The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-354X.htm
IJEM
35,3
Enriching management learning
with differentiated instruction
Jeffrey W. Alstete, John P. Meyer and Nicholas J. Beutell
640
Received 21 June 2020
Revised 8 November 2020
9 December 2020
Accepted 17 December 2020
International Journal of
Educational Management
Vol. 35 No. 3, 2021
pp. 640-654
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-354X
DOI 10.1108/IJEM-06-2020-0312
LaPenta School of Business, Iona College, New Rochelle, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to utilize an exploratory multiple-case design research method using
three undergraduate management courses at a medium-sized private comprehensive college near a large
metropolitan area in the USA.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores differentiated instruction in relation to experiential
learning in management education by examining three teaching applications from different management
courses to illustrate these concepts.
Findings – The use of differentiated instruction in management education is supported through varied
approaches such as individual student and team-based scaffolding that demonstrate the applicability of
differentiation. In addition to improving student learning, other benefits include improved student retention
and faculty autonomy in course creation and delivery. The implementation involves a proactive response to
learner needs informed by a faculty perspective that recognizes student diversity yet retains quality assurance
standards with mindful assessment and planning.
Research limitations/implications – The comparatively small number of courses and instructional
methods may make the specific findings and examples more relevant to the type of institution examined. Yet,
the general conclusions and methods identified have potential implications for learners in a wide variety of
colleges and universities.
Practical implications – Differentiated instruction may be a useful approach for enhancing learning in
heterogenous groups of students by recognizing student readiness and making appropriate modifications.
Originality/value – This paper offers an exploratory overview of differentiated instruction with guidance for
management faculty members in designing and implementing these approaches in their courses.
Keywords Differentiated instruction, Learning assurance, Management education, Scaffolding
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The term differentiated instruction (DI) refers to the process of “ensuring that what a student
learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a
match for that student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning” (p. 188)
(Tomlinson, 2004). There are several ways differentiation can be conducted, such as through
the course content, the learning process, the product or outcomes produced, and the learner
supportive environment (Ministry of Education, 2007). However, DI does not mean lowering
learner expectations and performance standards. DI is based on the premise that differences
exist among students, how they learn or prefer to learn, and their particular interests
(Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). This paper investigates DI with guidance for management
faculty members considering DI in course design including examples from different course
implementations.
Many students entering colleges and universities have experienced a clearly identified and
focused differentiated precollegiate learning environment (Tomlinson, 2017). Postsecondary
institutions and faculty members have the tools and abilities to differentiate but may be
unaware of the extent of changes in DI sweeping through elementary and secondary education
that are transforming instructional and learning processes. Students now expect that DI will be
a part of their college experience as well. Further, as colleges and universities have sought to
accommodate broader swaths of students, including those with learning assistance needs,
proactive DI by individual faculty member can play an important role in student success.
Rather than causing wholesale change, DI can make a useful contribution to management
education by building on current classroom practices. If, in fact, individual learners respond
differently to the stages of the experiential learning process, for example, then elements of DI
and differentiated learning may already be present but such elements need to be recognized,
understood, validated and enhanced. This paper explores the options for identifying and
expanding widely used management education practices by leveraging differentiated
instruction to fully realize the potential of these concepts in management course design and
implementation.
Business schools were relatively early adopters of various teaching methods beyond
classic recitation and lecture including approaches such as the case method in the early 20th
century (Arben, 1997), simulations in the 1950s (Andre, 2016; Schmeller, 2019), as well as
experiential learning (Meyer, 2003), internships, service learning and consultancy
projects (Alstete and Beutell, 2016; Hohlbein, 2008; Jennings, 2002). As such, business
schools and management faculty members may be better equipped to face changes in
student characteristics (including generational differences), learning theories and
applications, societal trends, learning technology and expectations by stakeholders
that are forcing reconsideration and expansion of long-established teaching methods,
deliverables and organizational support that enable all students to learn effectively
(Lawrence-Brown, 2004). This involves designing learning approaches that are responsive
to student variability in preparedness, interests and learning profiles. A teacher’s guide
published by the Ministry of Education in Ontario, Canada, states that differentiated
instruction offers a response to variability that can help all students succeed if assignments
are crafted to better fit student needs (Ministry of Education, 2007).
A synopsis of differentiated instruction
Differentiated instruction, also known as differentiated learning and assessment, involves
strategies for offering students a variety of routes for comprehending new knowledge. This
includes new content, the way such content is created, processed, understood and integrated
along with instructional materials and assessments designed to enhance learning regardless
of student abilities and aptitudes (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson, 2017). The initial
philosophy or praxis of DI teaching focused on the way in which instructional methods interact
with different students (Coubergs et al., 2017), then expanded to account for student
characteristics (Woolfolk, 2010), and subsequently, provided a methodical and adaptable
means of proactive adjustment to instruction and learning methods to match student needs and
abilities to maximize learner growth (Tomlinson, 2014). “Beyond the experiential evidence that
uniformity in teaching fails many learners, there is reason in both theory and research to
support movement toward classrooms attentive to student variance that is manifest in at least
three areas: student readiness, interest, and learning profile” (p. 126) (Tomlinson et al., 2003).
