated instruc-
tion as a vital means of assisting diverse learners in their
acquisition of knowledge and skills while also breaking
down the barriers that inhibit their unique abilities to suc-
cessfully demonstrate their maximum potential as learners
(cf. Baumgartner, Lipowski, & Rush, 2003).
Spring 2007 Anderson 51
Specifically, Baumgartner, Lipowski, & Rush used dif-
ferentiated instruction to improve reading achievement of
primary and middle school students across two Midwestern
communities. In their study, Baumgartner et al. used differ-
entiated instructional strategies as a purposeful intervention
to students' deficits in basic phonemic awareness and com-
prehension skills, coupled with their difficulty in selecting
appropriate books and overall lack of interest in reading.
The specific differentiated strategies implemented in this
study included flexible grouping, student choice on a vari-
ety of tasks, increased self-selected reading time, and access
to a variety of reading materials. On the basis of analysis of
student achievement data and attitudes toward reading,
Baumgartner et al. concluded that the implementation of
differentiated instructional strategies had been an effective
approach toward successfully increasing reading achieve-
ment. Specifically, the targeted students increased their
reading levels, were more effective in their application of
comprehension strategies, and demonstrated mastery of
phonemic and decoding skills.
Although studies like that of Baumgartner et al. give valu-
able insight into the potential impact of differentiated
instruction on achievement of diverse learners, by no means
does it fill the apparent gap in research on this important and
timely topic. Most certainly, more and more teachers need to
investigate their applications of “differentiated thinking”
toward instructional planning and implementation of lessons
through action research projects, professional conference
presentations, and other projects. A plethora of differentiat-
ed lessons currently exists and can easily be accessed via the
Internet. However, more illustrations and examples of
research methodologies used for examining its effectiveness
when implemented with diverse students is critical in deter-
mining whether or not this instructional approach to teach-
ing students with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and learn-
ing styles is indeed, a viable approach to teaching all types
of learners and a long awaited response to the ever-present
demand for accountability in educating P–12 students.
Perspective on Differentiating Instruction
In differentiated classrooms, all students are engaged in
instruction and participating in their own learning. Students
know that learning is a process and they know their own
strengths and areas in need of improvement. In a classroom
with differentiation of the curriculum, learning process, or
performance outcomes, all students assume responsibility
for their learning through the decisions they make in their
selections of activities and products, in their abilities to self-
assess their work, and by the manner in which their teach-
ers (hopefully even Mr. Wright) are flexible and creative in
responding to their unique and individual learner character-
istics. Differentiated thinking empowers teachers to be
responsive rather than reactive to the unique and individual
personalities, backgrounds, and abilities found within stu-
dents. Clearly what we need to know about this approach is
more evidence of its effectiveness with diverse P–12 student
populations. Undoubtedly, teachers are best and most likely
to discover its potential impact by the increased quality of
students’ products and growing abilities to evaluate their
own progress.
Can differentiated instruction be the answer to meeting
accountability and performance standards for at risk and
marginal students within our schools? Alone, probably not,
but combined with continuous assessment, responsive edu-
cational programs that provide necessary interventions and
remediation for our most struggling students, as well as
positive school, home, and community supports for stu-
dents, it may indeed be the closest alternative we currently
have in our schools enabling professionals to truly be atten-
tive and effectively responsive to all learners.
REFERENCES
Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, T., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing
reading achievement of primary and middle school students
through differentiated instruction. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.
Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best
practices in an age of accountability. Gifted Child Today Maga-
zine, 25(3), 30–33.
Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E., & Tomlinson, C. (2003). Using data
to differentiate instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(5),
70–74.
George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in
the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 185–193.
Smutny, J. F. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Fastback. Bloom-
ington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching
triarchically improves student achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 90(3), 374–384.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-Based
teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1),
6–11.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated
instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12–16.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding
to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership in differentiat-
ing schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED469218)
Wehrmann, K. S. (2000). Baby steps: A beginner’s guide. Educa-
tional Leadership, 58(1), 20–23.
