Literature Review
Differentiation of Instruction
by
Dave Winogron
EDD 8008: Principles of Instructional Technology
Nova Southeastern University
December 12, 2005
2
Introduction
Students come to school with diverse backgrounds; they vary in emotional and social
maturity, interests, academic readiness, and learning styles. In the one-room schoolhouse of
the past, effective teachers found ways to meet the needs of students with a wide range of
abilities. This may be viewed as an antecedent to what is currently termed differentiated
instruction. Differentiated instruction is based on the assertion that instructional approaches
should be adapted to students’ diverse academic skill levels in the classroom. It requires a
flexible approach to teaching by adjusting the curriculum and presentation to students.
(Tomlinson, 2001) Through differentiated instruction, teachers can meet the needs of students
with a wide array of academic skill levels.
In the classroom the use of technology, especially computers, has grown exponentially.
Infusing technology into the classroom provides opportunities for the differentiation of
instruction. Using that technology as well as others to assist with the differentiation of
instruction can be twofold: first, to provide an investigation and productivity tool for students;
and second, to provide an assistive technology for the teacher to assess student progress and
create adaptive instruction for diverse needs and levels.
The big push to integrating new technologies in the classroom, like the Internet, must be
focused to provide teaching and learning advantages for individual students, small groups of
students, and the teacher. Current computer software, curriculum packages and resourceful
teachers committed to providing options for individuals and groups can assist with the
differentiation required to meet students’ instructional needs.
3
Methodology
Perhaps the most difficult task was selecting a topic for this literature review. As a
longstanding non-classroom educator using technology to support district activities, I have not
needed to really think about student instruction. This review provided the opportunity to
somewhat reconnect with topics of concern for classroom teachers.
Differentiation of instruction in the classroom using some form of technology seemed to fit
the bill. Sources of information were identified via electronic search of online resources
through Nova Southeastern University’s library. Online searches were also conducted of
Federal and State Education Department web sites, as well as through the National Education
Association. The search was primarily conducted with databases containing educational
journals using the following descriptors or keywords: differentiate, differentiation, curriculum
differentiation, technology, differentiated instruction.
A search was also conducted of the ERIC document database for articles and journals. Of
primary interest were articles featuring the use of differentiated instruction. Since a more
current view of the topic was sought, the search was limited from 1999 to the present. As
suggested by Galvan, the keyword “review” was tried along with the previous descriptors
noted, but no results were apparent. Documented use of technology for differentiation was
found in a very limited number of sources.
4
Analysis and Discussion
Defining Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated Instruction is described by Carol Ann Tomlinson, a renowned expert on
differentiated learning, as providing different avenues for students to acquire knowledge and
process ideas. (Tomlinson, 2001) Differentiated instruction is a teaching theory to reach
diverse students in the classroom. Different learners have diverse abilities and needs;
differentiation consists of providing options for those learners. The teacher recognizes each
student’s background knowledge, readiness, language, learning styles, and interests, and then
provides a variety of curriculum paths to challenge individual learners. (Starr, 2004) Three
key elements of the curriculum can be differentiated: content, process, and products. Content
is the concepts, facts and skills we want students to learn; process is the way students learn;
while products reflect understanding of connected concepts and skills. (Tomlinson, 2000)
“The intent to differentiating instruction is to maximize each student's growth and
individual success in meeting each student where he or she is, and assisting in the learning
process.” (Hall, 2002) According to Hall, differentiation is a compilation of theories and
practices; however, it is lacking in empirical validation. Reference is made by proponents of
differentiation that their concepts are grounded in part by the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978),
while other practices central to differentiation such as grouping students for instruction,
effective classroom management, and engaging learners have been validated as effective in
research conducted since the mid-1980s. (Ellis and Worthington, 1994 as cited in Hall, 2002)
Since student abilities in the elementary grades vary greatly differentiated instruction is
necessary. “There is ample evidence that students are more successful in school and find it
more satisfying if they are taught in ways that are responsive to their readiness levels (e.g.,
5
Vygotsky, 1986), interests (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) and learning profiles (e.g.,
Sternberg, Torff, & Grigoorenko, 1998).” (Tomlinson, 2000) Successful differentiation helps
students achieve more, while feeling more engaged in school. For differentiation to occur the
curriculum should be clearly focused; learning activities should be designed to target
understanding of the essentials; student tasks should be interesting and relevant; learning must
be active; and there should be a level of satisfaction in learning for each student. The process
of differentiation involves ongoing assessment linked to instruction, while student tasks
should be worthwhile and valuable, flexible grouping allows students to interact in a variety
of settings (Tomlinson, 1999, 2000)
When children feel alienated because of differences in culture, economic status, aptitude or
language spoken they withdraw from others in the classroom. The need to differentiate
instruction is supported by brain research, according to Tomlinson. The brain must have
moderately challenging work to function at an optimum level for children to achieve.
