Differentiation in elementary classrooms

In conjunction with the Utah Educational Policy Research center and under the supervision of Dr. Andrea Rorrer, this paper examines the current research surrounding differentiation in public elementary school (K-5) classrooms in the United States. This paper will seek to find a clear, singular definition of differentiation, including means by which teachers may differentiate. This will encompass differentiation of content (what students are learning), process (how students are being taught) and product (how students demonstrate what they have learned). It will also explore the benefits, challenges, and weaknesses for students, teachers and administrators. Areas for potential future research and gaps in current research will also be explored. In order to help educators and administrators determine if instruction is well-differentiated, an evaluation matrix has been created.

DIFFERENTIATION IN ELEMNTARY CLASSROOMS by Netanya Elise Maxwell A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Science In Elementary Education Approved: ____________________ Dr. Andrea Rorrer Supervisor ____________________ Mary Burbank Director, Urban Institute of Teacher Education ____________________ Dr. Lauren Aimonette Liang Elementary Education Honors Advisor ____________________ Dr. Sylvia D. Torti Dean, Honors College April 2014 Abstract In conjunction with the Utah Educational Policy Research center and under the supervision of Dr. Andrea Rorrer, this paper examines the current research surrounding differentiation in public elementary school (K-5) classrooms in the United States. This paper will seek to find a clear, singular definition of differentiation, including means by which teachers may differentiate. This will encompass differentiation of content (what students are learning), process (how students are being taught) and product (how students demonstrate what they have learned). It will also explore the benefits, challenges, and weaknesses for students, teachers and administrators. Areas for potential future research and gaps in current research will also be explored. In order to help educators and administrators determine if instruction is well-differentiated, an evaluation matrix has been created. ii Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Definition ............................................................................................................................. 1 Means .................................................................................................................................. 2 Content ............................................................................................................................. 4 Process ............................................................................................................................. 5 Grouping ....................................................................................................................... 5 Task .............................................................................................................................. 6 Supports ........................................................................................................................ 8 Product and demonstration............................................................................................... 9 Structure ......................................................................................................................... 10 Non-examples ................................................................................................................ 11 Benefits .............................................................................................................................. 11 Weaknesses........................................................................................................................ 11 Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 13 Gaps ................................................................................................................................... 14 Evaluation Matrix .............................................................................................................. 18 Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 19 Learning outcomes ......................................................................................................... 20 Presentation .................................................................................................................... 21 Learning activities .......................................................................................................... 22 Grouping ........................................................................................................................ 23 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 24 References ......................................................................................................................... 