Winebrenner, S. (1996). Teaching kids with learning differences in
the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
52 Preventing School Failure Vol. 51, No. 3
Spring 2007 Anderson 53
APPENDIX A
Choice Board—Fourth Grade Literacy
1. Write yourself into the
story as a main character.
What is your primary role
in the story? Describe
your interactions with the
other main characters of
the story.
4. Research and find a
location that resembles the
main setting of the story.
List similar characteristics
from the story and the
real-life location. Point
out any differences that
you find. Tell what might
have changed in the story
if the main characters
lived in your location,
instead of the setting
found in the story.
2. Choose a main charac-
ter in the story. Pretend
you are meeting him or
her 10 years later (after
the story was written).
What is he or she doing
now? How has the charac-
ter changed from when he
or she were featured in the
story? What does he or
she want the public to
know about him or her
now?
5. Develop a timeline for
the story you have read.
Include all main events
and characters in your
timeline. Timeline may be
written or drawn in a
flowchart format. Include
in your timeline keywords
linked to the main events
as they occurred in the
story.
3. Draw or create a map of
the settings found within
the story. Depict the most
important locations found
in the story where main
events occurred. Make sure
to include important natur-
al and manmade land-
marks. If possible, include
main source of transporta-
tion, income, and
resources (i.e. food, water).
6. You are a profiler for
the local detective agency.
Write a detailed, descrip-
tive profile of one of the
main characters in the
story. Give as much detail
as possible in your
description. You may also
choose to include pictures
of the character you have
chosen. Make sure to tell
as much as you can about
the character including
why you find him/her
interesting.
54 Preventing School Failure Vol. 51, No. 3
APPENDIX B
Product Options
Fourth Grade Social Studies Unit
Choose one of the following options as your final project for our study of North Carolina
1. Write and perform a skit illustrating a main region of North Carolina.
2. Draw a map illustrating the primary landforms and businesses of a region in North
Carolina.
3. Research another state and identify a similar region to one of the primary North
Carolina regions.
4. Create a Jeopardy game using three of the main regions of North Carolina. Include all
questions that address all important facts about each region you have chosen.
5. Research and create a primary region and create a travel brochure for that location.
Include in your brochure primary recreation points of interest, food, lodging, historical
features, and/or fun things to do.
You may choose to work alone, with a partner, or in small groups to complete one of the
above projects. All projects have to be pre-approved by Mr. Wright before you can begin
your work. On the contract below list who (if anyone) you will be working with, which
project you plan to complete, any help you think you may need from Mr. Wright, and your
estimated timeline for completing the task.
Product Option Contract
Student’s Name: Product Option #
I will be working:(a) Alone
(b) With a partner
Partner’s Name
(c) With a small group:
I (we) will have the work completed on this project by
Guidelines for Authors
Preventing School Failure is a journal for educators and parents seeking strategies for promoting school success for
children with learning and behavior problems. The journal welcomes articles that present programs and practices that
help children with special educational needs. The newly expanded scope of PSF will provide a forum for the exam-
ination of emerging preempirical and evidence-based best practices in nontraditional education settings. As a rare
source of information on quality alternative models, the journal is essential reading for educators, policymakers,
researchers, and administrators and practitioners in environments such as charter, magnet, and residential schools;
schools-without-walls; and educational centers.
We invite authors to submit manuscipts that contain information that is practical and has direct applicability with regard
to this diverse population. We accept for review manuscripts that contain critical and integrated literature reviews, objec-
tive program evaluations, evidence-based strategies and procedures, program descriptions, and policy-related content.
As appropriate, manuscripts should contain enough detail that readers are able to put useful or innovative strategies or
procedures into practice.
Preventing School Failure receives author submissions via Manuscript Central. Please submit separate files for figures
and tables. To submit a manuscript to Preventing School Failure, visit http://manuscriptcentral.com/heldref. Cover let-
ter information should include the title of the article, the names of the authors, with their academic affiliations as well
as phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses. Each article should be submitted separately for a blind review.
