Written by Alan Spurgin
The way teachers were instructed how to teach, even as little as ten years ago, followed this line of thinking: Teachers were to teach to the middle, and those who were very bright (high cognitive ability) would learn in spite of the teacher. The child with low cognitive ability, or the emotionally and behaviorally disturbed child, would do menial tasks.
Teachers need to work individually with all the children in the classroom. The key question is, How can teachers work with students of widely different abilities (Hall, 2008; Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Enhance learning with technology, 2007; Enhance learning with technology, 2008)? A positive approach to meeting the individual needs of the children may be differentiated instruction. The definition of differentiated instruction and the three components to differentiation are explored here.
Differentiated Instruction (DI) is allowing all students to access the same classroom curriculum by providing entry points, learning tasks, and outcomes that are tailored to the students’ needs (Hall, 2008; Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). The Access Center Improving Outcomes for All Students K-8 (2005) defines DI (also called differentiation) as a process through which the teachers enhance learning by matching student characteristics to instruction and assessment. Alternatively, CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology), which recognizes the varying background of students, defines DI as a process to approach teaching and learning for students of differing abilities in the same class (Hall, 2008).
DI contains key features that show up consistently in the literature. The key features include content, process, and products (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Sacramento City Unified School District, 2008). Briefly defined, the content is the multiple options for taking in information. The process is the multiple options for making sense of the ideas. The product is the multiple options for expressing what the students know (Sacramento City Unified School District, 2008).
Several key guidelines accompany each of the three key features. Under the category of content are the elements and materials used to support instructional content. What are the acts, concepts, generalizations, and principles/attitudes/skills that help the student gain access to important learning (Hall, 2008)? Aligning tasks and objectives to meet learning goals is also a trademark of content. Teachers need to be keenly aware of writing clear objectives to ensure the learner both accesses skill-building tasks and acquires those skills.
Likewise, under the category of process, grouping strategies as well as classroom management are key concepts. The learner is expected to interact with others as they together develop knowledge (Hall, Strangman, & Meyers, 2003). A variety of grouping strategies, such as cooperative learning, may be employed, and grouping should be flexible. For classroom management, the teacher must maintain organization and control of the class for DI to be effective.
Product is the final category the literature supports for differentiated instruction (Hall, 2008; Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Enhance learning with technology, 2008; Rebora, 2008). Two key elements concerning products are keeping students active (to encourage exploration) and varying the expectations of student production. Teachers must require tasks that are interesting, engaging, and understandable (Hall, Strangman, & Meyers, 2003). In addition, the teacher should allow for the different production of students to show competency. Not every child has to hand in the same worksheet or do the same number of problems.
Differentiation means matching the student with what is being taught (content). The process is how the student is being taught, and the product is the multiple ways the student shows competency in the content. Teachers in 2014 need to differentiate to accommodate the variety of children in today’s schools.
Dr. Alan Spurgin is a professor at Martin Luther College in New Ulm MN. He has been a member of the (D)MLC undergraduate and graduate faculty for 22 years serving a variety of functions; currently he is a Professor of Education.
References
Enhanced Learning with Technology. (2008). Differentiating Instruction. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiating.html
Enhanced Learning with Technology. (2008). Strategies for differentiating. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiatingstrategies.html
Hall, T. (2008). Differentiated instruction. Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://cast.org/publiciations/ncac_dirrinstruct.html
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/udl/DifferentiatedInstructionHTML.asp
Rebora, A. (2008). Making a difference: Carol Ann Tomlinson explains how
differentiated instruction works and why we need it now. Teacher Magazine, 2, 26 & 28-31.
Sacramento City Unified School District. (2008). What is differentiated instruction? Retrieved October 3, 2008, from http://www.scusd.edu/gate_ext_learniing/differentiated.htm
The Access Center Improving Outcomes for All Students K-8. (2005). Differentiated Instruction for Math. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/mathdifferentiation.asp
Thank you for reminding us that “Not every child has to hand in the same worksheet or do the same number of problems.”
Differentiation is hard work and requires teachers to position themselves as professionals who are equipped to assess instructional needs of students and select appropriate methods to address those needs. Embracing this practice means that Lutheran Elementary School teachers will place their priority on classroom instruction. Other responsibilities (i.e. coaching, leading choir) often included in teachers’ calls should be given a new approach, too.
I would like to echo Brent’s thoughts about DI classrooms and low-end students. While I believe that differentiated instruction is very useful in a variety of circumstances, the resource load on myself when I do make those differentiated efforts are mind-numbing. In particular, first year Algebra is a striking experience where I am teaching this year.
I have 25% of my freshman students whom should be in mathematics courses ranging from middle school to Algebra ½. The influx of academically challenged students is enormously difficult to prepare for in today’s schools. We are looking to use placement testing for all students to start identification of the appropriate level for students. With a better idea of their levels, we can adapt with courses to covers the student needs and perhaps use differentiation and math tutoring for specific classes.
I think differentiated instruction is a good thing, but I’m wondering if there is any research done on mid- to low-end students from DI classrooms having success in colleges and universities. It seems to me at some point students need to “learn how to learn” in a traditional classroom, seeing as most post-secondary education includes this type of instruction.
Interesting thought, would there be mid to low students in DI classroom? The whole point of DI classrooms would be to specific teach to the individuals learning curve. We don’t all “learn” the same way.
I’m not sure that post-secondary education is or should be the goal for all elementary level students, but building a solid foundation as a successful learner is critical to future successes.