25 iii 1 Introduction In the world of education, “differentiation” is a buzzword. Most major publications tout the merits of a differentiated classroom and many educators agree that ideal classrooms incorporate differentiation. Yet, there seems to be a huge gap between the theory and practice. Despite the perceived benefits, there is not a clear definition of differentiation or even an idea of what it should look like. There is no clear research that recommends a specific approach or method and it is unlikely there will ever be a formula for how to differentiate. Definitions The definition of differentiation seems to be hard to pin down. As one teacher put it, it is like “a bar of soap, really, you try and grasp it and suddenly it shoots out of your hand” (Kershner & Miles, 1996). Indeed, differentiation is widely disputed in its actual definition. Each teacher, with his or her own schema and experiences, will define differentiation differently. “On the most basic level, a differentiated classroom is one in which a teacher attempts to understand the particular needs of a learner and adapts curriculum and instruction to be responsive to those needs” (Tomlinson, 2001). This is in contrast to “traditional” education, or homogenous classrooms, where every student is taught the same and held to the same expectations in their performance and products. Traditionally, teachers taught and students were expected to adapt to this instruction. Meanwhile, differentiation is “a process to approach teaching and learning for students of differing abilities in the same class. The intent is to maximize each student’s growth and individual success by meeting each student where he or she is rather than expecting students to modify themselves for the curriculum” (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2007). In 2 a differentiated classroom, it is not the students, but rather the teacher, that adapts. As a result of every classroom having a different demographic, there will possibly never be a clear-cut definition of differentiation. However, the goal will remain the same regardless of the setting or the students. “The goal of differentiation in the regular classroom is not to eliminate other services for advanced learners. It is always going to be necessary to have a range of services and learning options for the full range of learners in most schools. The goal of differentiation in the regular classroom is to ensure that this central and powerful component in the educational lives of most students is a full partner in ensuring an appropriate, high quality education based on the particular learning needs of each individual” (Tomlinson, 2001). Differentiation seeks to meet the unique needs of each individual learner in today’s heterogeneous classrooms. Means The first step to differentiating a classroom is recognizing how students vary from one another. Teachers need to recognize the root of their students’ differences. “Differentiation which genuinely allows for diversity of learning style or approach may need to take the following factors into account: variations in fluency of English, which may not be the first language; those who read visual, iconic, or numerical material more readily than verbal texts; gender differences; physical differences; those who learn better by ear than by eye; those who learn through practical experience; the range of previous experiences brought to the classroom; as well as the fact that any learner might use a range of approaches to learning according to the task, the context, the time of day, the learner’s perceived needs, etc.” (Kershner & Miles, 1996). However, some teachers may be overwhelmed by this long list of differences. Furthermore, while there may be gender 3 differences there is not a clear need to differentiate for them. Even if there were, there is no clear way to do so. However, “research, classroom observation, and common sense tell us that students differ in at least three important ways—readiness to undertake a particular task at a particular time, interests, and preferred ways of learning” (Tomlinson, 2001). There are three basic ways in which teachers can differentiate. “Teachers usually differentiate instruction by adjusting one or more of the following: the content (what students learn); the process (how students learn); or the product (how students demonstrate their mastery of the knowledge or skills)” (Huebner, 2010). Tomlinson suggests adapting instruction using the “WHERETO” framework: W=How will I help my learners know what they will be learning?; H=How will I hook and engage the learners?; E=How will I equip students to master identified standards and succeed with the targeted performances? What learning experiences will help develop a deepened understanding of important ideas?; R=How will I encourage the learners to rethink previous learning? How will I encourage ongoing revision and refinement?; E=How will I promote students’ self-evaluation and reflection?; T=How will I tailor the learning activities and my teaching to address the different readiness levels, learning profiles, and interests of my students?; O=How will the learning experiences be organized to maximize engaging and effective learning? (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). In general, it is most effective to group students by their needs. With current class sizes, teachers cannot reasonably teach one-on-one all the time. As such, grouping students can be effective. “Deployment is the practice of students moving in small, flexible, short-term progress groups to a teacher who provides specific instruction to meet their learning needs. This has been implemented by grade-level teams over time” 4 (Cusumano & Mueller, 2007). It is important to note that groups are short-term and flexible. Grouping and tracking are not synonymous. Groups are merely created to most effectively target trending student needs. There are also a few guiding principles that teachers can refer to when starting to differentiate their classroom. “Focus on essential ideas and skills of the content area, eliminating ancillary tasks and activities. Respond to individual student differences (such as learning style, prior knowledge, interests, and level of engagement). Group students flexibly by shared interest, topic, or ability. Integrate ongoing and meaningful assessment with instruction. Continually assess; reflect; and adjust content, process, and product to meet student needs” (Huebner, 2010). This is an extensive list of principles for teachers to follow. However, differentiation is not highly effective without all of these principals in place. Content A primary principle of differentiation is that the teacher expects that