All quotations and references to research results or scholarly findings must be cited in the text by the author–date sys-
tem and as references at the end of the manuscript, according to the Publication Manual of the American Psycholog-
ical Association (APA; 5th ed., revised 2001). All manuscripts require an abstract and 3–4 key words. Authors are
responsible for the accuracy of their material. Tables, graphs, and figures need to be printed on separate sheets of
paper. Manuscripts will be edited for clarity and readability, and changes may be made so that the text conforms to
the journal’s style.
All manuscripts should be accompanied by a cover letter stating that the article is being submitted exclusively to
this journal.
SCHOOL
Preventing
Failure
Alternative Education for Children and Youth
... And whenever a teacher adjusts their teaching approach for an individual or small group to enhance the learning experience, they are practicing differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction means that in the same class, teachers scientifically divide students into several groups of similar levels and size according to differences in students' existing knowledge, ability levels, interests and hobbies, potential tendencies, etc (Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). Then carry out differentiated standard setting, differentiated teaching, differentiated evaluation, so that students at all levels can learn something and develop (Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). ...
... Differentiated instruction means that in the same class, teachers scientifically divide students into several groups of similar levels and size according to differences in students' existing knowledge, ability levels, interests and hobbies, potential tendencies, etc (Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). Then carry out differentiated standard setting, differentiated teaching, differentiated evaluation, so that students at all levels can learn something and develop (Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). Differentiation is not just one strategy or a collection of strategies; it is a comprehensive approach that takes individual differences into account for every task, offering flexibility in how students engage in their learning (Tomlinson, 2000). ...
... These findings highlight the importance of adapting teaching approaches to be appropriate to the students' unique needs and learning levels. By employing personalized, differentiated instruction, the effectiveness of teaching can be improved (Anderson, 2007). This approach requires adjustment of the content, methods, and evaluations based on each student's individual strengths and challenges, which creates an inclusive and engaging learning environment (Tuttle, 2000). ...
Article
Full-text available
Differentiated instruction is a proven teaching approach that allows educators to personalize lessons to meet the unique needs of each student. By customizing the content, materials, and activities based on a student’s level of English, background knowledge, needs, and interests, teachers can ensure that all learners are able to work at their own pace with appropriate materials. Our team built on research conducted at the University of Montenegro in 2022 by implementing an experiment that incorporated differentiated homework assignments for 45 Master’s students enrolled in a compulsory EFL Methodology course. Using a model lesson evaluation rubric to assess their work and a questionnaire to gather feedback, we found that differentiated instruction positively impacted student performance. Most participants reported highly favorable opinions on their experience and emphasized the positive effects of differentiated teaching on their teaching ability.
... The flow-in-game infused learning can be designed to adapt to the individual students' level of skill in order to provide training in the most beneficial areas. Such dynamically differentiated learning (Algozzine & Anderson, 2007) is enabled by giving students, who have troubles with a specific type of problems, extra opportunities to train, while allowing those, who have mastered the problems, to proceed. Thus, students will mostly work in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978); continually challenged to the border of their current abilities but with scaffolds like tutoring and feedback in place to keep the learning trajectory moving forward (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). ...
Preprint
Differentiation is a mathematical skill applied throughout science in order to describe the change of a function with respect to a dependent variable. Thus, an intuitive understanding of differentiation is necessary to work with the mathematical frameworks used to describe physical systems in the higher levels of education. In order to obtain this intuition repeated practice is required. This paper presents the development of DiffGame, which consists of a series of exercises that introduce the basic principles of differentiation for high-school students through game-like elements. DiffGame have been tested with 117 first-year students from a single Danish high school, who did not have any prior training in differentiation. The students' learning was assessed by the data obtained directly from DiffGame. The test demonstrated the efficacy of DiffGame, since students at all levels demonstrate a learning gain. In contrast to previous studies demonstrating most learning in the lower tier of students, the middle tier of students (based on overall performance) exhibits the largest learning gains.
