936 Differentiated instruction: A research basisGiven that the model of differentiated instruction is relatively new, attempts were made to draw asmany references into the discussion. Despite efforts to ensure a comprehensive and exhaustivereview of the literature relating to differentiating instruction, this analysis cannot be complete.This is a dynamic field, which is amended regularly, and contributions from across the globe keepthis model fluid. The differentiated instruction model draws most attention from the UnitedStates, with key players contributing to the field through textbooks and guides. However, thestrategy is gaining in popularity in many countries, including Australia. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDYWhile differentiation is acknowledged to be a compelling and effectual means of restructuring thetraditional classroom to include students of diverse abilities, interests and learning profiles, thephilosophy is lacking in empirical validation. Currently, a great deal has been forwarded withregard to theory, with a decided gap in the literature regarding the use and effectiveness of thedifferentiated model in practice. The model does however draw a great deal of support, proof ofwhich can be found in the plethora of testimonials, anecdotes and classroom examples availablethrough a multitude of websites and publications dealing with differentiation. All reports echopromising outcomes. Still to be decided however, is whether teachers have restructured theirteaching, being cognisant of this wealth of information presented on differentiation.This study attempts to synthesise the research and the rationale underpinning the differentiatedinstruction model. Previous studies and investigations in this field have investigated factorsincluding student diversity, learning styles, brain research and the multiple intelligences asdynamics propelling the shift to differentiation. While this paper draws attention to these keyfeatures, it also presents for query, the areas that may require further investigation. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of LearningSeveral educationalists, researchers and school administrators view the social constructivistlearning theory engendered by Russian psychologist, Vygotsky (1896-1934), as central toinstructional enhancement, classroom change and redevelopment (Blanton, 1998; Flem, Moen,and Gudmundsdottir, 2000; Goldfarb, 2000; Kearsley, 1996; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999; Rueda,Goldenberg, and Gallimore, 1992; Shambaugh and Magliaro, 2001; Tharp and Gallimore, 1988).Sociocultural theory, drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1962), and later Wertsch (1991), hassignificant implications for teaching, schooling and education (Tharp and Gallimore, 1988). Thistheory is based on the premise that the individual learner must be studied within a particular socialand cultural context (Blanton, 1998; Flem et al., 2000; MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001; Patsula,1999; Tharp and Gallimore, 1988). Such situatedness is necessary for the development of higherorder functions, and such functions can only be acquired and cultivated following socialinteraction (Blanton, 1998; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999; Rueda et al., 1992; Shambaugh andMagliaro, 2001). Social interaction is therefore fundamental to the development of cognition(Kearsley, 1996, 2005; MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001; Patsula, 1999; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999;Scherba de Valenzuela, 2002). Furthermore, as a departure from other theories regardingcognition, Vygotsky’s theory views education as an ongoing process, not a product (Riddle andDabbagh, 1999). The Zone of Proximal DevelopmentVygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development, a central proposition of this theory,refers to a level of development attained when learners engage in social behaviour (Blanton, 1998;Kearsley, 2005; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999; Scherba de Valenzuela, 2002). Riddle and Dabbagh
Subban 937(1999) cite Vygotsky (1978) as defining the zone of proximal development as the distancebetween the actual development level and the level of potential development. Hence, the zone ofproximal development (ZPD) links that which is known to that which is unknown (Riddle andDabbagh, 1999). In order to develop the ZPD, learners must actively interact socially with aknowledgeable adult or capable peers (Blanton, 1998; Kearsley, 1996; Riddle and Dabbagh,1999). A student can only progress to the ZPD, and consequently independent learning if he or sheis first guided by a teacher or expert (Blanton, 1998; Kearsley, 2005; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999;Rueda et al., 1992). Accordingly, responsive instruction acknowledges what the learner alreadyknows, before a new skill is taught or new knowledge introduced (MacGillivray and Rueda,2001). The learner’s skill can only be extended and enriched through meaningful adult direction(Blanton, 1998; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999; Rueda et al., 1992). The teacher’s role becomes oneof purposeful instruction, a mediator of activities and substantial experiences allowing the learnerto attain his or her zone of proximal development (Blanton, 1998; Rueda et al., 1992). Further tothis, Vygotsky perceives language and speech as tools, used by humans to mediate their socialenvironments (Blanton, 1998; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999). The Implications of Vygotsky’s TheoryVygotsky’s general theory of