Differentiation of curriculum and instruction as a response to student readiness for a given
task suggests that individuals learn best within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,
1978, 1986). Students can succeed with scaffolding support that successively moves students
toward increasing levels of independence. Learners should be presented with material that is
slightly beyond their current stage (moderate novelty) yet not too far beyond thereby creating
frustration (Byrnes, 1996), and not too simple that it causes disengagement (Csikszentmihalyi
et al., 1993). In regard to interest, short-term and long-term learning is affected by motivation
(Hebert, 1993; Renninger, 1993; Tobias, 1994). Tasks that are interesting are more likely to
increase learner engagement, reward, creativity, productivity, autonomy and intrinsic
motivation (Hebert, 1993; Renninger, 1993; Tobias, 1994). The learning profile “refers to a
student’s preferred mode of learning that can be affected by a number of factors, including
learning style, intelligence, preference, gender, and culture” (p. 129) (Tomlinson et al., 2003).
Thinking styles or intelligence suggests that learners have tendencies toward certain modes of
Enriching
management
learning
641
IJEM
35,3
642
thinking (Sternberg, 1985, 1996) and a great deal of research states that there are benefits to
addressing preferences even if the ultimate determinations are not made to fit with a learner’s
preferred mode (Grigorenko and Sternberg, 1997; Saxe, 1990; Sternberg et al., 1998).
Differentiation was also initially based on ideas supported by literature and research
investigating the human brain indicating that multiple learning pathways can be created
neurologically (Willis, 2007). These theories state that more areas of the brain can store
information about a topic because there is interconnection and cross-referencing with a
different storage section (holographic representation) that enables learning instead of
memorization.
DI vs learning styles
There are a variety of learning style theories (Messick, 1984; Peterson et al., 2009) but all such
theories focus on discerning preferences for processing specific types of information or
processing information in certain ways. Learning style theories that distinguish processing
include visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners (Dunn et al., 1984), visual or verbal learners
(Riding and Rayner, 1998), and theories supported by various philosophies that explain how
learning is accomplished by engaging the “five” human senses (Wolfe, 2001). Yet, learners
possess multiple intelligences that need to be assessed for effective instructional design
(Gardner, 1983). The learning style theories that focus on partiality for specific types of
cognitive processing comprise distinctions between intuitive and analytic learners (Allinson
and Hayes, 1996) or among activist, reflective or pragmatic thinkers (Honey and Mumford,
1992). A wide assortment of theoretical descriptions have been around since the 1950s
(Cassidy, 2004), but it is important to note the differences in terminology regarding learning
styles and abilities because they are often confused (Willingham et al., 2015).
Styles refer to how a learner does things; abilities involve how well things are done. The
widely used experiential learning model by Kolb describes a hypothetical learning cycle
involving concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active
experimentation (Kachra and Schnietz, 2008; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Kolb, 1984). Kolb’s theory is
widely cited in literature along with at least 22 other learning styles (Cassidy, 2004) that are
often used to support various teaching methods. However, in recent years the validity of these
learning theories have been questioned by some scholars who pejoratively call learning styles
“neuromyths” (Riener and Willingham, 2010; Westby, 2019) meaning that these theories are not
sufficient justification for instruction creation and implementation (Willingham et al., 2015).
Faculty members may also wonder if there is support for prediction in educational practices
and if learning theories are valid (Willingham et al., 2015). Literature reviews conducted over
several decades analyzed the scholarly research on learning styles (e.g. Arter and Jenkins, 1979;
Kampwirth and Bates, 1980; Kavale and Forness, 1987; Kavale et al., 1988; Pashler et al., 2009;
Snider, 1992; Stahl, 1999; Tarver and Dawson, 1978) revealing that there is little evidence
supporting this notion. Furthermore, relatively recent reviews examining learning styles
theories (Kozhevnikev et al., 2014) did not offer any empirical evidence to support the prediction
theory. In addition, the reliability and validity of measures that purport to assess learning styles
have been called into question (Coffield et al., 2004; Willingham et al., 2015). Indeed, collegiate
faculty members may want scientifically validated theories but there is a persistent
misunderstanding that learning ability and learning styles are synonymous. The practice of
differentiation focuses on student ability, not theoretical and as yet unproven, learning styles.
Learning styles may be well important, but the essential focus of DI is learning ability.
Designing and effectively teaching courses for a range of students is challenging to
traditional collegiate teaching methods where one kind of instruction (e.g. lecture) is presumed
to be suitable for all students, particularly since there has been a shift from elite, to mass, to
universal higher education (Trow, 1973). Unfortunately, there has been a disconnect between
the evolution of higher education instructional theories, changing student characteristics (such
as abilities), and teaching practices despite the implementation of varied teaching methods
(Arbaugh et al., 2010; Meyers and Jones, 1993; Prince, 2004; Vega, 2010) and the widely cited
learning style theories (Riener and Willingham, 2010). Note that “students can differ in their
abilities, interests, and background knowledge, but not in their learning style. Students may
have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that catering to those
preferences will lead to better learning. As college educators, we should apply this to the
classroom to present information in the most appropriate manner for our content and for the
level of prior knowledge, ability, and interests of that particular set of students” (p. 35) (Riener
and Willingham, 2010).
