Differentiated Instruction and the Achievement Gap

Introduction to Differentiated Instruction

In general terms, differentiated instruction is learning with student variability in mind. This approach establishes a starting point where students are taught with regard to their individual differences, rather than adopting a standardized approach that assumes all learners of a given age or grade are fundamentally similar. Differentiated instruction is considered a more flexible form of teaching than the one-size-fits-all model. A teacher using differentiated instruction plans various approaches to what students need to learn, how students will learn it, and how they can demonstrate what they have learned — all in order to increase the likelihood that each student will learn as much as possible, as efficiently as possible (Tomlinson, 2003).

Historical and Theoretical Foundations

The principles underlying differentiated instruction originate from theory, research, and educational common sense. Modern learning environments are becoming more academically diverse in most regions of the world. Most classrooms include students of both genders and multiple cultural backgrounds. Many include students who do not speak English as their first language, and others contain students with various exceptionalities and markedly different experiential backgrounds. These students are generally expected to work at differing readiness levels, have different interests, and learn in a variety of ways (Tomlinson, 2003).

According to professional psychologists, a student learns only when a task offers some degree of challenge. When a student is working with minimal effort and is virtually independent, that student is not learning. When a student finds a task beyond his or her capability, frustration and lack of learning may result. Learning occurs only when a task is slightly ahead of the student's comfort level and the student receives the support needed to bridge the gap. This optimal stage of difficulty is referred to as the student's zone of proximal development. Given the diversity of modern classrooms, it is unlikely that a teacher can consistently develop common learning experiences that fall within the zones of proximal development of all students in a given class (Sheelah and Beecher, 2008).

Research on the human brain suggests that when a task is too complicated for a learner, the brain shifts activity to the limbic area — the part that does not engage in higher-order thinking. This response is understood as a protective mechanism. Conversely, when tasks are too easy, the learner does not exhibit thoughtful brain activity, displaying patterns that resemble the early signs of sleep. It is only when a task is moderately challenging that the brain reacts in a way that activates learning. For this reason, a teacher will find it difficult to consistently identify single tasks that are moderately challenging for all learners in a class that includes different skill levels (Tomlinson, 2003).

Tomlinson (2003) suggests that learning patterns and preferences likely vary by gender, with biological, cultural, and environmental origins all playing a role. Culture also has a vital bearing on how an individual learns. While all members of a given culture learn differently, learning environments and instructional procedures that are comfortable for one cultural group may not be comfortable for another. When classrooms represent a cultural mismatch, the students who occupy them often perform poorly. In classrooms where multiple cultural groups are represented, a single approach to teaching and learning is unlikely to serve all students effectively. Furthermore, even within more culturally homogeneous classrooms, students vary considerably — meaning that multiple approaches to teaching and learning are broadly beneficial.

Students are highly motivated and task-persistent when working on topics connected to their personal interests. When instruction is modified to engage student interests, the likely results include greater student engagement, higher intrinsic motivation, increased productivity, greater autonomy, improved achievement, and a stronger sense of competence. Encouraging students to link required learning to their personal interests is therefore an important instructional adjustment. Attention to a learner's culture, language, ethnicity, and economic background can further support and encourage the learner (Bravmann, 2004).

The Achievement Gap and Focus of Research

The current state of education underscores how important it is to have a clear understanding of the premises of differentiation. Legislation intended to leave no child behind has placed increasing pressure on school systems, teachers, and students alike. The focus on all learners as a collective, rather than on each learner as an individual, is particularly problematic. This orientation encourages teachers to direct their efforts toward the group rather than addressing the needs of individual students. As a result, the content taught tends to address the needs of some groups but not others. The principle of equity requires that every learner be central to the learning process and educated in ways that appropriately address individual needs (Sheelah and Beecher, 2008).

This research focuses on a unique approach to reducing the achievement gap among learners. These gaps arise from cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and economic differences among diverse groups. The differentiated instruction approach is expected to improve student achievement and reduce the gap between higher- and lower-income students as well as among different ethnic groups. The improvement process begins with a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all dimensions of the current system. A strategic plan incorporating broad instructional goals, learning objectives, and detailed action plans will then be devised (Sheelah and Beecher, 2008).

Differentiation is chosen as the method for improving the learning environment based on evidence that engagement in learning is enhanced when students' interests and choices are considered. The need to provide learning experiences that are responsive to the characteristics of a diverse student population is central to this approach.

References

Aronson, J., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.

Bravmann, S. (2004). Two, four, six, eight, let's all differentiate: Differential education — yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Forsten, C., Grant, J., & Hollas, B. (2002). Differentiated instruction: Different strategies for different learners. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.

McKinley, J. (2003). Leveling the playing field and raising African American students' achievement in twenty-nine urban classrooms.

Norlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all students in your classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Shade, B. J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Sheelah, M. S., & Beecher, M. (2008). Differentiated instructions in learning. Journal of Advanced Academics.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Differentiating instruction for academic diversity. In J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills (7th ed., pp. 149–180). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.