... Tahap refleksi dan evaluasi dilakukan setelah pembelajaran. Menurut Trianto dalam Algozzine & Anderson (2007) refleksi adalah respon terhadap pengetahuan baru yang diperoleh dari pembelajaran. Hasil refleksi menunjukkan peningkatan partisipasi aktif siswa dalam diskusi dan pembelajaran, membuktikan bahwa pembelajaran berdiferensiasi dapat memenuhi kebutuhan siswa dan membuat mereka lebih terlibat dan antusias. ...
Article
Full-text available
Proses pembelajaran di kelas merupakan komponen penting dalam mentransfer pengetahuan kepada peserta didik dimana guru memiliki peran sebagai fasilitator dalam menciptakan lingkungan belajar yang aman dan nyaman bagi peserta didik, guru juga berperan dalam menentukan media dan model pembelajaran yang cocok dengan karakteristik peserta didik. Untuk mengakomodasi kebutuhan peserta didik yang beragam, maka penting bagi guru untuk menerapkan pembelajaran berdiferensias, tujuan dari penelitian ini yaitu untuk mendapatkan informasi yang sistematis terkait penerapan pembelajaran berdiferensiasi dalam meningkatkan partisipasi peserta didik di SMP Negeri 2 Candi. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian tindakan kelas dengan tahapan yang dimulai dengan perencanaan, pelaksanaan, pengamatan, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Data dikumpulkan melalui pengamatan kelas. Guru menerapkan pembelajaran berdiferensiasi dengan fokus pada proses pembelajaran. Selama proses pembelajaran, guru menggunakan strategi yang disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan dan karakteristik siswa, termasuk kesiapan belajar, minat, dan gaya belajar serta menyesuaikan tugas untuk mendorong partisipasi aktif siswa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa setelah menerapkan pendekatan berdiferensiasi, siswa termotivasi untuk belajar, terlihat dari partisipasi aktif dalam diskusi kelompok. Dengan demikian, dapat disimpulkan bahwa penerapan pembelajaran berdiferensiasi secara efektif dapat meningkatkan partisipasi aktif siswa dalam mata pelajaran matematika di SMP Negeri 2 Candi. The learning process in the classroom is a crucial component in transferring knowledge to students, where teachers play a role as facilitators in creating a safe and comfortable learning environment. Teachers also contribute by determining suitable teaching media and models that align with students' characteristics. To accommodate diverse student needs, it is important for teachers to implement differentiated instruction. The aim of this research is to systematically gather information regarding the application of differentiated instruction to enhance student participation at SMP Negeri 2 Candi. This study employs action research methodology, involving stages of planning, implementation, observation, and conclusion drawing. Data was collected through classroom observations. Teachers implemented differentiated instruction focusing on the learning process. Throughout this process, teachers utilized strategies tailored to students' needs and characteristics, including readiness to learn, interests, learning styles, and adjusted assignments to promote active student participation. The research findings indicate that after applying differentiated instruction, students were motivated to learn, as evidenced by their active participation in group discussions. Thus, it can be concluded that effective implementation of differentiated instruction can enhance active student participation in mathematics at SMP Negeri 2 Candi.