cognitive development, was used as a framework for thisinvestigation, as it has implications for teaching and learning in contemporary times (Flem et al.,2000; Kearsley, 2005; MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001; Patsula, 1999; Shambaugh and Magliaro,2001). The areas of social interaction, engagement between teacher and student, physical spaceand arrangement, meaningful instruction, scaffolding, student ability and powerful content allbecome elements to consider within the context of contemporary education. With its emphasis onsocial interaction, Vygotsky’s theory sees the student-teacher relationship as collaborative, withthe learning experience becoming reciprocal (Flem et al., 2000; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999;Shambaugh and Magliaro, 2001). The instructional environment, including the physicalarrangement of furniture would be so structured to promote interaction (Riddle and Dabbagh,1999). Furthermore, the teacher would so design the lesson that instruction will extend the studentto just above the student’s current developmental level, building on that which the student alreadyknows, but encouraging the student to move ahead into areas that pose greater challenge(MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001; Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999). In this regard, scaffolding would bean appropriate strategy to access the zone of proximal behaviour (Riddle and Dabbagh, 1999). Theteacher would again engage student interest and modify tasks to suit ability levels (Riddle andDabbagh, 1999). Lesson content will also be meaningful, compelling learner interest andproviding a basis for the use of mediating tools like language (MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001;Patsula, 1999). Within this framework, this study investigates the use of the differentiatedinstruction model as a pedagogical instrument to facilitate the learning process. A RESEARCH RATIONALE SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR A NEW EDUCATIONAL MODELThe rationale to consider a new model is directed by several issues, including current studentdiversity, brain research, theories concerning learning styles and the multiple intelligences.Theories about how students learn, the content they learn and the instructional strategy used by theteacher has been the centre of a great deal of discussion in educational circles (Burton, 2000;Guild, 2001; McIlrath and Huitt, 1995). Research has proved the argument that individuals do notlearn in the same way (Fischer and Rose, 2001; Green, 1999; Guild, 2001; Mulroy and Eddinger,2003). Consequently, contemporary education has been influenced by several renowned theoristswho have investigated the different methods learners use to conceptualise ideas (Brooks, 2004;Davis, Sumara, and Luce-Kapler, 2000). While strengthening the knowledge base in this field, ithas assisted educators to examine instructional practices, changing curriculum and assessment
938 Differentiated instruction: A research basistechniques (Brooks, 2004; Cohen, McLaughlin, and Talbert, 1993; Davis et al., 2000; Fischer andRose, 2001; Green, 1999; McIlrath and Huitt, 1995; Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003).While educatorsunderstand that not all learners are the same, and that their needs are diverse, few teachersaccommodate these differences in their classrooms (Gable, Hendrickson, Tonelson, and VanAcker, 2000; Guild, 2001). Uniformity, rather than attending to diversity, dominates the culture ofmany contemporary classrooms (Gable et al., 2000; Guild, 2001; Sizer, 1999). In commencingdiscussion on this issue, it is prudent to point out that every learner benefits from an engaginglearning experience, every learner deserves to be treated with respect and ever learner should havean opportunity to reach his or her potential (Guild, 2001). The current education system does notadequately address these needs (Guild, 2001). Traditional methods used by teachers often focuson exposing and remedying deficits, setting up some students for a pattern of failure (Levine,2003). The following discussion presents the rationale that renders it imperative to consider a newmodel. Addressing DifferencesContemporary student populations are becoming increasingly academically diverse (Gable et al.,2000; Guild, 2001; Hall, 2002; Hess, 1999; McAdamis, 2001; McCoy and Ketterlin-Geller, 2004;Sizer, 1999; Tomlinson, 2004a; Tomlinson, Moon, and Callahan, 1998). The inclusion of studentswith disabilities, students with language backgrounds other than English, students with imposingemotional difficulties and a noteworthy number of gifted students, reflect this growing diversity(Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001b, 2004a). Learning within the inclusive classroomis further influenced by a student’s gender, culture, experiences, aptitudes, interests and particularteaching approaches (Guild, 2001; Stronge, 2004; Tomlinson, 2002, 2004b). Most children acceptthat in a classroom they are not all alike, that while some possess strengths in sport, others may beacademically strong (Tomlinson, 2000a). While it is accepted that the common basis for them allis a need for acceptance, nurturing and respect (Tomlinson, 2004a), attending to differences,assists each student in experiencing a degree of triumph while encouraging them to be all that theycan be as individuals (Fischer and Rose, 2001; Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003; Stronge, 2004;Tomlinson, 2000a). It is necessary to take into account the vast differences among students in aclassroom, acknowledging each student’s