The notion of pre-assessment is widespread in the differentiation literature and involves
determining a student’s knowledge level to help guide instruction (Chapman and King, 2005;
Hume, 2008; Strickland, 2007). It is important to note that, instructors are not varying learning
objectives or lowering performance standards, but are adapting how learners achieve the
understanding, knowledge and skills in different ways based on their level of readiness.
(Algozzine and Anderson, 2007). There is another model of differentiation involving a layered
curriculum where learners choose assignments that does not involve pre-assessment which
can be useful for courses with large enrollments (Nunley, 2004).
The instructional strategies implemented may include small group instruction,
independent projects and complex instruction. The higher education teaching literature has
begun to include DI in university classrooms while recognizing that variation in learner
abilities has exacerbated the inadequacy of the one-size-fits-all, faculty-centered, traditional
modes of instruction (Dosch and Zidon, 2014). Criticisms of learners for academic failures may
simply be justification the continuance of existing teaching methods and learning structures.
DI in higher education
DI literature in higher education is quite limited. The dearth of research studies may be a
function of large class sizes in postsecondary education, the limited number of learner contact
hours, the over commitment of professors who are contractually required to perform service
and research, and ethical issues such as fairness in grading that can be contentious with diverse
student populations (Dosch and Zidon, 2014; Ernst and Ernst, 2005). Nonetheless, there is some
extant research. One quantitative study of two educational psychology course sections
compared a nondifferentiated instruction (NDI) approach to DI. Findings indicated that the DI
class “significantly outperformed the NDI group on the aggregates of the assignments and the
exams. However, only two assignments and one exam showed significantly higher scores for
the DI group when examined individually” (p. 343) (Dosch and Zidon, 2014). Interestingly, the
course evaluations indicated that the DI learners reported such methods were beneficial to their
learning.
Most of the other studies on DI in higher education are largely qualitative, including a
study by Ernst and Ernst (2005) set in a political science course, a similar study of 33
preservice teachers (Livingston, 2006) and a study of education graduate students
(Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2009). Aside from that qualitative research, one quasiexperimental design compared three first-year college math faculty members using similar
differentiated instructional methods with four other faculty members using traditional
teaching methods as a control group (Chamberlin and Powers, 2010). Learners in both the
DI and NDI course sections completed the same quizzes and tests, along with writing
assignments, homework and projects that assessed understanding. The DI group scored 1.7
times higher on math assessments from pretest and posttest compared to only a 0.3 gain in
the NDI control group. Learner feedback from the DI-instructed group was more positive.
Other experimental investigations include one using Kolb’s learning styles that placed
Enriching
management
learning
643
IJEM
35,3
644
preservice teachers in small subgroups using differentiated instruction (Tulbure, 2011) and
a study of learner perceptions of differentiated instruction in large higher education classes
(Turner et al., 2017). The collective results of these studies imply that implementing DI in
large courses at a research university is challenging, requiring faculty members teaching
such courses to have a thorough understanding of DI strategies and techniques for effective
implementation.
Among existing literature is an article using differentiation and scaffolding in structuring
assignments with experiential learning in capstone Business Policy and Strategy courses
(Helms and Whitesell, 2017). Another paper from a conference proceedings examines DI in
business and management through the lens of technology to enhance learning benefits
accrued through assignments (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2019). Further, it describes and
discusses assignments in three business courses (marketing, operations management and
business strategy) using technology in different ways to build learning skills in business
students “that are consistent with well-known learning pedagogies such as scaffolding and
differentiation” (p. 249). This DI strategy of scaffolding is implemented in several ways such
as the professor strongly emphasizing the need to use reliable published data with citations
early in the course, which is then dropped from later assignments. Another instance of
scaffolding requires learners to make “. . .explicit references to the text and requiring
students to use classifications and categories therein. . .for instance for different aspects of
the external environment such as economic, social, etc.” (p. 253) (Lakshminarayanan et al.,
2019). The paper recommends that collegiate course assignments should be connected with
scaffolding support across courses in order to build skills in students as they progress from
lower to higher level courses.
The findings from the limited number of previous studies and the recommendations
stated raise the question of whether DI with scaffolding can be effectively utilized across
courses to enhance understanding and skills in business management curricula from lower to
higher level courses.