According to Tomlinson, “when our curricular expectations are out of sync with where
students all are in their readiness levels, not only does motivation decrease, but achievement
will go down with it.” (Checkley, 2003)
According to Willis and Mann, when teachers are faced with the dilemma of a wide variety
of student ability levels they must make a conscious decision to tailor their instruction to meet
individual student needs. Teachers cannot assume that their classroom contains students at the
same level. Strategies for differentiating instruction might include: using flexible grouping,
classroom learning stations, ongoing assessment of students, challenging instruction,
independent investigations, opened ended assignments, and problem based learning. The
authors list numerous examples of teachers utilizing differentiated instruction at the
6
elementary and secondary school level. According to Penny Shockley, a North Carolina
elementary school teacher who uses differentiated instruction, “My job is to determine what
each child needs, and it isn't the same for everyone." This acceptance of the uniqueness of
each individual is a starting point for teachers willing to modify their instruction to the variety
of student needs, levels, and interests. Differentiating instruction is a challenge for the
teacher, but well worth the effort of having more engaged students and increase student
progress. (Willis and Mann, 2000)
In any classroom setting there are generally students working above or below what we
recognize as the average skill or grade level. Remarking about differentiated instruction
technology educator, Priscilla Theroux, indicates that it is important to offer learning tasks
appropriate to class needs by providing three or four different instructional options, rather
than just teach to subject and grade level. in any given class. This offering of multiple paths
addresses the variation of learner interests and needs, assuring a higher rate of achievement.
Using technology to differentiate instruction allows for adjustment by ability levels through
tiered assignments, flexible grouping, learning centers, and independent projects. In addition,
the role of the teacher changes from instructor to that of a classroom planner and facilitator.
Ongoing assessment is essential to guiding instruction. Differentiation of instruction
“engages students more deeply in their learning, provides for constant growth and
development, and provides for a stimulating and exciting classroom.” (Theroux, 2002)
Programs and Case Studies
Differentiated instruction changes the classroom to a student-centered environment and
allows their learning needs to guide the teachers planning. However, the whole of the theory
and its processes has not been studied except for testimonials, case studies, and qualitative
7
data. For example in To Differentiate or Not to Differentiate: A Research Project, responses
were collected from a small sampling of middle and high school teachers; six teachers were
interviewed and 14 of 45 teacher surveys were returned. Data was analyzed to determine
teacher opinions regarding differentiated lesson plans and differentiated instruction in general.
Results showed confusion over the perceptions of differentiation and were generally
inconclusive. (McDaniel, E., Quesenberry, K., & Thomson, K., 2002).
In the British Journal of Educational Technology, Ed Smeets and Ton Mooij wrote about a
case study using a program called Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which
uses differentiated instruction. The case studies were conducted in classrooms in five
participating countries using observations. The ICT program encouraged student-centered
learning with differentiation of lesson content and activities to meet the needs and skills of
students. Use of computer software provided opportunities for students to build knowledge
by using multiple sources of information from different perspectives; in other words, the
instruction was differentiated through the use of computers. However, teachers were allowed
to select their own software, leading to variables based on each teacher’s perspective on
learning. Different reviewers were used in each country and observations were conducted by
one reviewer only, leading to additional variables. Conclusions of this study were clouded by
the multiple variables, including the limited degree of curriculum differentiation observed;
however, the authors indicated their belief that differentiating instruction by using ITC could
contribute to student-centered learning by adapting content and activities based on the needs
and abilities of individual students. (Smeets and Mooij, 2001)
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is another student-centered approach to learning
using differentiation. Teachers consider how to provide for a wide range of student abilities
8
and what methods of instruction will help achieve goals. The UDL program is an adaptive
program for the full range of students having a variety of cognitive or physical abilities.