strengths while accommodating their limitations (Guild,2001; Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001c, 2002). Contemporary classrooms shouldaccept and build on the basis that learners are all essentially different (Brighton, 2002; Fischer andRose, 2001; Griggs, 1991; Guild, 2001; Tomlinson, 2002). The Dangers of Teaching to the MiddleTeachers need to know how to respond to the burgeoning diversity of contemporary classrooms(Fischer and Rose, 2001; Flem et al., 2000; McCoy and Ketterlin-Geller, 2004; Mulroy andEddinger, 2003; Sizer, 1999; Tomlinson, 2001b, 2004a). The use of the one-size-fits-allcurriculum no longer meets the needs of the majority of learners (Forsten, Grant, and Hollas,2002; McBride, 2004; McCoy and Ketterlin-Geller, 2004; Tomlinson, 2002; Tomlinson andKalbfleisch, 1998). The use of single-paced lessons delivered through a singular instructionalapproach disregards the different learning styles and interests present in all classrooms (Fischerand Rose, 2001; Forsten et al., 2002; Guild, 2001; Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998).In addition, addressing student differences and interest appears to enhance their motivation tolearn while encouraging them to remain committed and stay positive (Stronge, 2004; Tomlinson,2004b). Ignoring these fundamental differences may result in some students falling behind, losingmotivation and failing to succeed (Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998). Students who may beadvanced and motivated may become lost as the teacher strives to finish as much of the
Subban 939curriculum as possible (Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998). It would further appear that studentslearn effectively when tasks are moderately challenging, neither too simple nor too complex(Tomlinson, 2004b). Brain ResearchRecent research into the workings of the human brain has significant implications for educators(Greenleaf, 2003; King-Friedrichs, 2001; Levine, 2003; Nunley, 2003; Scherer, 2001; Tuttle,2000). Brain-based instruction is cognisant of the brain’s natural learning system (Greenleaf,2003). Good instruction within the classroom seeks to utilise the brain adeptly, to process, storeand retrieve information (Greenleaf, 2003). Brain research suggests three broad, related conceptsthat necessitate a differentiated approach (Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998). First, the learningenvironment should be safe and non-threatening to encourage learning (Tomlinson andKalbfleisch, 1998). Children who experience discomfort through rejection, failure, pressure andintimidation may not feel safe within the learning context (Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998).Second, students must be appropriately challenged, the learner should be comfortable enough toaccept the challenge that new learning offers, the content being nether too difficult nor too easy(Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998). Third, the student must be able to make meaning of the ideasand skills through significant association (King-Friedrichs, 2001; Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch,1998). However, this knowledge about the workings of the human brain has yet to impact onclassroom practice and teacher preparation programs (Levine, 2003). Learning StylesNew evidence emerges regularly to support the premise that not all children learn in the same way(Guild, 2001). It is apparent that an awareness of different learning styles is a significant tool tounderstand differences and assist with student development (Strong, Silver, and Perini, 2001).Models of education based on learning styles have equipped teachers with the ability to plan theirlessons and their curriculum, bearing in mind how students learn best (Strong et al., 2001). Beingable to identify a student’s learning style and teach to accommodate these can assist students toachieve better results academically and improve their attitudes toward learning (Green, 1999).Identifying learning styles enables a teacher to capitalise on a student’s strengths and to becomefamiliar with concepts they may find challenging (Green, 1999). Fine (2003) reported a significantgain in the test scores of students on special education programs, after their preferred learningstyle was incorporated into the instruction. Students’ performances were significantly better whenthey were instructed through learning style approaches rather than traditional teaching methods(Fine, 2003). Furthermore, the attitudes of these students toward learning improved significantly,as they felt that their individual strengths were being accommodated (Fine, 2003). Multiple IntelligencesGardner’s theory of the multiple intelligences is a departure from the view that intelligence is asingle, measurable unit (Gardner, 1999). Gardner’s theory focuses on eight intelligences, whilehighlighting the need for problem-solving (Campbell, Campbell, and Dickinson, 1999). Aninstructional technique or program that is heavily reliant on one of the intelligences, minimisesopportunities for students who may not possess a propensity to learn in this way (Gardner, 1999).These students, who may not achieve in the traditional way, may become lost to both the schooland the community at large (Campbell et al., 1999; Gardner, 1999). The multiple intelligences arepresented as tools for learning and problem solving (Campbell et al., 1999; Green, 1999). Creatingopportunities for all students, by enriching the classroom through multiple techniques andassessment forms, develops students and brings out their strengths (Campbell et al., 1999;Gardner, 1999; Green, 1999).