all students work at high levels of thought and reasoning while targeting essential knowledge, understanding and skill (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). As such, differentiation should not be mistaken with allowing students to opt-out of required content. Rather, it is making the content accessible to all students. Thus, content differentiation is the least common in the average classroom. Content differentiation is typically a result of intervention. However, as a typical lesson progresses, it quickly becomes obvious that some students already know the content, some will get there quickly, and some will need a lot of extra help. Some students will need to be taught or retaught prerequisite and foundational skills in order to access new content. Differentiation requires fluidity in 5 teaching to recognize which students are able to go above and beyond the required content with enrichment activities and which students will need assistance and further instruction to master a learning outcome. Students who have been identified as having already mastered skills and acquired the knowledge in the unit should be provided with alternate work in alignment with the original lesson (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). This should not be additional work, lest students feel they are being punished for success. Rather, the alternate work for excelling students should be targeted to their skills to allow them to perform on a more challenging level. Process Differentiation can take several different forms. The key to all successful differentiation, however, is flexibility. The way students learn can be affected by several factors. This might include how students are grouped, their role within the group, the tasks assigned to them, and the additional supports they receive. Grouping. “A nonnegotiable aspect of effective differentiation is that teachers plan a consistent flow of varied student groupings within a unit of study based on the nature of the work and the individual needs of students” (Tomlinson & Imbeau, Leading and Managing A Differentiated Classroom, 2010). Students should have the opportunity to work with students who are on their level so they build efficacy and confidence in their abilities while also allowing the teacher to target their specific needs. However, not all grouping should be based on ability. Students are more likely to succeed if they are grouped with students who share similar interests. This will also encourage them to reach beyond their current independent level. This will also create a stronger desire to learn as students are engaged in what they consider to be interesting tasks. 6 Within groups, students should have individual roles so they feel genuinely important and necessary for the group’s progress. If each student does not have a way to contribute, they will not only lose efficacy but they will also not gain academically from the experience. Groups with unequal contributions create a caste system and do not develop a sense of community in the classroom (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). This type of caste system and inequality among students is incredibly detrimental to their learning and social growth. Task. For struggling students, it is far too easy to assign worksheets with extra practice and simpler tasks with a drill-and-kill mentality. This is neither an appropriate nor an effective form of differentiation. “Occasionally, a student or group will need time to practice a discrete skill, but there should not be student groups that consistently practice skills out of context while other tasks cast students as thinkers, problem solvers, and creators” (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). These students need to have tasks that are not only challenging for them, but also engage their higher-order skills. There should be context and importance to their tasks. It is essential that rather than using single-ability tasks, which draw success from only a specific domain of learner, teachers utilize multiple-ability tasks. These tasks often use a variety of media to make the content comprehensible. They also allow for students to express their learning in a variety of ways (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). There is a specific type of learner that is successful in a traditional classroom. The goal of differentiation is to ensure that all learners can be successful in the classroom. This requires that tasks are designed to reach as many learning styles as possible. 7 It may benefit teachers to utilize Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (MI) when creating differentiated instruction. Gardner’s MI theory has become widely recognized. It includes linguistic and logical mathematical intelligences as well as spatial visual, musical, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligences. Gardner claims that these intelligences are fundamentally different at a core processing level and that students will be more likely to achieve higher-order thinking skills in an area of intellectual strength (Gardner, 1993). In order to draw on these intelligences, teachers can create a variety of options for students so they can choose what best suits their learning style. Teachers should be careful to keep tasks on a relatively similar taxonomic level. Teachers can refer to Bloom’s taxonomy and categorize tasks as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (Bloom, 1966). Next, teachers can design or choose tasks within the same taxonomy level. Demonstrating Understanding of Volcanoes Through Different Intelligences In the figure above, one researcher has created ways in which students can apply their learning of the formation and eruption of volcanoes. All tasks fall within the “apply” category of Bloom’s Taxonomy. However, they all cater to different