An exploration of DI applications
This paper utilizes a multiple-case design of three management courses spanning lower and
upper levels to explore the use of DI concepts in management education. The multiple case
approach is frequently used in research involving education innovations such as “the use of
new school curricular, rearranged school schedules, or a new educational technology. . .in
which individual schools adopt some innovation” (p. 53) (Yin, 2009). Case studies can be
useful in evaluation research (Cronbach, 1980; Patton, 2002) and can be applied to help
explain proposed connections such as in the topic of this paper, describe real-world situations
and illustrate certain key aspects (Yin, 2009). The unit of analysis in this study is the course
cases selected. Specifically, an Introduction to Management course, a Human Resource
Management course, and a Business Policy and Strategy capstone course were selected in
order to explore and examine current and possible implementation and expansion of DI
methods. All three courses were taught in a business school at a private medium-sized
comprehensive college in the New York metropolitan area. Table 1 provides a summary of the
improvements using DI in each of the three management courses. The categories include
learning goals, DI methods, implementation, DI benefits and preliminary results.
Example in practice: a business policy and strategy course
Professor A teaches the capstone business policy and strategy course using different teaching
methods including traditional lectures with testing, the case method and business simulations.
The lectures are presented as highlights of important module concepts, reasonably sized, with
Course/Category
Learning goal(s)
Differentiated
instruction
method(s)
Implementation
Benefits of
differentiated
instruction
Preliminary
results
Business Policy and
Strategy
Human Resource
Management
Principles of
Management
Synthesis of business
education and oral
presentation skills
Adjusting learning
methods based on active
student monitoring
(1) Preliminary student
assessments
(2) Planning of lessons
and activities based
on student needs
(3) Continual
monitoring of
student progress
(4) Scaffolded support
for assignments
Job interviewing techniques
as both interviewer and
interviewee
Experiential learning
Improve team
communication/
presentation skills
Successive team
engagements
(1) Personal stories of good
and bad job interviews
(2) Debrief and class
discussion
(3) Lecture on interview
design and
implementation
(4) Design and
implementation of
interview process for a
specific job
Multiple, diverse
opportunities for material to
“click” with different students
Improved mock job
interviewing skills as
determined by peers and
instructor
(1)
(2)
Provides a customized
and engaging learning
experience
Enhanced outcomes on
assurance of learning
measures
Dyadic exercise
Random
assignments to
different teams
(3) Permanent team
formation
(4) Practice team
presentation with
feedback
(5) Main team
presentation
Assess students in
multiple team roles and
situations
Improved team
presentations based on
peer- and self-evaluations
an encouragement of active processing by professor-imposed reflective questions. The weekly
case discussions involve posing the learners as decision-makers who grapple with specific
questions asked by the professor and require a description of the problem’s industry context
with supporting data that are used to synthesize students’ prior business curricula and
articulate advanced coherent solutions. As the semester proceeds, knowledge in the student
cohorts’ builds and previous case discussions are referred to, whereby at the end of the semester
students have a thorough understanding of how to use Business Policy and Strategy analytical
tools. Likewise, there is continual weekly feedback discussed by the instructor in course
meetings during the semester-long competitive business simulation game where each week
simulates one year in the operation of a company that student teams manage.
However, Professor A has noticed that some students are still not optimizing their learning
opportunities despite the varied instructional approaches currently being used. It should be
considered that a clearer understanding of differentiated instruction along with relatively
minor adjustments in current practice could facilitate improved learning outcomes. By
acknowledging that all students do not learn in the same way and recognizing the growing
number of students with diagnosed learning disabilities, college faculty members should
conclude that an understanding of differentiation is necessary in order to reach all students.
To understand the various types of learners in the class, two preliminary student
assessments are collected early in the semester to determine prior knowledge levels, abilities,
learning styles and subject interests. These include a written critical thinking business case
and two rounds of practice in a competitive business simulation game. This preliminary
knowledge is used to plan lessons and activities related to the curriculum and based on the
specific needs of the students being taught. Differentiation examples include grouping
students for activities based on heterogeneous or homogenous skill levels, depending on the
purpose of the class session or activity and added stem discussion starters. Subsequently, in
Enriching
management
learning
645
Table 1.
Dimensions of
differentiated learning
course applications
IJEM
35,3
646
the lectures and testing sessions of the course some students need more individualized
instruction and small group breakouts.
Other advanced students benefit from challenges such as a self-study of real-world business
examples that apply the Business Policy and Strategy concepts or relate to other business
courses and often coincide directly with official notices the faculty receive for accommodation.
Quiz and exam times are also modified to meet the needs of different students. In the case study
course sessions students are expected to read the cases ahead of the class meeting and attend
the meeting sessions ready to answer questions from the professor. Reading comprehension
and time management are necessary skills to complete this task. These skills may need to be
reviewed carefully at the beginning of the course with the whole class, with a small group of
selected students, or can be addressed by differentiating the material to make reading passages
and questions more accessible by providing high-level conversation examples. Some students
will need to form groups for teacher-guided study teams prior to, or during, the case study
discussion period.