940 Differentiated instruction: A research basis DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT LEARNERSTomlinson (2005), a leading expert in this field, defines differentiated instruction as a philosophyof teaching that is based on the premise that students learn best when their teachers accommodatethe differences in their readiness levels, interests and learning profiles. A chief objective ofdifferentiated instruction is to take full advantage of every student’s ability to learn (Tomlinson,2001a, 2001c, 2004c, 2005). In addition, she points out that differentiating can be performed in avariety of ways, and if teachers are willing to use this philosophy in their classrooms, they opt fora more effective practice that responds to the needs of diverse learners (Tomlinson, 2000a, 2005).Tomlinson (2000) maintains that differentiation is not just an instructional strategy, nor is it arecipe for teaching, rather it is an innovative way of thinking about teaching and learning.To differentiate instruction is to acknowledge various student backgrounds, readiness levels,languages, interests and learning profiles (Hall, 2002). Differentiated instruction sees the learningexperience as social and collaborative, the responsibility of what happens in the classroom is firstto the teacher, but also to the learner (Tomlinson, 2004c). Building on this definition, Mulroy andEddinger (2003) add that differentiated instruction emerged within the context of increasinglydiverse student populations. Within the learning environment permitted by the differentiatedinstruction model, teachers, support staff and professionals collaborate to create an optimallearning experience for students (Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003). Also in this environment, eachstudent is valued for his or her unique strengths, while being offered opportunities to demonstrateskills through a variety of assessment techniques (Mulroy and Eddinger, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001a;Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch, 1998; Tuttle, 2000).This working definition of differentiated instruction reflects Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, themain tenet of which lies in the social, interactional relationship between teacher and student.Tomlinson (2004c) points out that the teacher is the professional in the classroom, an individualwho has been suitably trained to mentor and lead his or her wards, using appropriate techniques,assisting each learner to reach his or her potential within the learning context. Teachers are legallyand ethically bound to be the expert leading the child to full development (Lawrence-Brown,2004; Tomlinson, 2004c). The learners, in responding to the teacher’s prompting, seek to beindependent and self-sufficient, striving for greater awareness of their skills, abilities and ideas,taking increasing responsibility for their lives and their learning (Lawrence-Brown, 2004;Tomlinson, 2004c). The relationship between student and teacher is clearly reciprocal, theresponsibility for development becoming a shared endeavour (Tomlinson, 2004c). In addition, thedifficulty of skills taught should be slightly in advance of the child’s current level of mastery,linking with the Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development.Differentiated instruction presents an effective means to address learner variance (Tomlinson,2000a, 2001a, 2003), avoids the pitfalls of the one-size-fits-all curriculum (McBride, 2004),incorporates current research into the workings of the human brain (Tomlinson, 2001c; Tomlinsonand Kalbfleisch, 1998; Tuttle, 2000) while supporting the multiple intelligences and varyinglearning styles (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tuttle, 2000) within contemporary classrooms. Itprovides a crucial platform for all teachers of inclusive classrooms, to create opportunities forsuccess for all students (Tomlinson, 2000a). The differentiated classroom balances learning needscommon to all students, with more specific needs tagged to individual learners (Tomlinson,2001a). Differentiation can liberate students from labels, offering students individualopportunities to perform at their best (Tomlinson, 2003).Differentiation forces teachers to shift their thinking from completing the curriculum, andcompels them to move closer to catering to individual student needs (Tomlinson, 1999, 2000a). Itallows the teacher to focus on the same key principles for all students, however the instructional
Subban 941process, the pace and rate toward understanding these concepts varies (McAdamis, 2001; Tuttle,2000). There are provisions for every child to learn as quickly and as deeply as possible (Tuttle,2000). Teachers opting for differentiation find that they can use time and resources flexibly andcreatively, assisting to create an atmosphere of collaboration in the classroom (Tuttle, 2000). Hess(1999) reports that as an added bonus, differentiation can be an engaging experience for teachersas it involves a different kind of energy compared to direct instruction. Engaging StudentsA fundamental tenet of the differentiated model, is that teachers must engage students(Tomlinson, 2000a). Research supports the view that curricula should be designed to engagestudents, it should have the ability to connect to their lives and positively influence their levels ofmotivation (Coleman, 2001; Guild, 2001; Hall, 2002; Sizer, 1999; Strong et al., 2001). Teachersare required to know their students, their backgrounds and their cultural links (MacGillivray andRueda, 2001). Knowing students well allows teachers to figure out their strengths, thereby helpingthem to move forward (MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001). Engaging students actively in the learningprocess and in the content allows them to see patterns developing, to see the overlap betweendisciplines, to see learning as a cumulative whole (Coleman, 2001). Catering for Interest, Learning Profile, ReadinessDifferentiated instruction supports the classroom as a community, accommodating differences andsameness (Bosch, 2001; Brimijoin, Marquissee, and Tomlinson, 2003; Lawrence-Brown, 2004;Tomlinson, 2003). It allows for the creation of an environment in which all students can succeedand derive benefit (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson, 