intelligences, as noted in the figure. This allows students to engage with the content on a higher-level 8 according to their individual strengths (Noble, 2004). However, teachers should be careful to avoid “the confusion of intelligences with learning styles and the confounding of human intelligence with societal domain (e.g. musical intelligence being equated with mastery of a certain musical genre or role)” (Gardner, 2003). Teachers cannot assume that a child with a specific type of intelligence will always succeed in similar tasks. Furthermore, teachers should never isolate work to just a student’s dominant intelligence. It is important to help students strengthen different types of intelligences. However, by determining how tasks align with intelligences will allow teachers to better understand and adapt their expectations of students. Supports. Some support systems seem obvious, like allowing a student with poor eyesight sit closer to the board. However, there are other supports that can be easily added to the classroom and individual lessons that will help both struggling and gifted students engage and excel. Consider creating hint cards for students to access if they forget a concept or the specifics of a procedure. This will not only increase independence, but will also help students who may be too shy to ask for help during a lesson (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). This keeps students from getting stuck on one problem or step and wasting valuable learning time. When assigning tasks, teachers should always show examples of previous work that is considered exemplary, including examples that have varied levels of complexity in order to differentiate expectations of product (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Expectations should always be clear. Providing examples also allows students to feel that the work is more approachable rather than a vague concept they cannot manage. 9 All supplies should be clearly labeled and color-coded so students have established procedures for finding what they need. Color-coding supplies will help students who are just learning to read or are English Language Learners. Teachers should provide a variety of leveled texts that students can access in order to support their learning or extend it (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). This ensures students are consistently building their literacy throughout the school day. By allowing students access to reading that is on their level, teachers are more likely to engage every student in authentic learning while valuing their current skills. Product and demonstration A well-differentiated classroom will allow students to demonstrate their understanding and abilities in a variety of ways. “Assessments that allow more than one way to demonstrate mastery are likely to serve more students better” (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). This can be a bit tricky when it comes to grading. However, a grade should communicate what a student knows, understands, and can do rather than how they compare to their peers (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Teachers may consider providing choice menus for students with suggested ways to demonstrate their learning. 10 Structure When starting to differentiate, many teachers are understandably overwhelmed. Teachers may refer to the figure below when designing lessons and units. The chart follows the instructional process and notes several places where teachers can differentiate. Pre-Assessment • • Access background knowledge Determine what students know and understand Grouping • • Curriculum/Content Group based on abilities and/or interests Grouping should be flexible • • • What does this group need to know? What part of the core will be taught? What benchmark will be reached? Process • • • • How will each particular group learn this information? What will the whole-class instruction look like? Pairs/Groups Hands-on Learning Product • Students demonstrate understanding, learning, and/or skills Formative Assessment Adapted from (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2007) Summative Assessment 11 Non-Examples Perhaps the simplest way to understand what differentiation is, is to understand what differentiation is not. Differentiation is not: • Isolating students because they are far above or below grade level. • Creating curriculum for each individual student. • Tracking students into ability groups. • Allowing students to create their own curriculum. Benefits There is a concern that with differentiation, only struggling students will prosper. However, research shows that properly implemented differentiation provides benefits for all students. When teachers differentiate, they seek to meet the needs of not only students with disabilities or special needs, but also “average” and high-ability students. When differentiating for incredibly high-ability students, teachers provide tasks of a higher level of complexity. Many teachers will refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to create a task that requires a higher-order thought process. “Differentiated instruction [is] effective for keeping high-ability students challenged in heterogeneous classrooms” (Huebner, 2010). Often, gifted students will become disengaged in their classrooms out of boredom. Through differentiation, teachers can provide an additional level of challenge that will help keep their high-ability students engaged. Students with special needs or learning disabilities will also benefit from differentiation. Some teachers may rely purely on pullout programs or specialists to meet the needs of their students with special needs. However, students with mild to moderate 12 needs benefit from having additional support in their general classroom. “Compared with the general student population, students with