Lastly, on the semester-long competitive business simulation team assignment, individual
student performance is closely monitored by the professor using the instructor control panel to
identify student log-in activity and early semester performance during early-semester practice
nongraded simulated sessions. Students who are not performing sufficiently will be guided to
read additional simulation instructions, watch tutorial videos and be provided with extra
monetary funds in the simulation early in the semester then removed in a scaffolding
manner. These relatively minor differentiated instruction adjustments can aide students with
different learning abilities, backgrounds and interests. Faculty members must keep in mind
that students may need to see a model of skills that may be considered “basic” such as
asking questions and understanding material. The form in which material is presented to
students may need to be broken down or enhanced with visuals to increase accessibility. By
understanding the student population and planning based on the needs of our students more
students will be able to reach college learning objectives, although not always in the same way.
Example in practice: a human resource management course
Professor B has taught undergraduate human resource management courses for 20 years
using, among other techniques, an experiential learning framework (Kolb, 1984; Mainemelis
et al., 2002). The most common experiential learning model includes four related modes of
understanding – concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and
active experimentation. Used together, these four learning modes provide a more holistic and
integrated process by which students can grasp and master new concepts both in theory
and in applied practice (Meyer, 2003). One example of this in the area of job interviewing
works as follows.
Concrete experience
Students share personal stories of good and bad job interviews. Since most undergraduate
students only have experience as the interviewee rather than the interviewer, Professor B
usually provides examples from his own experiences to help students start shifting their
perspective to the other side of the interview table. Videos of real and/or simulated job
interviews are used to supplement student and professor examples and illustrate some “dos
and don’ts” of the interviewers.
Reflective observation
A full debrief of student experience and the videos is conducted through combined lecture
and class discussion to gather lessons learned from the concrete experience mode to
understand the learning profile. This includes analysis of factors that can undermine
an interview’s usefulness. Individual students then start to construct generic interview
questions and protocols to avoid those undermining factors.
Abstract conceptualization
Theories from the previously assigned readings are brought to bear along with additional
frameworks from the lecture to explain effective interview design and implementation in
more general terms. Interview structure, content and administration options take centerstage
at this point in the experiential learning process. Ideally, students are able to start forming
personal theories of what will and will not work for them as an interviewer in a range of
situations based on readiness.
Active experimentation
Student groups are then assigned an in-class exercise asking them to serve as consultants to a
hypothetical small business. Each group designs a full interview process for a specific job
description. They must include a range of different question types – situational, behavioral,
etc. – and a rationale for each in terms of how it is linked to a specific requirement in the job
description and what types of information the question is designed to elicit from the
interviewee. Also required is a plan as to who participates in the interview process – direct
supervisor, human resource representative, peers, etc. and whether there will be sequential
one-on-one interviews and/or panel or mass interviews involved. Simulated interviews based
on the designed protocols are then conducted across student group boundaries. This exercise
leads to new concrete experience and a continuation of the process beyond the classroom as
students participate in both mock and real job interviews.
While the main idea behind experiential learning is that all four modes combine to provide
the successful gaining of knowledge, it is possible that differentiated instruction is actually at
play here. Instead of every student benefiting equally from the combined four-mode process,
each student may be gaining the majority of knowledge from their own “preferred” learning
mode. Simple pre- and post-testing of students before and after the entire experiential
learning process may be missing this alternate explanation for its success. Knowledge testing
before and after each of the four learning modes would be necessary to tease out effects of
individual modes vs the overall process.
Examples in practice: a principles of management course
Professor C has taught Principles of Management for many decades. This course includes
business majors but may also include an array of other majors from arts and science
disciplines. This diversity is welcomed (in fact, it is one of the aspects that this professor loves
about the course) but it also brings challenges from the DI perspective (e.g. prior learning,
different academic environment). In addition to the usual principles of management subject
matter, this course has recently been designated as an “oral intensive” (OI) course meaning
that 25% of the course must be based on oral communications assignments.
There are other OI requirements as well. Assignments must be spread across the semester,
every student in the class must participate, more than one oral skill must be included,
students need to receive necessary instruction for their assignments and students must
receive feedback. Finally, students are required to produce a measurable artifact (e.g. video;
presentation slides) to their e-portfolio.
DI successive approximations strategy
(1) During the first class meeting students engage in a dyadic exercise. Each member
interviews the other student. Then, to lessen possible anxiety associated with
Enriching
management
learning
647
IJEM
35,3
648
readiness to speak about oneself, each student introduces the other to the class. This
provides a broad early or pre-assessment of students who may be intimidated by oral
intensive assignments due to their profile.
(2) For the next eight weeks students are assigned to teams on a random basis. Each
team addresses and management problem or issue of interest. Then, the team selects
a spokesperson to report on behalf of the team. This allows students to meet other
class members, to establish rapport and gain additional experience in presenting to
the class. Teams are encouraged to select different spokespersons so that each
student plays this role at least once.
(3) Subsequently, “permanent” teams consisting of four members are formed for the
duration of the semester. These teams perform two presentations to the class using
presentation technology (e.g. PowerPoint, Prezi). Teams are assigned two companies
(e.g. Apple and Google) that they research and compare using an environmental
analysis (including a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), leadership
analysis, comparative analysis and an annotated bibliography explaining the accuracy
of each source.
