Differentiating Instruction: a Conceptual Framework

Differentiating Instruction: A Conceptual Framework

“Differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners.” We hear that sentence over and over and it does make sense that it will help create universal access for students, but it can seem like an overwhelming task unless we break it into manageable chunks. The conceptual framework provided here is intended to make this nebulous task more concrete so that differentiation can become a daily occurrence in the classroom, one that is manageable and documentable.

The term“curriculum” comes from the Latin word “currere” meaning“a course to be run.” or “a path to be traversed.” The “finish line” is, of course, mastery of the specified state and local standards. Some students come to the task able-bodied, wearing running shoes and with a canteen of water strapped to their sides; others come with stubbed toes in plastic flip flops and no canteen; and still others come with sprained ankles, sitting in wheelchairs. Some can easily read the mapand listen to directions in English, and others are making beginning steps into what for them is a new language. As a teacher, it is my responsibility to see that all of my students traverse a path to the standards in a timely way, developing all the knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes that they can. In many cases, because of pacing plans and state testing, my responsibility includes ensuring that they all to get to the finish line at about the same time, regardless of their sprains and bruises or lack of equipment. It is differentiating instructionthat allows me the possibility to design an appropriately challenging path for each student to get to the goal. My responsibility is to see that this happens, as efficiently, effectively, and deeply as possible.

In order to be the best coach possible, preassessment of knowledge, skills, and attitudes is essential. Cognitive preassessments help me to determine the knowledge that individual students already have; such assessments include open-ended or short answer items based directly on the content of the unit, preferably addressing all of the subskills in that unit. Readiness for content can also be determined by looking at prior post assessments, prior products, having conversations with students about the topic, observing the student dealing with the content, etc. The important thing is that I understand what Yesinia has already mastered and what she needs to get to the end of the journey. Equally important, however, are affective preconditions for each student. By using affective preassessmentssuch as interest surveys and learning modality preference inventories, I can find effective ways to guide student learning while making it appealing to individuals. Sociograms (see McIntyre, 2003) can provide information about how students might work together and, combined with the other preassessments, can guide me in grouping students by interest or psychological comfort. Using information from sociograms can give shy Ahmad a way to become an expert in an area he loves, or a new student the chance to buddy up to a sensitive class leader. By combining the information from the cognitive and affective preassessments, I can determine plans for flexible groupings(Castle, Deniz, & Tortora, 2005; Tieso, 2003)thatenable students to be at the appropriate level of difficulty while incorporating ways to make the content meaningful and appealing. Preassessment should not be used as a way to prejudge how well students will master the standards; rather, it should provide me with clues as I design the student’s particular path to reach them.

ModifyingContent, Process, and/or Productare the core of providing differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). If the content of a unit has been divided into subtopics and subskills and students have been adequately preassessed, designing instruction at various levels of complexity becomes more straightforward. If the standard states that students should be able to “round to millions,” those students who have little or no understanding of rounding may need to start with hundreds, tens, and ones and use a number line with place value indicated and powers of ten blocks; students with understanding but who still make mistakes need practice, perhaps with a mnemonic device or a number line; and students who have the skill mastered may need to study the relationship of millions to millionths or solve problems involving interstellar travel or national debt. Thus, the content can be presented at multiple levels of complexity with the goal still the same.

Modifying process can include adjusting one, two, or three components of instruction: (1) Thinking skills (Tomlinson, 1999), (2) Research Skills (Tomlinson, 1999), and/or (3) Life Skills(see Human Resources Development Canada, 2001; Jet Propulsion Lab, n.d.). Thinking skills include such competencies as those outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956), the Hilda Taba Strategies (Joyce & Weil, 1996; Taba, 1967), and Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity model (California Department of Education and California Association for the Gifted, 1994). While Arturo is analyzing the situation from multiple perspectives, Alan is compiling a detailed list of events that led up to the situation. Research skills can vary from the simple to the complex: Natasha is using a hardcover encyclopedia to find information while Grace is interviewing her grandmother on the same topic. Life Skillscomprise the many abilities that we need to function well independently, interpersonally, and socially. They include such things as taking appropriate personal risks in learning, being organized, respecting others, and understanding and responding to social cues.By observing my students to analyze their behaviors and combining this information with that from other preassessments such as sociograms, I can scaffold instruction in personal and social skills for students and place them in appropriate learning experiences that will help them attain these skills.