2003). Students differ in three importantways – readiness, interests and learning profiles – in a differentiated classroom, the teacher isobliged to attend to these differences in order to maximise the learning potential of each student inthat classroom (Tomlinson, 2000b, 2001a).Student interests vary, these interest can become effective tools to support learning in thedifferentiated classroom (Tomlinson, 2001a). Tomlinson (2001a) sees student interests as apowerful motivator, which wise teachers could take advantage of within the differentiatedclassroom. Teachers should find ways to engage students, by tapping into what interests students,and by involving students in the daily running of the classroom (MacGillivray and Rueda, 2001).Activities and discussions that are built around students’ concerns and their life experiencesallows the curriculum to become more meaningful to students (Bosch, 2001; MacGillivray andRueda, 2001; McBride, 2004; Tomlinson, 2000b, 2001a). Allowing for student interests withinthe learning community, ensures that even marginalised students find a place (Lawrence-Brown,2004). Most students, even struggling learners, have aptitudes and passions, providing anopportunity within the classroom for them to explore and express these interests, mitigates againstthe sense of failure previously experienced by these students (Lawrence-Brown, 2004).Differentiated instruction takes cognisance of student variance by allowing the teacher to plantheir content and process, supporting diverse learning styles (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson,2001a). Opportunities can be created to foster group learning and provide options for individualinstruction or independent learning (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Tomlinson, 2001a). Teachers whoare perceptive to the learning needs of their students help learners to make productive choicesabout the ways in which they will learn best (Tomlinson, 2001a). It further empowers the teacherto prioritise tasks to enrich the learning experience of specific students, students on individualisededucation plans can be directed to tasks which involve mastering essential skills, while studentson accelerated programs may be challenged through compacting tasks or independent researchprojects (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Differentiated instruction makes it possible for the teacher to
942 Differentiated instruction: A research basisinclude authentic instruction, using project-based learning, bringing relevant and meaningfulknowledge into the classroom (Lawrence-Brown, 2004).Readiness makes reference to the point of entry of each student (Tomlinson, 2000a), while somestudents are typically at their grade level, others may be performing at below the level of theirpeers, while still others are a year or so ahead (Tomlinson, 2001a). Readiness levels vary greatlyin current contexts, by devising support and material to support all learners, differentiatedinstruction develops an atmosphere for success for all learners (Lawrence-Brown, 2004). Teachersshould be able to discern the evolving readiness levels of students in their care and accommodatethese by providing tasks that are neither too easy, nor too challenging (Tomlinson, 2001a, 2003). RESEARCH STUDIES SUPPORTING THE USE OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTIONSeveral recent studies have shown positive outcomes from the use of differentiated instruction.Johnsen (2003) conducted a study using undergraduate teachers differentiating instruction to suitdifferent ability levels. Student teachers in this context were encouraged to differentiate contentand process, using learning centres, different reading materials and different strategies (Johnsen,2003). The study revealed that the use of differentiated techniques proved to be engaging,stimulated student interest and providing a gratifying experience for the undergraduate teachers(Johnsen, 2003). While the undergraduate teachers appeared to benefit from a rewardingexperience, Johnsen (2003) does point out that students with exceptional needs continued toreceive individual specialist support through other services. This begs the question: willdifferentiation completely meet the complex needs of all heterogeneous learners in the regularclassroom, if all other support services are withdrawn?A case study of one middle school’s experience with differentiated instruction by Tomlinson(1995) revealed initial teacher opposition toward modifying instruction to suit learner variance.Added to this, administrative barriers including teacher dissention about being instructed toimplement differentiated strategies by district officials, impacted on the teacher’s sense of selfefficacy (Tomlinson, 1995). Other barriers included teachers perceiving differentiated instructionas a fad that would pass, concerns over time allocated to prepare for differentiated lesson, uneaseover student assessments and preparation for testing, disquiet regarding classroom managementand perceived teacher insecurity over a change in their role (Tomlinson, 1995). Observations ofthose teachers who adopted the use of differentiated techniques demonstrated that age was not afactor determining acceptance of the new exemplar. However, the teacher’s attitude towardschange proved a more decisive factor, with teachers who embraced change showing a greaterinclination to adopt differentiation (Tomlinson, 1995). Teachers who experienced early successeswith differentiation were more likely to persist. (Tomlinson, 1995). Tomlinson (1995) concludedthat there was a need to investigate teacher resistance to new models catering for academicdiversity, as well as considering teachers’ perception of classroom management in the light ofthese changes. Classroom management appears to arise as a disquieting factor when changes areimplemented – this phenomenon requires greater research since proponents of the differentiatedinstruction model believe that classroom management issues will decrease if teachers implementthe model efficiently, yet there remains disquiet about a loss of control among teachers.In a study investigating the use of differentiated instruction on student scores on standardisedtests, teachers’ perceptions of their ability to meet the needs of diverse students and parents’expectation of student performance, Hodge (1997) found that students who were prepared for testsusing differentiated techniques showed a gain in their mathematics scores, but there were nocomparable gains in reading scores. Further, teachers’ perceptions of being able to meet the needsof diverse learners in their classrooms do not appear to be influenced by the use of traditional ordifferentiated instructional techniques (Hodge, 1997). With literacy levels being of great concern