... Tomlinson (2001) defines process differentiation as a "sense-making" of the teaching and learning where teachers vary the activities and strategies to teach content. Many strategies such as flexible grouping, learning contracts, tiered lesson or activity or product, independent study projects, curriculum compacting, minilesson, interest centers, interest groups, learning centers or stations, anchor activities, jigsaw, learning logs, literature circles, think-pairshare, varying questions, cubing, varied instructional materials (e.g., graphic organizers, manipulatives, models, etc.), peer-tutoring, choice boards or learning menus, and using eLearning tools and resources can be used to differentiate process (Algozzine and Anderson, 2007;Kapusnick and Hauslein, 2001;Strickland, 2007: Tomlinson, 2001 Products "are culminating assessments that allow students to demonstrate how much they understand and how well they can apply their knowledge and skills after a significant segment of instruction" (Tomlinson, 2005a, 2005b, as cited in Joseph et al., 2013. Traditionally, the assessable product of learning has taken the form of a paper, a quiz, or a presentation (Haniya and Roberts-Lieb, 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction We developed the IATPDI questionnaire, comprising seven scales for assessing teachers’ implementation of assessment methods, content, process, and product differentiation, familiarity with and use of various differentiated instruction (DI) strategies, factors influencing DI implementation, and resources used to enhance DI efficacy. This study examined the psychometric properties of the initial four scales with 35 items. Methods The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 237 Bhutanese teachers (66.2% male, 33.8% female), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for psychometric evaluation. Results CFA supported the hypothesized four scales (CFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.903, SRMR = 0.052, RMSEA = 0.059, χ²/df = 1.58). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.92, and Composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, indicating high internal consistency reliability. Inter-factor correlations supported discriminant validity for most factor pairs, but correlations exceeding 0.85 between some pairs suggested potential overlap, prompting further investigation. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for assessment, content, process, and product factors were 0.50, 0.41, 0.53, and 0.51, respectively. While AVE for process and product factors surpassed the commonly accepted threshold (0.50) for convergent validity, the assessment factor approached the threshold and the content factor fell below it, indicating the need for further refinement of its indicators. However, all standardized factor loadings were significant (p < 0.05), confirming convergent validity. Discussion These results indicate that the proposed four scales of the IATPDI questionnaire are reliable and valid in measuring the intended constructs. Nevertheless, they also highlight the need for further refinement in identified areas to enhance the tool.
... Our advice is to alternate activities with different materials, techniques, and working modalities in order to offer "differentiated" teaching (Algozzine & Anderson 2007;Tomlinson 1995;Tomlinson & Allan 2000) capable of appropriately meeting the different intelligences, cognitive and learning styles, individualities, and needs of students. ...
Book
Full-text available
This book is devoted to the topic of teaching Russian as a foreign language (RFL) from an intercultural perspective with special attention to the university context and Italian-speaking students. It is underpinned by three main aims. The first is to provide the reader with a theoretical-operational framework on intercultural RFL teaching, giving him/her the methodological tools to study this area and/or to apply it to his/her own teaching. The second is to promote a critical awareness among readers of the dominant ideologies and discourses underlying both academic research on the subject and the teaching materials themselves, so as to enable them to take note of the problems of RFL intercultural teaching (compared to the issues of foreign language education of other languages) and attempt to overcome them, with a view to enhancing teacher learning/development. The third—more general—aim seeks to help the reader look at the RFL area as if through a lens that shows different angles and shades, thus leading to greater understanding of the complexity of teaching and learning processes as a whole. The study discloses the ideological nature of RFL intercultural teaching by investigating its national and cultural essentialist discourses and advocates a pluricentric and complex image of the Russian-speaking cultural space which is rather new for the field, where static, mythologized, and uncritical ideas and representations of identity and culture (e.g., “Russian soul”) still prevail to this day.
... Differentiated content adaptation tailors educational materials to diverse student needs, moving beyond traditional methods to ensure relevance and accessibility. This approach allows teachers to modify the complexity of learning materials and use varied media to enhance understanding (Anderson, 2007;Bender, 2012;Heacox, 2002;Taylor, 2015;Tomlinson, 2014). Despite its effectiveness, differentiated content faces challenges like resource scarcity, especially in language instruction. ...
Article
Full-text available
Teaching language has challenges for many reasons, including learners’ backgrounds, learning styles, motivation, and socio-economic status. However, EFL students can benefit from differentiation across the learning continuum to a large extent. This study investigated Afghan EFL learners’ perceptions of differentiated instruction and the factors that contributed to catering to their needs. This study revolved around five main elements of differentiated instruction: learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. In this study, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to 102 EFL students at Herat University, Afghanistan, to record their perceptions of differentiated instruction in their classes. Three teachers of the English department at the same university were also interviewed to understand their experiences implementing differentiated instruction and identify their tensions. Data from the survey and interviews highlight that while DI requires significant teacher commitment and time, properly designed classes catering to learner specifics can enhance efficiency and be reused in future heterogeneous settings. The study’s results suggested that it is practical to implement differentiated instruction in mixed-level, large, heterogeneous classrooms.