(Orkwis, 2003)
Differentiated instruction is the answer to meeting the wide range of student abilities,
skills, and learning styles, even languages, according to Differentiated Instruction and the
web. Using the Internet teachers can provide opportunities for student research and learning.
An academic search engine called netTrekker d. i. provides a starting point for teachers to find
sites addressing the variety of academic needs and learning styles. Alternate web resources
can also be provided for English language learners with customized language content through
this new search engine. (Technology & Learning)
Accelerated Math uses a computerized instructional management system to help school
teachers differentiate math instruction for students of varying abilities. Almost 400 third
through fifth grade students from a large urban district in the Midwest were studied. Students
were pre-tested and assigned an instructional level based on performance. Practice exercises
were then generated by the computer, and immediate feedback was provided to the student
and teacher. Teachers could then use this information to adapt a differentiated instruction
program. Pre-and posttests were used to contrast achievement gains in the test and control
classrooms. Student math achievement gains were attributed to the use of technology to
differentiate instruction. (Ysseldyke, 2003)
Differentiation of instruction has been an accepted practice in educating gifted and talented
students. A case study of four gifted students, aged 9-12 over a one to three-year period, was
documented to provide some insight to methods of differentiation. Corrections to improve
differentiation were implemented to correct problems in these students, through school
9
programs. According to F. Richard Olenchak, effective differentiation must become
personalized, provide involvement with school-based mentors, and focus on the development
of talent (Olenchak, 2001)
Children of varying ability levels become easily motivated to produce presentations on a
variety of topics using software such as PowerPoint, Kidspiration, and Inspiration.
Differentiating Curriculum With Technology-Enhanced Class Projects describes how teachers
in Ohio provide effective differentiation of instruction by engaging students in developing
multimedia projects. After providing 20 to 30 minutes of instruction about the software and a
tip sheet for further assistance, students showed high levels of expectations, creativity and
initiative according to teacher Peggy Ludwig. Increased student interest levels and increased
social skills from work on group assignments has led to positive comments from students and
parents. (Bergen, 2001/2002)
10
Conclusion
Differentiated instruction focuses on designing instruction in ways that enable students to
be successful. Research on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction is largely supportive
yet anecdotal. (Edyburn, 2004) Historically, much of the literature focuses on gifted education
or education for those with disabilities. The recent resurgence toward utilizing differentiation
of instruction in the regular classroom may be a result of the increase in student-centered
teaching. According to proponents of differentiated instruction, there is no particular formula
for differentiation; it is teaching that values the individual, his or her abilities, interests, and
learning styles - basically good instruction.
Since students’ acquisition of knowledge varies greatly, to maximize their students’
potential, teachers must provide a clearly focused curriculum, teaching activities designed to
help students understand the essentials, tasks and materials interesting and relevant to the
students, learning is active, and a level of satisfaction in learning for each student.
(Tomlinson, 2000)
The literature provides many sources covering the topic of integration of technology and
instruction; however, actual differentiation in that instruction has seemingly scant material.
Research information provided by actual software or curriculum providers needs substantial
validation from independent studies and observation. Much of the literature regarding
differentiated instructional practice relies on the supposition that by providing multiple
curriculum paths for students to attain facts and skills we can increase student engagement
and maximize understanding.
11
Reference List
Bergen, D. (2001). Differentiating curriculum with technology-enhanced class projects.
Childhood Education, 78(2), 117-118. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from http://0vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu:80/hww/jumpstart.
jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e5912177bf56e509a6a0e38a2539f8b8e51f61
d28aad3b89ca82304a7b92a18a6&fmt=C">Bergen, D. Differentiating curriculum with
technology-enhanced class projects. Childhood Education v. 78 no. 2 (Winter
2001/2002) p. 117-18</a>
Checkley, K. (2003). Finding lost children through differentiated learning. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development Conference Report, 45(1).