Subban 943to education authorities, it may be worth investigating whether student gains following the use ofdifferentiated instruction are limited to learning areas like mathematics, while areas such asliteracy require more traditional methods.Tomlinson, Moon and Callahan (1998) investigated the nature of instructional practice amongmiddle school populations, considering the degree to which teachers respond appropriately toacademic diversity, using differentiation. This study revealed that very few teachers take studentinterests, learning profile or cultural differences into account when they plan lessons (Tomlinsonet al., 1998). It was apparent that modifications to the tasks set were unusual and limited, with fewteachers opting for differentiation of any form (Tomlinson et al., 1998). Some of the teachers whoused varied instructional strategies facilitated more flexible classrooms, which allowed them toaccommodate student needs more appropriately (Tomlinson et al., 1998). Most teachers expressedfrustration about attempting to deal with learner variance, with many choosing the one-size-fits-allapproach to teaching (Tomlinson et al., 1998). The results yielded from this study bodes poorlyfor both struggling and advanced learners, and highlights the need to rethink the current model ofschooling (Tomlinson et al., 1998). These findings suggest an urgent need for another model thatdeliberately focuses on assisting teachers in their attempts to cater for burgeoning studentdiversity.Differentiated instruction may mirror tracking as some teachers attempt to provide for theacademic diversity of contemporary classrooms. This was evident in a study by Blozowich (2001)who found that teachers used a variety of techniques but continued to prepare lessons as theywould for a tracked classroom. This researcher concluded that teachers implementingdifferentiated instruction require continuous and consistent professional development, coupledwith intensive dialogue and consultation about how these techniques are being implemented in theclassroom (Blozowich, 2001). Robison (2004) calls for further research into the utilisation ofdifferentiated instruction techniques, as teachers view the issue of increased planning time withunease. Teachers also require support structures and cooperative teamwork to assist them as theyprepare lessons incorporating differentiated instruction (Robison, 2004). Both tracking and timeconstraints require further investigation as potential barriers to the implementation ofdifferentiated instruction.McAdamis (2001) reported significant improvement in the test scores of low-scoring students inthe Rockwood School District (Missouri), following the use of differentiated instruction. Apartfrom this tangible impact of the differentiated model, teachers in this study indicated that theirstudents were more motivated and enthusiastic about learning. This study further reflected thewhole-school change which differentiated instruction necessitates – efforts included professionaldevelopment, mentoring and intensive planning (McAdamis, 2001). Teachers were initiallyresistant to the change, however strategies like peer coaching, action research, study groups andworkshops offered on-going support and feedback (McAdamis, 2001). Teachers were eventuallyconvinced of the benefits of differentiation and were keen to try other differentiated lessons in theyear following (McAdamis, 2001). It is worth pointing out that training sessions, mentoring andprofessional development in this study were implemented over a five year period, and required aconcerted response from all stakeholders including school principals, teachers, district trainers andschool authorities (McAdamis, 2001). This study confirms the need for whole-school and whole-district change – without these essential support structures and the cooperation of all participants,it is unlikely that any differentiated program will endure. Further to this, it is clear that the resultsof a differentiated program can only be seen over a few years, with the initial stages being utilisedto overcome teacher resistance and encourage a sustained effort.An investigation of differentiated instruction strategies utilised by teachers in a study conductedby Affholder (2003) concluded that teachers who used these strategies more intensively showed
944 Differentiated instruction: A research basisimproved individual perception and adopted greater responsibility for student growth. In addition,this study revealed that teachers employing higher levels of differentiated techniques experiencedincreased feelings of self-efficacy and demonstrated greater willingness to try new instructionalapproaches (Affholder, 2003). It would further appear that differentiated instruction was favouredby more experienced teachers who were familiar with the curriculum they taught and who hadreceived extensive training prior to implementing these methods in the classroom (Affholder,2003). In the light of these findings, it may be reasonable to investigate why differentiation provedmore popular with experienced teachers rather than their younger counterparts. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThree intersecting principles gleaned from the literature review serve as the basis for this researchand development. First, from Vygotsky’s grounded learning theory, which holds that reciprocalsocial interaction and the collaborative relationship between teacher and student, accommodateslearning in a developmental and historical sense. Second, that the learning context is a socialcontext which encourages the development of cognitive functions and communication skills.Social interaction between the learner and a knowledgeable adult enhances the possibility ofintellectual activity. The third principle, drawn from research into the workings of the humanbrain and recent revelations regarding the multiple intelligences and learning styles, acknowledgesthat the potential for learning is enlarged if learners are engaged, associate new learning withexisting information and are allowed to consolidate this information in a manner suited to anindividual learning style.Progressing from this theoretical basis, this study further takes cognisance of the tenets supportingthe move to differentiate instruction, including contemporary student diversity, the dangers ofteaching to the middle, research into the workings of the human brain, investigations intoindividual learning styles and the theories of multiple intelligences. Previous studies into the useof differentiated techniques in the classroom have considered student engagement (Johnsen, 2003;McAdamis, 2001), the experiences and reactions of teachers to heterogeneous classrooms(Johnsen, 2003; Tomlinson, 1995), administrative prerequisites (Tomlinson, 1995), the impact ofdifferentiated techniques on test scores (Hodge, 1997) and the degree to which tasks areaugmented or modified for gifted and struggling learners (Tomlinson et al., 1998). Aspects thatcontinue to require investigation include the impact of differentiated instruction on teacherefficacy, the teacher’s response to adopting a new model, the differences between differentiationand tracking, the impact of teaching experience on the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction,how time and resources are utilised during differentiation and, the challenges and strengths thatteachers’ perceive during the implementation of differentiated techniques. REFERENCESAffholder, L. P. (2003). Differentiated instruction in inclusive elementary classrooms. Unpublished EdD thesis. University of Kansas, Kansas.Blanton, M. L. (1998). Prospective teachers emerging pedagogical content knowledge during the professional semester. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. North Carolina State University. [Online] http://www.ncsu.edu/crmse/research_papers/blanton.diss.doc [11 November, 2003].Blozowich, D. G. (2001). Differentiated instruction in heterogeneously grouped sixth grade classrooms. Unpublished EdD thesis. Immaculata College.Bosch, N. (2001). Differentiated Curriculum. [Online] http://www.adifferentplace.org/ differentiated.htm [11 November, 2003].Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: Implementing best practices in an age of accountability. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 30-33.
Subban 945Brimijoin, K., Marquissee, E., and Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Using data to differentiate instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 70-73.Brooks, J. G. (2004). To see beyond the lesson. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 8-12.Burton, J. (2000). The configuration of meaning: Learner-centred art education revisited. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 330-345.Campbell, L., Campbell, C., and Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and Learning Through the Multiple Intelligences (2nd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., and Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for Understanding. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Coleman, M. R. (2001). Curriculum differentiation: Sophistication. Gifted Child Today, 24(2), 24- 26.Davis, B., Sumara, D., and Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging Minds: Learning and Teaching in a Complex World. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Fine, D. (2003). A sense of learning style. Principal Leadership, 4(2), 55-60.Fischer, K. W., and Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of skill: How students learn. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 6-123.Flem, A., Moen, T., and Gudmundsdottir, S. (2000). Towards inclusive schools: a study of how a teacher facilitated differentiated instruction. Paper presented at the ECER Conference, Edinburgh.Forsten, C., Grant, J., and Hollas, B. (2002). Differentiated Instruction. Different Strategies for Different Learners. Peterborough: Crystal Springs Books.Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Tonelson, S. W., and Van Acker, R. (2000). Changing disciplinary and instructional practices in the middle school to address IDEA. The Clearing House, 73(4), 205-208.Gardner, H. (1999). The Disciplined Mind: What all Students Should Understand. New York: Simon and Schuster.Goldfarb, M. E. (2000). The Educational Theory of Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934). New Foundations. [Online] http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.html [20 August, 2005].Green, F. R. (1999). Brain and learning research: Implications for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Education, 119(4), 682-688.Greenleaf, R. K. (2003). Motion and emotion. Principal Leadership, 3(9), 14-19.Griggs, S. A. (1991). Learning Styles Counselling. ERIC Digest, ED341890.Guild, P. B. (2001). Diversity, Learning Style and Culture. New Horizons for Learning. [Online] http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/styles.guild.htm [15 May 2005].Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated Instruction. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, CAST, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. [Online] http://www.cast.org/ncac/classroompractice/cpractice02.doc [15 May 2005].Hess, M. A. (1999, 26 March 1999). Teaching in mixed ability classrooms. Wisconsin Education Association Council. [Online] http://www.weac.org/kids/1998-99/march99/differ.htm [31 October, 2003].Hodge, P. H. (1997). An analysis of the impact of a prescribed staff development program in differentiated instruction on student achievement and the attitudes of teachers and parents toward that instruction. Unpublished EdD thesis. University of Alabama.Johnsen, S. (2003). Adapting instruction with heterogenous groups. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 5- 6.Kearsley, G. (1996). Social Development Theory. Open Learning Technology Cooperation. [Online] http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/CP/041.htm [9 September, 2005.Kearsley, G. (2005). Social Development Theory. Theory into Practice Database. [Online] http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html [27 August, 2005].