mild or severe learning disabilities received more benefits from differentiated and intensive support, especially when the differentiation was delivered in small groups or with targeted instruction” (McQuarrie, McRae, & Stack-Cutler, 2008). Through differentiation, teachers can tailor their classroom to meet the needs of each student. Teachers are advised to keep their students in their individual zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1980). As such, it is important that teachers pre-assess and continually engage in formative and summative assessment in order to understand students’ abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. “Only when students work at appropriate challenge levels do they develop the essential habits of persistence, curiosity, and willingness to take intellectual risks” (Tomlinson, 2001). Developing these skills can lead to greater academic, professional, and social achievement in both compulsory schooling and later in life (Tough, 2013). The benefits of differentiated classrooms reaches beyond individual achievement. One failing school sought to implement differentiation in all its classrooms. At the end of the school year, the principal noted that “there [had] been a significant decline in student discipline referrals, teacher morale [was] higher, and remarkable improvement [had] been made in students’ reading, writing, and math performance levels” (Cusumano & Mueller, 2007). As teachers engage in authentic, well-planned differentiation, students have a greater sense of ownership over their learning and are more likely to achieve both inside and outside of the academic realm. This has positive, school-wide consequences and implications. 13 Ongoing research indicates that students who are exposed to differentiated instruction in the classroom are likely to show greater growth than students who are in traditional classrooms. In one study which (Stavroula, Leonidas, & Mary, 2011) examined growth in reading comprehension, differentiated instruction accounted for a 34% growth in test achievement, as indicated in the included graph (Stavroula, Leonidas, & Mary, 2011). As merit-pay becomes increasingly common, teachers can be reassured that students who receive differentiated instruction will likely perform better on standardized testing and show growth. Weaknesses With every educational paradigm come inherent weaknesses. As previously discussed, there will never be a clear cut, one-size-fits-all definition or recipe for how to differentiate a classroom (Huebner, 2010). As a result of every classroom being different, teachers and administrators will need to recognize that differentiation takes a willingness to adapt to the dynamic needs of all students. It is not a one-time implementation, but rather a long-term commitment and process (Tomlinson, 2001). Furthermore, for some students it will simply not be enough. There will be students who will need more support 14 than a skilled general teacher can provide, even in a well-differentiated classroom (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). At the core of differentiation are some underlying assumptions. “Implicit in these inclusive settings is the assumption that exceptional learners can be served equally as well in these diverse communities of learning as in resource rooms and pullout programs, which previously played key roles in ensuring academic experiences appropriate to learner needs” (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). With differentiation comes the additional pressure on the general classroom teacher to compensate for the support normally provided by specialists. While specialists are still utilized in differentiated classrooms, there will always be an additional stress for the teacher to compensate for times when they are replacing pullout programs. Challenges While differentiation comes with incredible benefits for students, there are several challenges inherent with implementation. “There’s a great deal of common sense in differentiating instruction, but common sense can be uncommonly difficult to achieve” (Tomlinson, 2001). Both veteran and novice teachers find many challenges in implementation of differentiation. As such, many teachers are understandably resistant to completely differentiate their instruction. While novice teachers seem excited to try to differentiate, “many veteran teachers…broadly resist mandates to differentiate curriculum and instruction for a wide range of learners and many lack skills required to differentiate” (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). This lack of skill has not disappeared with newer teacher preparation programs. While programs teach preservice teachers that they 15 need to differentiate, they fail to teach them how to do so. Despite the recent push for differentiation, “a large number [of novice teachers] still report that cooperating teachers, university supervisors, or both, failed to talk with them about the need to differentiate or how to do so” (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). This is in conflict with research that suggests “that engaging preservice teachers in direct instruction or ongoing dialogue about adapting instruction in response to the needs of exceptional learners may at least aid in making differentiated instruction an explicit, acceptable, and sustained goal for many preservice teachers” (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). As with many challenges, it makes sense to start at the source of implementation. It would be logical to reform general education to include differentiation in every classroom by changing the way teachers are taught to teach. However, many professors are ill equipped to teach the new generation of teachers how to do this. This lack of preparation directly correlates with a lack of actual implementation. While most