What Differentiated Instruction Is, and What It Most Certainly Is Not

Sarah Sacco

I used to think I was differentiating instruction in my 8th grade language arts class by letting students pick their novels for their book projects. After all, they were studying the elements of literature through different genres and plots. They even had a hand in the selection process.

I couldn't have been more wrong. I, like many of my colleagues, had fallen into the trap of confusing student choice with differentiated instruction.

At the core of true differentiated instruction is the creation of multiple paths to learning for students so that they all have equal and, more important, appropriate access to the course curriculum. Educators can develop these multiple paths by varying classroom instruction through content, processes, and product (King-Shaver & Hunter, 2003).

Differentiated instruction is not, though, about simply designing curriculum that is "different." The differences must target and accommodate students' diverse needs and deficiencies in the learning process through careful changes in content, process, and product. In today's classrooms, which are described aptly as heterogeneous (Lawrence-Brown, 2004), change alone is not enough. Instead, educators must identify their students' needs exactly, and use those needs as the basis of formulating change.

Too often when teachers try to differentiate instruction, the activities they create for varied levels end up becoming tangential to the lesson objective. Educators should strive for continuity in their differentiated curriculum. In other words, the teacher's effort to meet each student's level of activity and engagement should fall within a continuum that represents the range of complexity of course content. Even as we modify the depth of knowledge to differentiate for students, we shouldn't lose sight of a given objective we want all students to master.

For instance, in the book project I mentioned above, I should have given students varying sets of probing questions to answer as they read the books of their choice. These questions would have had all students working toward the same objective of active reading and, say, characterization. The questions would be different, however, based on each student's readiness level, ranging from simply recalling and identifying character traits to making thoughtful inferences based on an analysis of a character's actions and perceptions. A student could then use the answers to these differentiated content-based questions to engage in multiple processes to produce unique products as assessments.

Instructional content that is differentiated should not feel as though it is overly complex and convoluted, either for instructors to plan or for students to comprehend. By specifically and consciously tiering curriculum instead of splitting it apart into excessive—and often unmanageable—sets of learning tasks, instructors can achieve clarity for themselves and their students in the teaching and learning process.

A classroom using differentiated instructional practices should also not be a record-keeping nightmare, with the instructor shouldering the burden of constantly watching over 30 separate, individualized assignments and goals. Instead, students keep a portfolio of their work and monitor their grades and progress with a student-centered grade-keeping system. This student-centered monitoring of progress and assignments allows teachers to focus their attention on specific students on in a given day, while still ensuring the rest of the class progresses accordingly (King-Shaver & Hunter, 2003).

With differentiated instruction, the goal is to create an environment that is as close to an individualized curriculum as possible (Tomlinson, 1999). By seamlessly integrating multiple paths to learning in the classroom, educators can ensure that their students have adequate opportunities to acquire course content, regardless of their abilities, interests, or special learning needs.

References

King-Shaver, B., & Hunter, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction in the English classroom: Content, process, product, and assessment. New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34–62.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12–16.

Sarah Sacco teaches gifted language arts and reading enrichment at Santan Junior High School in Chandler, Ariz. She is also a graduate student at Arizona State University in Tempe, studying curriculum and instruction with an emphasis on English as a second language.