946 Differentiated instruction: A research basisKing-Friedrichs, J. (2001). Brain friendly techniques for improving memory. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 76-79.Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62.Levine, M. (2003). Celebrating diverse minds. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 12-18.MacGillivray, L., and Rueda, R. (2001). Listening to inner city teachers of English language learners: Differentiating literacy instruction. Education Research and Development Centres Program. [Online] http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001- 05/0105McRued.htm [12 April, 2005].McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1-5.McBride, B. (2004). Data-driven instructional methods: "One-strategy-fits-all" doesnt work in real classrooms. T.H.E Journal, 31(11), 38-40.McCoy, J. D., and Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2004). Rethinking instructional delivery for diverse student populations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 88-95.McIlrath, D. A., and Huitt, W., G. (1995). The teaching-learning process: A discussion of models. Valdosta State University. [Online] http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/ modeltch.html [15 July, 2005].Mulroy, H., and Eddinger, K. (2003). Differentiation and literacy. Paper presented at the Institute on Inclusive Education, Rochester.Nunley, K. F. (2003). Giving credit where credit is due. Principal Leadership, 3(9), 26-30.Patsula, P. J. (1999). Applying learning theories to online instructional design. Athabasca University, Seoul. [Online] http://www.patsula.com/usefo/webbasedlearning/tutorial1/ [9 September, 2005].Riddle, E. M., and Dabbagh, N. (1999). Lev Vygotskys Social Development Theory. [Online] http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knwledgebase/theorists/constructivism/vygotsky.htm [18 August, 2005].Robison, E. M. (2004). Teacher decision-making in utilising differentiated instruction. Unpublished PhD thesis. Marywood University.Rueda, R., Goldenberg, C., and Gallimore, R. (1992). Rating Instructional Conversations: A Guide. National Centre for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. [Online] http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr4.htm [12 September 2005].Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2002). Sociocultural Theory. [Online] http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/ handouts/sociocult.html [9 September, 2005].Scherer, M. (2001). The brain and learning. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 5.Shambaugh, N., and Magliaro, S. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. ETRandD, 49(2), 69-92.Sizer, T. R. (1999). No two are quite alike. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 6-11.Strong, R. W., Silver, H. F., and Perini, M. J. (2001). Making students as important as standards. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 56-61.Stronge, J. (2004). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: What do good teachers do? Paper presented at the American Association of School Administrators Annual Conference and Exposition, San Francisco, California.Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge, Engaland: Cambridge University Press.Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in the middle school: One schools journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77-114.Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Subban 947Tomlinson, C. A. (2000a). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Tomlinson, C. A. (2000b). Reconciliable differences. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.Tomlinson, C. A. (2001a). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3-6.Tomlinson, C. A. (2001b). Grading for success. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 12-15.Tomlinson, C. A. (2001c). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Different learners different lessons. Instructor, 112(2), 21-25.Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.Tomlinson, C. A. (2004a). Differentiation in diverse settings. School Administrator, 61(7), 28-33.Tomlinson, C. A. (2004b). Research evidence for differentiation. School Administrator, 61(7), 30.Tomlinson, C. A. (2004c). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-200.Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 262-269.Tomlinson, C. A., and Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52-55.Tomlinson, C. A., Moon, T. R., and Callahan, C. M. (1998). How well are we addressing academic diversity in the middle school? Middle School Journal, 29(3), 3-11.Tuttle, J. (2000). Differentiated Classrooms (Report). Woodbury: Cedar Mountain Academy. IEJ