teachers will explain that they know differentiation is important, their practice doesn’t match their philosophy. “In practice, teachers often make few robust instructional modifications in general classrooms for learners who are gifted or ‘advanced’ and learners who qualify for special education or are ‘struggling’” (Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997). This makes it challenging to encourage new teachers how to differentiate when they can rarely, if ever, see it in practice. Even the best-trained teachers may struggle. “The external demands on schools regarding differentiation are not fundamentally opposed to most teachers’ current 16 practice, but there are significant differences in the way that individual teachers interpret their day-to-day responsibilities in this area” (Kershner & Miles, 1996). Each teacher will prepare differently and this creates a lack of cohesiveness within a school system. There are also several teacher concerns that need to be addressed. Differentiation simply takes more time, especially preparation time. There is also a false perception that it is impossible to differentiate while still fairly assessing your students and teaching standards (Tomlinson, Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice, 2005) (Tomlinson, Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and Differentiation, 2000). The greatest challenge to teacher implementation is that most teachers lack confidence in their ability to differentiate properly (Hawkins, 2009). All of these concerns make the task of implementing differentiated instruction more daunting. In order to be considered a viable model, teachers’ concerns must be addressed enough that they feel competent and comfortable differentiating instruction in their own classrooms. Gaps There are still gaps in current research that need to be addressed. For the purpose of this paper, I examined five studies surrounding differentiation in the classroom. The number of research papers that include studies conducted in schools is scarce. Rather, most papers study the theories behind differentiation or just discuss general trends. All five studies examined were conducted within the United States in public, heterogeneous K-5 classrooms. A total of 12 schools were studied, totaling 91 classrooms. Each study explored the effects of differentiation in one subject area. None explored the impact of cross-curricular or integrated-content differentiation. 17 Of the studies examined for this paper, only one lasted more than an academic year, two were over the course of an academic year, and two were less than a semester in length. None of the studies explored the long-term impact of differentiated instruction. The results were similar in all studies: differentiation in instruction creates greater academic growth than non-differentiated instruction. One study noted, “Although this result does not show the narrowing of the achievement gap, it reveals the potential that differentiated instruction has in leading to the narrowing of the gap if implemented with consistency over a longer period” (Stavroula, Leonidas, & Mary, 2011). While results like these indicate there is great hope that differentiation may close the achievement gap caused by differences in socioeconomic status, there is no sound research that proves it. In order to reinforce the concept that differentiation is, in fact, necessary and effective, we must conduct studies that indicate impacts lasting longer than one academic year. While differentiation improves end-of-year test scores, there is no evidence to indicate that this improvement will last through the secondary years and adulthood. With the exception of one classroom in one study, all studies explored the effects of differentiation in classrooms in high-risk communities. Many studied the impact for students with low test-performance and low socioeconomic status. There are few studies exploring how differentiation would influence the achievement of students with any other combination of test performance and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, differentiation tends to surround students who are consistently low performing or highly gifted. The students who have “average” socioeconomic status and academic performance are not being studied. Thus we have no studies that examine the influence of differentiation for the “average” student. 18 There are no studies exploring the relative impact of differentiating instruction based on learner readiness needs versus interests versus learning profiles—nor whether it is important to address all of those elements simultaneously. All studies examined had teachers differentiate content, process, and product. The relative impact of differentiating each or combining the strategies has yet to be explored. The role of specialists in a differentiated school is still unclear. While it is clear there will still be a need for specialists and pullout programs, when and how they should be used has yet to be defined. There is also limited research on the best way to prepare teachers to implement differentiation in their classrooms. There is little research-based differentiation practice in most basal programs and few outside resources helping teachers learn to differentiate mandated instruction. Evaluation Matrix As previously noted, it can be difficult for teachers to examine their own practice and determine if they are differentiating well. While many teachers claim they are differentiating, or doing their best to do so, it is hard to quantify the extent to which a teacher is differentiating and in which ways they could improve. To this end, I have synthesized my findings from current research surrounding best practices in differentiation. In the following pages, I have included an evaluation matrix I created for teachers to use when examining their own instruction. The matrix has been broken into five steps of the teaching process: assessment, learning outcomes, presentation, learning activities, and grouping. 