(4) Practice presentation. This is a 10-min, formal presentation, using technology in front
of the class. Each team member must have a speaking role. Each student who
observes the presentation lists three things that they liked and three things that could
be improved. There is a limited time allotted to questions and answers. Each team is
given a summary of the feedback to improve their team’s next presentation. Feedback
ranges from adding more content, do not chew gum, do not umm repeatedly, make
eye contact, act like you are enjoying your team’s work and many others. Teams are
given the chance to practice in light of the feedback to make necessary adjustments.
(5) Main presentation. This is the big show where teams make a 15-min formal
presentation (on the same companies), using technology, in front of the class. This time
there are peer and self-evaluations that are completed using an agreed upon rubric.
All teams do a creditable job with their presentations. Managing team composition and
providing scaffolded support when needed and removed when not needed is important. The
comfort level of students during the main presentation is noticeable. Presentations are not
recorded since we are scattered all over campus while our new building is readied.
Eventually, presentations will be recorded and uploaded to student’s e-portfolio. However, DI
elements such as readiness, interests and learner profiles are utilized. In addition, the course
contains differentiation markers such as a repeated rhythm of whole class preparation for
oral assignments, formative reviews of ongoing work, sharing, individual and small-group
exploration, extension and production as identified by Tomlinson (2017).
Discussion
The results suggest that DI can be quite useful as an instructional intervention in collegiate
management courses. Note that each course has differing goals in level and scope yet there
are also commonalities in methods and processes. Each approach is also focused on the
learning process and engagement with students. Faculty support is a critical factor
facilitating conditions that foster incremental steps toward mastery. Results suggest
qualitative improvements in student performance in each case.
Although our findings are qualitative and preliminary, the evidence points to additional
work that can help in expanding DI at the postsecondary level, particularly in management.
The three courses correspond to three different management curricular levels: introductory
course (Principles of Management); management major course (Human Resource Management)
and capstone course (Business Policy and Strategy). This implies that DI can be implemented at
different course levels representing different levels of student maturity, preparation and skills.
This is consistent with findings presented in our introduction indicating the inclusion of
scaffolding support for students as they progress from lower to higher level business courses
(Lakshminarayanan et al., 2019).
The present findings are encouraging, but there are practical issues that must be considered
in applying DI in the college environment, particularly across courses and departments.
Faculty and student readiness are of paramount importance. This study focused on three
highly motivated management faculty members who are constantly experimenting with new
approaches and continuous improvements. Experiences with a faculty teaching circle at the
same institution indicate that some faculty members are more resistant to experimentation and
innovation. Thus, selecting faculty members who are open to DI is critical if full departmental
and/or school-wide applications are anticipated. For students, the way that DI is approached
and implemented must also be considered. Transparency and support are necessary conditions
for student acceptance of this approach. DI can border on manipulation if not handled properly.
Preparing students and training faculty members will facilitate implementation.
These three examples include elements of differentiation at the fundamental level:
engaging with students at different levels of readiness, expanding instruction with support to
account for student characteristics with methodical and adaptable methods of proactive
changes in professorial guidance and learning approaches to match college student needs
and abilities to augment learning growth as identified in the literature (Coubergs et al., 2017;
Tomlinson, 2014; Woolfolk, 2010). Just as experiential learning is an ongoing cycle of concrete
learning, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation
(Kolb, 1984), DI in higher education as shown in the three examples is an organized, continual
and flexible process of proactively attuning instruction and learning methods to
accommodate learner needs and preferences through fair, yet challenging ways, that truly
engage learners in meaningful ways.
DI has been criticized along the same lines as learning styles since broad empirical support
is lacking as noted in our literature review. Nevertheless, DI does offer insights that can assist
management faculty members to be more mindful in recognizing student differences and
learning readiness. This recognition is the central observation of DI applications since
student variability in learning readiness is increasing.
This paper has limitations including the examination of only three courses taught by three
professors at one institution. These cases examples may not be typical or represent the larger
population of management and business courses. Further research studies should empirically
test DI concepts to determine if DI methods in higher education produce positive outcomes that
are generalizable across learning environments. Additional research should consider DI for
courses and assignments that have transitioned from on-ground classroom settings to partially
online (hybrid) and fully online formats as noted by Lakshminarayanan et al. (2019). While the
learning objectives might be quite similar regardless of delivery method, fully online courses
may present both challenges and opportunities to DI utilization.
Conclusion
This paper argues for the application of DI in management education. Examples of DI
implementation in three undergraduate management courses taught by three different
faculty members using varied approaches demonstrate the applicability of this concept. The
overriding goal of DI is improving student learning, yet DI may also produce some beneficial
but unintended consequences such as improved retention and faculty autonomy in course
creation and delivery. For many management courses the implementation of DI involves a
Enriching
management
learning
649
IJEM
35,3
proactive response to learner needs informed by a faculty perspective that recognizes student
diversity yet retains quality assurance standards with mindful assessment and planning.
References
650
Algozzine, B.E. and Anderson, K.M. (2007), “Tips for teaching: differentiating instruction to all
students”, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, Vol. 51
No. 3, pp. 49-54.
