Introduction and Background
Abstract:
Most educators would agree that classrooms today are filled with a wide variety of abilities and
interests. In order to meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of all learners, many teachers
implement a variety of differentiation techniques and methods. However, due to the overwhelming
and ongoing nature of differentiation, many educators find the task daunting. This paper will investigate
teachers’ perceptions of Differentiated Instruction within their own classrooms as well as their junior
high school. The researchers will seek to analyze teacher responses regarding their struggles and the
reality of how differentiation is being implemented in today’s classroom with the enormous amounts of
stresses and demands of teachers.
Background:
Classrooms today are more diverse than ever. Inclusion of special education students in general
education classes, lack of funding for gifted education, increasing numbers of students whose first
language is not English, new legislation, and a host of other factors seem to make differentiated
instruction not only a common term used in educational companies, but also an increasing necessity in
all classroom across the United States. The United States National Center for Educational Statistics
reports that approximately 6 million students in the United States received special education services in
2001-2002 school year. Nearly four million are acquiring English as a second language. In addition to
ELL learners, student diversity also can be seen in economic factors as well. Approximately 36% of
students in the United States qualify for free or reduced lunch services. This information demonstrates
the wide array of needs that students bring with them into classrooms across our nation.
Differentiated instruction in its most simplistic state provides students with options for receiving
information, comprehending the information, and demonstrating their learning (Tomlinson, 2001). In
the 1970’s individualized instruction was a desired practice and thought to be an effective approach to
teaching. However, there are differences between today’s differentiation and yesterday’s individualized
instruction. Differentiation does not require a separate plan or lesson for each child within the
classroom, which makes it much more manageable, therefore more effective than individualized
instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Differentiated instruction provides numerous approaches and
opportunities for students to encounter content, process material, and various ways to assess the
content learned (Tomlinson, 2001). Differentiation also allows teachers to differentiate according to
student differences such as readiness, interest, and rates of learning (Good, 2006). As one can imagine,
differentiation requires a teacher to know his or her students and be in tune with the changing
academic needs, as well as social and emotional needs. This process is just that- a process that is ever
changing and differs for each student and each subject area. Many schools or districts may group
students according to learning abilities through tracking, however at the classroom level the teacher is
able to assess and meet students’ needs accordingly by knowing the students’ specific needs, interests,
and rates of learning.
Locally, teachers at Parkside Junior High School have long been committed to providing quality
instruction for their students. In 2003, teachers were asked to implement a different method of
differentiated instruction in their classroom each month, a request that was documented by the
principal in the School Improvement plan and followed by individual teams of teachers. Trying out the
various strategies showed teachers that differentiation did not require them to work harder to create
effective lessons but, rather, better, often saving valuable instructional time by allowing students to
meet goals and state standards more quickly. Teacher buy-in was high, and there was a general
consensus that PJHS was doing its part to reach all levels of learners.
As years passed, however, enthusiasm for differentiated instruction waned. With the
introduction of No Child Left Behind and its high-stakes tests that require schools to show Adequate
Yearly Progress as well as state-mandated Response to Intervention, PJHS teachers have retained their
favorite DI lessons and scrapped the rest in favor of one-size-fits-all lesson planning meant to address
the standards quickly so they can move on to the next benchmark represented on the state tests. Like
other teachers, many at PJHS see true differentiation as labor-intensive from lesson creation to
implementation (VanTassel, 2005). Pre-assessment and compacting, two forms of differentiation,
require extra planning and are “really [teachers’] work . . . and don’t become students’ work until they
represent true learning for them (Winebrenner, 2001). While the teachers at PJHS value student
learning, the thought of extensive planning for a small part of the curriculum is not appealing. Today,
professional development opportunities for teachers at PJHS abound with workshops, peer mentoring,
and district mandated collaboration time all designed to help PJHS teachers meet the needs of the
varied learners in their classrooms. Still, differentiation is an instructional method that has largely been
left behind.
According to O’Meara (2010), teachers are able to discuss, on many levels, the “what” of
differentiation, but not able to apply it. She goes on to explain that differentiation is a process, though
not linear, that is responsive to students’ needs and within the context of their learning and is, at the
core, based on assessment. Most teachers agree that differentiation is a good idea and that they should
be doing more of it.
Statement of the Problem:
Over the past few years, the researchers have observed a waning of differentiated practices in
their various educational settings. With the advent of federally mandated programs like Response to
Intervention (RtI) and schools not making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), teachers are feeling beat up by
the system. The increased demands on teachers can lead to a perception of Differentiated Instruction
(DI) as an additional burden rather than a means to accomplishing all of the afore mentioned programs
and of best teaching practices.
Focus of the Study:
This study will focus on examining teacher’s perceptions of the effectiveness of Differentiated
Instruction in their junior high school as well as within their own classroom. The study will focus on
Parkside Junior High School educators in Normal, Illinois.
Research Questions:
1. What are teacher’s perceptions regarding differentiation within their own classrooms?
2. What are teachers’ perceptions of support for differentiated instruction?
3. What, if anything, hinders a teacher’s implementation of Differentiated Instruction?
Rationale:
Teachers and special education providers will benefit from this study as it will provide them with
feedback regarding other professionals’ perceptions and implementations of Differentiated Instruction.
It will also provide teachers with a reflective opportunity to analyze their own Differentiation of
Instruction practices and beliefs, as well as add to their knowledge of differentiated instruction.
Administrators will also benefit from this study because it will allow them with teacher responses that
will allow them to make changes and provide the necessary support to achieve a more responsive
approach to differentiated instruction.
References
Good, M.E. (2006). Differentiated instruction: Principles and techniques for the elementary grades. San
Rafael, CA: School of Business, Education, and Leadership at Dominican University
of California. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage01/0000000b/80/33/17/b4.p
df
O’Meara, J. (2010). Beyond differentiated instruction:. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Stambaugh, T., VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the
regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 211-217.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Winebrenner , S. (2001). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit
Publishing, Inc.