19 Assessment Criteria Exemplary Proficient Unsatisfactory Pre-Assessment Before determining activities or intended outcomes, teacher administers a preassessment to determine students’ current understanding and/or abilities. Teacher uses this pre-assessment to meaningfully shape instruction. Teacher administers a pre-assessment as a form of activating background knowledge but does not use this information to shape assessment. Teacher does not utilize a preassessment. Ongoing/Formative Assessment Teacher has continual formal and informal assessments to gauge student growth. Teacher has Teacher does not occasional formal or utilize ongoing assessment. informal assessment, but it is inconsistent and infrequent. Summative Assessment Teacher provides a variety of methods, drawing on multiple intelligences, for students to demonstrate their understanding and/or abilities in relation to preassessment. Teacher provides a few options for demonstration of understanding and/or abilities, but most draw on only linguistic or mathematical abilities. Teacher uses only standardized testing at the end of the year. Students have opportunity to reflect on mistakes but no opportunities to revise their work. Students have no opportunity to reflect on past work. Options for Revision After assessment, students have opportunity for revision based on new learning. Students understand where they went wrong and how to perform on future assignments. Teacher administers assessments that do not match content. 20 Learning outcomes Criteria Exemplary Core Standards Learning outcomes are in direct alignment with established standards, commonly CCSS. Proficient Unsatisfactory Learning outcomes are not present. Learning outcomes do not align with standards. Definition Learning outcomes are clearly defined and shared explicitly with students. Learning outcomes are defined. There are no established learning outcomes. Shaped by PreAssessment Learning outcomes are determined based on students’ demonstration of abilities and knowledge in a preassessment. Learning outcomes are meant to target “the middle.” There is no adjustment for students with different backgrounds or needs. Learning outcomes are determined without regard to students’ needs or prior knowledge. Relevance to Lives Teacher makes clear connections between content and students’ lives and prior knowledge. Teacher makes effort to make connections between students and content. No connection is made between students and content. Sense of Mastery (How will students know they’ve got it? Students are able to articulate if they have met the learning outcome and how they know. Students are only able to articulate if they met the standard, but not how or why. Students are unaware of their own mastery of the outcome. 21 Presentation Criteria Exemplary Proficient Unsatisfactory Interest Teacher has an average engagement of 85%+ over each lesson. Teacher has an average engagement of 70-84% over each lesson. Teacher has less than an average of 70% engagement in each lesson. Media Presentation of content includes a variety of medias. Examples might include: visual components such as video or pictures, audio components beyond lecture, and/or hands-on activities. Teacher uses a form of media or handson activity to aid lecture. Teacher simply lectures. Shaped by PreAssessment Learning activities are within students’ zones of proximal development as demonstrated in preassessment. Learning activities target most students’ zones of proximal development, but not all. Learning activities target half or fewer students. Learning activities are created without regard to zone of proximal development. 22 Learning activities Criteria Exemplary Shaped by Formative Assessment Teacher adjusts learning activities to meet needs as demonstrated by ongoing formative assessment. Higher-Ordering Thinking All tasks, regardless of grouping, require higher-order thinking skills. Most, not all, tasks require higher-order thinking skills. All students at some point throughout the day will be asked to use higher-order thinking. Students never use higher-order thinking. Learning activities vary by individual or groups of students’ needs. Learning activities are mixed between whole-group and differentiated by needs. All learning activities are wholegroup with no changes made nor supports given based on needs. Varied Proficient Teacher does not adjust learning activities to meet needs as demonstrated by ongoing formative assessment. Learning activities are primarily wholegroup, with supports made or changes given based on needs. Challenge Teacher provides a variety of means by which the level of challenge may be adjusted. Unsatisfactory Students in strategic groups participate only in lower-level thinking skills. Teacher provides 2+ Teacher provides 1 means of challenge- or 0 means of level adjustments. challenge-level adjustments. 23 Grouping Criteria Exemplary Proficient Unsatisfactory Intentional Students are strategically grouped based on abilities or interests. Abilities are determined by a variety of data points. Grouping is based on ability as determined by limited assessment. Grouping is random or based on single assessment. Targeted Group meetings focus on strengthening weaknesses. Group meetings focus on meeting most of the group’s needs. Group meetings are identical across small groups. Varied Students are engaged in a variety of groups throughout the week. Students are engaged in groups at least once a day. Students do not participate in smallgroup instruction. Flexible Student groups are flexible based on needs of individual students. Changes are made based on both formative and summative assessment. Grouping changes periodically, typically at the end of a formative assessment. Groups are static. No small groups/grouping occurs. 