Retrieved December 8, 2005, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/temp
late.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.c97770c239d90bdeb85516f762108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst
=d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a49326
6805516f762108a0c_journaltypeheaderimage=%2FASCD%2Fimages%2Fmultifiles%
2Fpublications%2Feumast.gif&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a
0c_viewID=article_view&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_jo
urnalmoid=d48774f108eaff00VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD&javax.portlet.prp_d5
b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_articlemoid=9338dcdc48eaff00VgnVCM100000
3d01a8c0RCRD&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_journalTy
pePersonalization=ASCD_EU&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endC
acheTok=token
Differentiated instruction and the web. (2005). In Technology & Learning, 26, 41(1).
12
Retrieved December 8, 2005, from via Thomson Gale: http://0find.galegroup.com.novacat.nova.edu:80/itx/infomark.do7&contentSet-IACDocuments&type=retrieved&tabID=T002&podId=EAIM&docId=A135706909&
source=gale&userGroupName=novaseu_main&version=1.0
Edyburn, D. (2004). Technology supports for differentiated instruction. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 19(2). Retrieved December 6, 2005, from
http://0vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;js
essionid=MMPP4UN4520UJQA3DINCFGGADUNGIIV0?_requestid=193171
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Retrieved December 8, 2005, from National
Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
Hall, T. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for udl implementation.
Retrieved December 11, 2005, from National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum.
Keck, S. & Kinney, S. C. (2005). Creating a differentiated classroom. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 33(1), 12-15. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from
Wilson Web.
McDaniel, E., Quesenberry, K., & Thomson, K. (2002). To Differentiate or Not to
Differentiate: A Research Project. Retrieved Dec. 4, 2005, via web http://
filebox.vt.edu/todifferentiateornottodifferentiate
Olenchak, F. R. (2001). Lessons learned from gifted children about differentiation. The
Teacher Educator, 36(3), 185-198. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from http://0vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/results/results_single.jhtml?nn=
14
13
Orkwis, R. (2003). Universally designed instruction. ERIC Digest. Retrieved December
9, 2005, from http://0- firstsearch.oclc.org.novacat.nova.edu/WebZ
/FSFETCH?fetchtype=fullrecord:next
Smeets, E. & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centered learning, ict, and teacher behaviour:
observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational Technology,
32(4), 403-417. Retrieved December 11, 2005, from http://0vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.novacat.nova.edu/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;
jsessionid=MMPP4UN4520UJQA3DINCFGGADUNGIIV0?_requestid=193171
Starr, L. (2004). Differentiated instruction. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2005, from National
Education Association Differentiated Instruction Web site:
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc040817.html
Theroux, P. (2002). How to differentiate instruction. Retrieved December 6, 2005, from
http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiatingstrategies.html
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 611. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.
MAXIMIZE/menuitem.459dee008f99653fb
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms.
2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a
/30/ef.pdf
14
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? standards-based teaching and
differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All
Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Differentiating instruction for advanced learners in the mixedability middle school classroom. ERIC Digest. Retrieved December 9, 2005,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_
01/0000000b/80/2a/24/80.pdf
Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000). Differentiating instruction: finding manageable ways to
meet individual needs. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Curriculum Update. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.ascd.org
/portal/site/ascd/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.7aaa3600d26ec4ceb85516f762108a
0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.p
rp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_journaltypeheaderimage=%2FASCD%2Fi
mages%2Fmultifiles%2Fpublications%2Fcumast.gif&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a49
3266805516f762108a0c_viewID=article_view&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a4932668
05516f762108a0c_journalmoid=89a4a58683eaff00VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD
&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f762108a0c_articlemoid=bfb4a58683ea
ff00VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD&javax.portlet.prp_d5b9c0fa1a493266805516f7
62108a0c_journalTypePersonalization=ASCD_CU&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=toke
n&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&printerFriendly=true
Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., Teelucksingh, E., Boys, C. & Lemkuil, A.
15
(2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance
math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students, 8(2), 247-265.