Allinson, C. and Hayes, J. (1996), “The cognitive style index”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 119-135.
Alstete, J.W. and Beutell, N.J. (2016), “Balancing instructional techniques and delivery formats in
capstone business strategy courses”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 173-193.
Andre, R.S. (2016), “The factors required for winning the business simulation game: a regression
analysis”, Ph.D., Capella University.
Arbaugh, J.B., Desai, A., Rau, B. and Sridhar, B.S. (2010), “A review of research on online and blended
learning in the management disciplines: 1994-2009”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 39-55.
Arben, P.D. (1997), “The integrating course in the business school curriculum”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 40 No. 2, p. 65.
Arter, J.A. and Jenkins, J.R. (1979), “Differential diagnosis-prespective teaching: a critical approach”,
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 517-555.
Byrnes, J. (1996), Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Contexts, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston.
Cassidy, S. (2004), “Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures”, Educational
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 419-444.
Chamberlin, M. and Powers, R. (2010), “The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the
mathematical understandings of college students”, Teaching Mathematics and its Applications,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 113-139.
Chapman, C. and King, R. (2005), Differentiated Assessment Strategies: One Tool Doesn’t Fit All,
Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. and Ecclestone, K. (2004), Should we be Using Learning Styles? What
Research has to Say to Practice, Learning and Skills Research Center, London.
Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G. and Engels, N. (2017), “Measuring teachers’ perceptions
about differentiated instruction: the DI-Quest instrument and model”, Studies in Educational
Evaluation, Vol. 53, No. pp. 41-54.
Cronbach, L.J.A. (1980), Toward Reform of Program Evaluation: Aims, Methods, and Institutional
Arrangements, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. and Whalen, S. (1993), Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success
and Failure, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Dosch, M. and Zidon, M. (2014), “‘The course fit us’: differentiated instruction in the college
classroom”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 343-357.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K. and Price, G.E. (1984), Learning Style Inventory, Price Systems, Lawrence, Kansas.
Ernst, H.R. and Ernst, T.L. (2005), “The promise and pitfalls of differentiated instruction for
undergraduate political science courses: student and instructor impressions of an
unconventional teaching strategy”, Journal of Political Science Education, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 39-59.
Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York.
Grigorenko, E. and Sternberg, R. (1997), “Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance”,
Exceptional Children, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 295-312.
Hebert, T. (1993), “Reflections at graduations: the long-term impact of elementary school experiences
in creative productivity”, Roeper Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 22-28.
Helms, M.M. and Whitesell, M. (2017), “Structuring assignments to improve understanding and
presentation skills: experiential learning in the capstone business policy and strategy team
presentation”, The Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 92 No. 7, pp. 332-346.
Hohlbein, C. (2008), Junior Enterprises: Strategic Success Factors of Consultancies, VDM Verlag, Riga,
Latvia.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992), The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey Publications,
Maidenhead.
Hume, K. (2008), Start Where They are: Differentiating for Success with the Young Adolescent, Pearson
Education Canada, Toronto.
Jennings, D. (2002), “Business policy and strategy: an evaluation of the use of three learning methods”,
The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 Nos 9/10, pp. 655-665.
Kachra, A. and Schnietz, K. (2008), “The capstone strategy course: what might real integration look
like?”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 476-508.
Kampwirth, T.J. and Bates, M. (1980), “Modality preference and teaching method: a review of the
research”, Academic Therapy, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 597-605.
Kavale, K.A. and Forness, S.R. (1987), “Substance over style: assessing the efficicy of modality testing
and teaching”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 228-239.
Kavale, K.A., Hirshoren, A. and Forness, S.R. (1988), “Meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn
model of learning-style preferences: a critique of what was Dunn”, Learning Disabilities, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 75-80.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005), “Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential
learning in higher education”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 193-212.
Kozhevnikev, M., Evans, C. and Kosslyn, S.M. (2014), “Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive
individual differences in cognition: a modern synthesis and application in education”,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-33.
Lakshminarayanan, S., Best, S. and Poulakidas, A. (2019), Using Technology to Enhance Learning
Benefits Accrued through Assignments, The Academy of Business and Retail Management
(ABRM), London.
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004), “Differentiated instruction: inclusive strategies for standards-based
learning that benefit the whole class”, American Secondary Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 34-62.
Livingston, D. (2006), “Differentiated instruction and assessment in the college classroom”, Reaching
Through Teaching: A Journal of the Practice, Philosophy and Scholarship of College Teaching,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 17-31.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. (2002), “Learning styles and adaptive flexibility: testing
experiential learning theory”, Management Learning, Vol. 33, pp. 5-33.
Messick, S. (1984), “The nature of cognitiive styles: problems and promise in educational practice”,
Educational Psychologist, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 59-74.
Meyer, J.P. (2003), “Four territories of experience: a developmental action inquiry to outdoor-adventure
experiential learning”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 352-363.