24 Conclusion Most teachers and researchers agree that differentiation is the best way to reach students in our current heterogeneous-classroom-based education system. There are clear benefits for teachers and students who are exposed to differentiated instruction. In order for this to become a reality in every classroom, more scientific research must be done. Using that research, teacher preparation programs must better prepare future teachers and professional development must refocus to include differentiation. This content must be more than the current theoretical research. Teachers’ and administrators’ concerns must be addressed so there is a working model for teachers to adapt. This is a long-term goal. In the meantime, teachers may use the included evaluation matrix in order to better understand what differentiation actually looks like in a general classroom. 25 References Baumgartner, T. L. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction. Master's Research , 1-44. Bloom, B. S. (1966). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. Cox, S. G. (2008, May). Differentiated Instruction in the Elementary Classroom. Education Digest . Cusumano, C., & Mueller, J. (2007). How Differentiated Instruction Helps Struggling Students. Leadership . Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). How can an understanding of cognitive style enable trainee teachers to have a better understanding of differentiation in the classroom? Educational Policy Practice . Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Chicago: American Educational Research Association. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation. NCAC Effective Classroom Practice Report . Harris, D. M. (2010). Curriculum Differentiation and Comprehensive School Reform: Challenges in Providing Educational Opportunity. Educational Policy . Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to Implementing Differentiation: Lack of Confidence, efficacy and preserverance. NERA Journal , 44 (2). Huebner, T. (2010). Differentiated Learning . Educational Leadership , 67, 79-81. Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential Differentiation: What Types of Differentiation Do Students Want? Gifted Child Quarterly , 55 (4), 279-299. Kershner, R., & Miles, S. (1996). Thinking and talking about differentiation. In E. Bearne, Differentiation and Diversity . New York, New York: Routledge. Koeze, P. A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction: The Effect on Student Achievement in an Elementary School. Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations , 31-133. Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Inclusive Strategies for Standards-Based Learning that Benefit the Whole Class. Amerian Secondary Education , 32 (3). 26 McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated Instruction Provincial Research Review. Initiative for School Improvement . Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy With Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum Differentiation. Teachers College Record , 106 (1), 193-211. Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The Effects of Differentiated Instruction and Enrichment Pedagogy on Reading Achievement in Five Elementary Schools. American Educational Research Journal , 48 (2), 462-501. Simpkins, P. M. (2008). Differentiated Curriculum Enhancements in Inclusive FifthGrade Science Classes. Remedial and Special Education . Stavroula, V. A., Leonidas, K., & Mary, K. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Differentiated Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms: It’s impact on the Quality and Equity Dimensions of Education Effectiveness. International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement 2011, (pp. 9-11). Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to Differentiate Instruction in Middle School: One School's Journey. Gifted Child Quarterly . Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated Instruction in the Regular Classroom: What Does it Mean? How Does it Look? Understanding Our Gifted , 3-6. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000, August). Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades. ERIC . Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice. Theory into Practice , 44 (3). Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction. Educational Leadership , 57, 12-16. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and Differentiation. ASCD Educational Leadership , 58 (1), 6-11. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing Responsibility for Differentiating Instruction. Roeper Review , 26 (4). Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners. ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. (2008, November). The Goals of Differentiation. Educational Leadership . 27 Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing A Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction: Understanding by Design. ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Herberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 27 (2/3), 119-145. Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming Architects of Communities of Learning . Exceptional Children , 63 (2), 269-282. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The Parallel Curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tough, P. (2013). How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. New York: Mariner Books. Tukey, L. (2002). Classroom Practice: Differentiation. EBSCO . VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Analyzing Differentiation in the Classroom. Gifted Child Today , 35. Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (V. John-Steiner, Ed.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.