Article
Bu araştırmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmenlerinin farklılaştırılmış öğretime yönelik yeterlik algılarını ve bu algılarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından anlamlı farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemektir. Nicel araştırma yöntemi kullanılan araştırmada, ilişkisel tarama modeli tercih edilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemi, 2020-2021 eğitim-öğretim yılında Sivas ili Merkez ilçesinde Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı ilkokullarda görev yapan 302 sınıf öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak, Demirkaya (2018) tarafından geliştirilen ve 39 maddeden oluşan “Farklılaştırılmış Öğretim Yeterlik Algı Ölçeği (FÖYAÖ)” kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde; betimsel istatistikler, bağımsız gruplar t testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Bonferroni testinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, sınıf öğretmenlerinin farklılaştırılmış öğretime ilişkin yeterlik algılarının ölçeğin tümünde ve alt boyutlarında “iyi” düzeyinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sınıf öğretmenlerinin farklılaştırılmış öğretime yönelik yeterlik algıları arasında cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeyi değişkenleri açısından “Öğrenciyi Tanıma” alt boyutunda; mezun olunan fakülte değişkeni açısından “Eğitim Durumlarını Farklılaştırma” alt boyutunda; farklılaştırılmış öğretim ile ilgili eğitim alma durumu değişkeni açısından ölçeğin tümünde ve alt boyutlarında; mesleki kıdem değişkenine açısından “Öğrenciyi Tanıma” ve “Planlamayı Farklılaştırma” alt boyutlarında; öğrenci sayısı değişkeni açısından ise ölçeğin tümünde ve “Öğrenciyi Tanıma”, “Eğitim Durumlarını Farklılaştırma”, “Değerlendirmeyi Farklılaştırma” alt boyutlarında anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Article
Full-text available
Differentiated instruction (DI) is a teaching philosophy which addresses the learning needs of individual children. This multiple case study aimed to investigate the extent preschool teachers differentiated content, process, assessment, and learning environment within multicultural classrooms. Four early childhood teachers’ experiences were examined through observations, interviews, photographs, and field notes. It was found teachers used multiple strategies to differentiate their instructional process and content. Strategies of demonstration, providing physical support, peer observation, or repeating directions were prominent for concrete learning. Also, it was determined that teachers implemented several strategies such as using visual materials and activities, and/or diversifying the types of activities for similar topics to differentiate educational content in multicultural classrooms. Moreover, teachers used a limited number of strategies including managing time and resources flexibly as a means of differentiating the learning environment. Similarly, they rarely reported, nor were observed to differentiate assessment. Thus, teachers’ differentiated practices, especially those based on learning environment and assessment, should be developed with effective educational policies. Overall, the value of this study is undeniable in terms of providing a perspective to be able to handle these challenges of educators in implementing culturally responsive education in different countries.
Article
Full-text available
Differentiated instruction (DI) is an approach to learning that allows teachers to meet the unique needs of pupils in the classroom. This study aimed to explore the extent to which DI is implemented in learning to improve the science process skills (SPS) of Intellectually Disabilities (ID) pupils in inclusive primary school education. This research was of the qualitative study type with case study design in 5 inclusive primary schools in Indonesia. The subjects of the study were five teachers who had experience teaching in inclusive primary schools. The sampling method used was purposive sampling, while the data collection the technique used is an in-depth interview. For data analysis techniques, content analysis and descriptive qualitative analysis were used. The results showed that teachers still face challenges in implementing DI for ID pupils in science subjects in inclusive primary schools, despite efforts to understand and implement DI, teacher readiness is still limited, especially in terms of: 1) planning the implementation of learning according to the needs of ID pupils; 2) plan teaching materials that are in accordance with the abilities of ID pupils; 3) lack of DI-related teacher training and coaching in inclusive primary schools. The implication of this study is the need to increase teacher readiness in implementing DI effectively for pupils with special needs, especially in science in inclusive primary schools.
Article
Standards-based instruction and differentiated learning can be compatible approaches in today's classrooms.