Meyers, C. and Jones, T.B. (1993), Promoting Active Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Enriching
management
learning
651
IJEM
35,3
Ministry of Education (2007), Differentiated Instruction Teacher’s Guide: Getting to the Core of
Teaching and Learning, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
Nunley, K.F. (2004), Layered Curriculum, Brains.org, Amherst, New Jersey.
Pashler, H., Mcdaniel, M., Roher, D. and Bjork, R. (2009), “Learning styles concepts and evidence”,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 105-119.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
652
Peterson, E.R., Rayner, S.G. and Armstrong, S.J. (2009), “Researching the psychology of cognitive style
and learning style: is there really a future?”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 518-523.
Prince, M. (2004), “Does active learning work? A review of the research”, Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 223-231.
Renninger, K. (1993), “Children’s play interests, representations, and activity”, in Hudson, J. and
Fivush, R. (Eds), Knowing and Remembering in Young Children, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1998), Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style
Differences in Learning Behaviour, David Fulton Publishers, London.
Riener, C. and Willingham, D. (2010), “The myth of learning styles”, Change, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 32-35.
Santangelo, T. and Tomlinson, C.A. (2009), “The application of differentiated instruction in
postsecondary environments: benefits, challenges, and future directions”, International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 307-323.
Saxe, G. (1990), Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Schmeller, R. (2019), “In strategy simulations, data analysis matters most (more than number of
log ins and more than time spent logged in)”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 62-75.
Snider, V.E. (1992), “Learning styles and learning to read: a critique”, Remedial and Special Education,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 228-239.
Stahl, S.A. (1999), “Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles”, American
Educator, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Sternberg, R. (1985), Beyond IQ: A Triarch Theory of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sternberg, R. (1996), Successful Intelligence: How Practical and Creative Intelligence Determine Success
in Life, Plume, New York.
Sternberg, R., Torff, B. and Grigorenko, E. (1998), “Teaching triarchically improves student
achievement”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 374-384.
Strickland, C.A. (2007), Tools for High Quality Differentiated Instruction, Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
Tarver, S. and Dawson, M.M. (1978), “Modality preference and the teaching of reading”, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Tobias, S. (1994), “Interest, prior knowledge, and learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2004), “Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction”, Roper Review, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 188-189.
Tomlinson, C. (2014), The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
Tomlinson, C. (2017), How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms, ACSD,
Alexandria, Virginia.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.M., Moon, T.R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A.
and Reynolds, T. (2003), “Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest,
and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature”, Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3, pp. 119-145.
Enriching
management
learning
Trow, M. (1973), Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass to University Higher Education,
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Berkeley.
Tulbure, C. (2011), “Differentiate instruction for preservice teachers: an experimental investigation”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30, Special Issue: 2nd World Conference on
Psychology, Counseling and Guidance, pp. 448-452.
Turner, W.D., Solis, O.J. and Kincade, D.H. (2017), “Differentiating instruction for large classes in
higher education”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 490-500.
Vega, G. (2010), “The undergraduate case research study model”, Journal of Management Education,
Vol. 34 No. 4, p. 574.
Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Maryland.
Vygotsky, L. (1986), Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Maryland.
Westby, C. (2019), “The myth of learning styles”, Word of Mouth, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 4-7.
Willingham, D.T., Hughes, E.M. and Dobolyi, D.G. (2015), “The scientific status of learning styles
theories”, Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 266-271.
Willis, J. (2007), Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student Learning: Insights from a Neurologist and
Classroom Teacher, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
Virginia.
Wolfe, P. (2001), Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom Practice: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia.
Woolfolk, A. (2010), Educational Psychology, Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Los Angeles.
About the authors
Jeffrey W. Alstete is a Professor of Management and Business Administration, School of Business,
Iona College, New Rochelle, New York, USA. He earned his doctorate from Seton Hall University as
well as an MBA and MS from Iona College. Dr Alstete is the author of books, book chapters, journal
articles and conference papers on business, entrepreneurship, small business management,
managerial decision-making, knowledge management, strategy and higher education. His research
has appeared in the Journal of Management Development, Quality Assurance in Education,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Journal of International Education in Business, VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, and the Journal of Education for Business. Jeffrey Alstete is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: jalstete@iona.edu
John P. Meyer is a Professor of Management and Business Administration, LaPenta School of
Busiess, Iona College, New Rochelle, New York, USA. He earned his PhD in management from Boston
College, an MBA from Iona College, and a BS in business and economics from Lehigh University. His
areas of research include innovation, experiential learning, knowledge management and
interorganizational learning. Dr Meyer wrote articles published in journals such as Academy of
Management Learning and Education, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, and he has presented
papers at numerous national and international conferences.
653
IJEM
35,3
654
Nicholas J. Beutell is a Professor of Management, School of Business, Iona College, USA. He received
his PhD in management with a concentration in Human Resource Management from Stevens Institute of
Technology. His major research interests include the work–family interface, small business and
international human resource management. His research has appeared in the Academy of Management
Review, International Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Journal of Vocational Behavior, among
others. Dr Beutell is a Fellow of the Eastern Academy of Management and is a member of the Academy
of Management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com