Products can vary according to individual preference, but it is my responsibility to make sure that students can demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways. As we work through various kinds of products, my students and I develop both general and specific rubrics (see Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993) for each and post them in a place for all students to see. When we work on oral presentations, the rubric will include making eye contact and speaking with an animated voice, the rubric for a graphic product will include elements of design and use of color, but rubrics for all products will define ways to demonstrate mastery of the standards being addressed in the unit.

Modification of Instruction, Pace, and Resources are often useful in modifying Content, Process, and Product. Both instructional design and instructional management strategies (Joyce & Weil, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999) can be modified for Content, Process, and Product. Instructional design can include such strategies as role plays, direct instruction, problem based learning, mnemonic devices, or synectics (Joyce & Weil, 1996). I may choose different design approaches for students who are at different levels in their understanding of the topic or with different personal skills and preferences, all the while making sure that all students learn to work both independently and in groups. Instructional management strategies can include options such as homogeneous cooperative groups, independent study, dyads, contracts for learning, learning centers, and tiered assignments (Tomlinson, 1999). Increasing Michael’s pace by movinghim from the group practicing a skill to the group solving complex real-world problems when he is ready is likely to increase his interest while providing additional practice. Providing more complex materials to students who are advanced readers and less complex materials to struggling readers can be readily accomplished with the use of the internet as well as library books and other texts. Modifying Instruction, Pace, and Resources creates yet a deeper opportunity for modification of Content, Process, and Product, thus creating a plethora of opportunities to meet the needs of individual students.

Differentiating instruction can be simple or complex, depending on my readiness as a teacher to take on new challenges in getting all students to the “finish line” of meeting the standards, regardless of the varied paths they take. The conceptual framework offers teachers a menu from which to choose, advancing into the deeper waters of differentiated instruction as they are ready. Starting simply while developing classroom management techniques to support differentiated instruction are important, but starting is essential.

The able-bodied students wearing running shoes are given a rockier, steeper path to increase their agility and stamina. Those with stubbed toes and ill-fitting flip flopsare given a flatter path with fewer rocks and they learn to carry a canteen to refresh themselves, but their path is still challenging. Those in wheelchairs have the most streamlined path, but they learn to use their arms to self-propel and dodge the obstacles that are inevitable.All students increase their orienteering skills and are given choices and appropriate challenges along the way. By modifying Content, Process, Product, Instruction, Pace, and Resources I can facilitate the arrival of all students at the finish line in a timely manner, equipping them with new knowledge, skills, and positive attitudes along the way.

References

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Frost, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I:” Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

California Department of Education and California Association for the Gifted. (1994). Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide advanced learning opportunities. Sacramento, CA.

Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and Urban Society, 37(2), 139-150.

Human Resources Development Canada. (n.d.) 2001 career handbook: Volumes 1 and 2.Essential skills profiles. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from . Canadian Government Publishing.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (n.d.) Taxonomy of life skills. Retrieved September 28, 2005 from genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/ educate/diffangle/career/taxonomy.pdf

Joyce, B. R. & Weil, M. (1996). Models of Teaching, (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Aurora, Co, McREL Institute/Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McIntyre, T. (2003). Sociograms.Hunter College, City University of New York. Retrieved September 28, 2005. Web site:

Taba, H. (1967). Teacher’s handbook for elementary school social studies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking any more. Roeper Review, 26 (1), 29-37.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Author: Sue A. Fellwock-Schaaris an Associate Professor in the College of Education at California State University, Dominguez Hills. She may be contacted at 310-243-3228 or .

Below are some option charts of sample strategies to help readers understand the various components of the model more clearly. They could be inserted into the text if you like.

Cognitive Assessment
Prior products
Prior post-assessments
Unit preassessments
Piagetian tasks
Observation-conversation
Affective Assessment
Interest inventory
Learning styles inventory
Prior product choices
Individual KWL chart
Sociogram
Thinking Skills
Sequencing
Causal explanation
Generating possibilities
Part-to-whole
Creating metaphors
Research Skills
Using electronic databases
Designing questionnaires
Using atlases & maps
Citing information
Judging source reliability
Personal Life Skills
Reflecting deeply
Self regulation
Dealing with perfectionism
Setting & meeting goals
Being organized
Social Life Skills
Working productively in groups
Respecting personal space
Analyzing social cues
Sharing
Knowing when to speak
Instructional Design Strategies
Mastery Learning
Computer Based Instruction
Direct Instruction
Problem Based Learning
Inductive Reasoning
Instructional Management Strategies
Homogenous Cooperative Groups
Independent Study
Tiered Contracts
Learning Centers
Dyads or Triads