SLO #2 – Panel: Differentiated Instruction
THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING by reading, synthesizing, and evaluating
educational theory and research in their field and applying research findings to their
practice in diverse classroom settings.
The learning experience that I felt best demonstrated the application of research findings
to my classroom practices was the panel on differentiated instruction. The assignment required
me to challenge the idea that differentiated instruction was the best way to teach science. I was
required to present my argument and defend my position with relevant, up-to-date research. I
was up against an opposing team. That way, both the pros and the cons of the issue could be
debated.
During my teaching career, I had frequently struggled with how to reach students of
varying levels of ability. My principal said, “Teach to the top of the class, and the rest of the
students will rise to the challenge.” Although this approach seemed reasonable, it didn’t take
into account that students have differing learning styles, as well as different levels of aptitude.
Some students were English language learners, while others had special needs. My research on
differentiated instruction taught me how to diversify my teaching so as to promote success for all
learners in my classroom. It enabled me to design lessons in such a way that all pupils could
reach their own personal potential.
By researching the disadvantages of differentiated instruction, I was made aware of the
challenges that could arise when trying to implement this teaching method. This allowed me to
confront these obstacles and recognize that the difficulties I was facing were common and could
be overcome. I discovered that it could take years to develop a repertoire of differentiated
activities, as well as to perfect my implementation of this particular method of teaching. It
remains very common for teachers to try a new teaching approach one or two times, and then
give up when it does not seem to be working. However, my investigation helped me to
understand that it could take time to assemble a range of differentiated strategies that could be
applied in the classroom. My research assured me that differentiated instruction could take years
to effectively be put into practice.
Although it was difficult to implement differentiated instruction as regularly as I had
hoped, over time it ended up being one of the most positive teaching methods that I have
experimented with. Students seemed more motivated to learn as a result of their increased
achievement, and there was an overall improvement in the mood of our classroom culture. I
differentiated my curriculum in order to challenge the gifted students, as well as the lower
achievers. Students were placed in flexible groups and assignments were tiered according to
their complexity. I discovered that differentiated work did not simply mean more work for
higher achieving students, but rather it meant responding to learner differences. I learned how to
focus on students strengths, in addition to their learning preferences.
This research influenced my teaching in that it encouraged me to continue adding to my
collection of differentiated lessons. The positive impact that it had in my classroom reaffirmed
that it was worth persevering in order to refine my skills at implementing the technique. It taught
me how to develop challenging and engaging tasks for each learner, while maintaining the
relevance and complexity of the assignments. I will continue to cultivate this practice in my
classroom with the expectation that it will emphasize critical and creative thinking, while at the
same time meeting students’ needs and learning preferences.