Article
Even though students may learn in many ways, the essential skills and content they learn can remain steady. That is, students can take different roads to the same destination.
Article
A junior high school English teacher explains how she managed to teach gifted and talented students in a mixed-ability classroom. She discovered the importance of taking "baby steps" (allowing independent study), varying learning activities, raising the bar for everyone, and discovering her students' passions. (MLH)
Article
This fastback presents the essentials for understanding how to differentiate instruction to meet the learning needs of all students in today's classrooms. It focuses on: "The Need for Differentiated Instruction" (determining learning needs, deciding what to differentiate, and principles of differentiated instruction); "Strategies for Differentiating Levels of Challenge and Complexity" (the learning environment, identifying curriculum essentials, working from student needs, stations, tiered activities, compacting, and flexible grouping); "Teaching to the Learning Styles" (understanding learning styles, using multiple intelligences to differentiate, creative teaching strategies, determining students' learning styles, and managing the process); and "Assessment Strategies for a Differentiated Classroom" (pre-assessment, observation, student portfolios, questioning and self-evaluation, and grading). The fastback concludes that a differentiated classroom can reach many more students in the education system by responding to their individual learning styles, abilities, disabilities, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (Contains 12 references.) (SM)
Article
Educators in contemporary public schools face tremendous challenges: implementing classroom practices aligned with their beliefs about effective teaching and learning while still balancing the need to prepare students for success on state-mandated, high-stakes tests. Teachers, attempting to straddle the fence between what they believe to be the most sound curricular and instructional practices and test-focused experiences for learners struggle to find a path that balances these seemingly contradictory demands. However, increased pressure to meet state testing goals appears to directly affect teachers' instructional and assessment behaviors, as they increasingly provide students with experiences that closely resemble, if not directly mimic state tests (McNeil, 2000; McNeil & Venezuela, 2000; Moon, 2001; Quality Counts, 1999; Shepard, 2000).
Article
Asserts that collecting assessment data from students is key to shaping effective instruction. Both informal and formal data about student learning not only shape instruction but also determine its effectiveness. Contends that continuous assessment that drives curriculum is a means of enhancing student and teacher performance. (Contains seven references.) (WFA)
Article
This study describes a program designed to improve reading achievement. The targeted population consisted of primary and middle school students in two communities in northern Illinois. Both communities were suburbs of a major metropolitan area and the status of family incomes ranged from low to middle levels. Evidence for the existence of the problem included San Diego Quick Assessment, Nonsense Word Test, a reading strategy checklist, and a student survey. Analysis of probable cause data revealed that students lacked basic phonemic awareness and comprehension skills. Many students had difficulty choosing appropriate books and were not interested in reading. One of the causes of low interest could be the limited access to a variety of reading materials. Unsuccessful attempts in previous years caused some students to avoid the task of reading. These earlier struggles may have resulted from inadequate time to practice reading at their own level. A review of solution strategies suggested by the professional literature, combined with an analysis of the setting of the problem, resulted in the selection of differentiated instructional strategies to improve reading achievement. Strategies included flexible grouping, student choice on a variety of tasks, increased self-selected reading time, and access to a variety of reading materials. Based on the presentation and analysis of the data on student reading achievement and attitudes towards reading, the targeted students showed improvement. There was a rise in the instructional reading levels of students in all three targeted classrooms. The number of comprehension strategies used by students increased. Students demonstrated greater mastery of phonemic and decoding skills after the implementation process was complete. Student attitudes towards reading improved along with student perceptions about their own reading abilities. Appendixes contain a reading strategies form, a reading strategies checklist, and a reading survey. (Contains 25 references and 6 tables of data.) (Author/RS)
Article
This article articulates what might be called a value-based argument, a philosophical statement, one that emphasizes principles and perspectives that have remained precious to the author throughout 40 years in the field of education. It is the author's perspective on research and the school experience rather than a review of the research literature and, as such, strongly reflects a point of view. The author argues that heterogeneous classrooms and differentiated instruction must form the core of the classroom experience for students in a democracy that works.