differentiating instruction definition education

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction involves teaching in a way that meets the different needs and interests of students using varied course content, activities, and assessments.

Teaching differently to different students

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is fundamentally the attempt to teach differently to different students, rather than maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction. Other frameworks, such as Universal Design for Learning , enjoin instructors to give students broad choice and agency to meet their diverse needs and interests. DI distinctively emphasizes instructional methods to promote learning for students entering a course with different readiness for, interest in, and ways of engaging with course learning based on their prior learning experiences ( Dosch and Zidon 2014). 

Successful implementation of DI requires ongoing training, assessment, and monitoring (van Geel et al. 2019) and has been shown to be effective in meeting students’ different needs, readiness levels, and interests (Turner et al. 2017). Below, you can find six categories of DI instructional practices that span course design and live teaching.

While some of the strategies are best used together, not all of them are meant to be used at once, as the flexibility inherent to these approaches means that some of them are diverging when used in combination (e.g., constructing homogenous student groups necessitates giving different types of activities and assessments; constructing heterogeneous student groups may pair well with peer tutoring) (Pozas et al. 2020). The learning environment the instructor creates with students has also been shown to be an important part of successful DI implementation (Shareefa et al. 2019). 

Differentiated Assessment

Differentiated assessment is an aspect of Differentiated Instruction that focuses on tailoring the ways in which students can demonstrate their progress to their varied strengths and ways of learning. Instead of testing recall of low-level information, instructors should focus on the use of knowledge and complex reasoning. Differentiation should inform not only the design of instructors’ assessments, but also how they interpret the results and use them to inform their DI practices. 

More Team Project Ideas

Steps to consider

There are generally considered to be six categories of useful differentiated instruction and assessment practices (Pozas & Schneider 2019):

• Making assignments that have tasks and materials that are qualitatively and/or quantitatively varied (according to “challenge level, complexity, outcome, process, product, and/or resources”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) It’s helpful to assess student readiness and interest by collecting data at the beginning of the course, as well as to conduct periodic check-ins throughout the course (Moallemi 2023 & Pham 2011)
• Making student working groups that are intentionally chosen (that are either homogeneous or heterogeneous based on “performance, readiness, interests, etc.”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) Examples of how to make different student groups provided by Stanford CTL  (Google Doc)
• Making tutoring systems within the working group where students teach each other (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) For examples of how to support peer instruction, and the benefits of doing so, see for example Tullis & Goldstone 2020 and Peer Instruction for Active Learning (LSA Technology Services, University of Michigan)
• Making non-verbal learning aids that are staggered to provide support to students in helping them get to the next step in the learning process (only the minimal amount of information that is needed to help them get there is provided, and this step is repeated each time it’s needed) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) Non-verbal cue cards support students’ self-regulation, as they can monitor and control their progress as they work (Pozas & Schneider 2019)
• Making instructional practices that ensure all students meet at least the minimum standards and that more advanced students meet higher standards , which involves monitoring students’ learning process carefully (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible; IP Module 5: Giving Inclusive Assessments) This type of approach to student assessment can be related to specifications grading, where students determine the grade they want and complete the modules that correspond to that grade, offering additional motivation to and reduced stress for students and additional flexibility and time-saving practices to instructors (Hall 2018)
• Making options that support student autonomy in being responsible for their learning process and choosing material to work on (e.g., students can choose tasks, project-based learning, portfolios, and/or station work, etc.) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) This option, as well as the others, fits within a general Universal Design Learning framework , which is designed to improve learning for everyone using scientific insights about human learning

Hall, M (2018). “ What is Specifications Grading and Why Should You Consider Using It? ” The Innovator Instructor blog, John Hopkins University Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation.

Moallemi, R. (2023). “ The Relationship between Differentiated Instruction and Learner Levels of Engagement at University .” Journal of Research in Integrated Teaching and Learning (ahead of print).

Pham, H. (2011). “ Differentiated Instruction and the Need to Integrate Teaching and Practice .” Journal of College Teaching and Learning , 9(1), 13-20.

Pozas, M. & Schneider, C. (2019). " Shedding light into the convoluted terrain of differentiated instruction (DI): Proposal of a taxonomy of differentiated instruction in the heterogeneous classroom ." Open Education Studies , 1, 73–90.

Pozas, M., Letzel, V. and Schneider, C. (2020). " Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity ." Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 20: 217-230.

Shareefa, M. et al. (2019). “ Differentiated Instruction: Definition and Challenging Factors Perceived by Teachers .” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Special Education (ICSE 2019). 

Tullis, J.G. & Goldstone, R.L. (2020). “ Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? ”, Cognitive Research 5 .

Turner, W.D., Solis, O.J., and Kincade, D.H. (2017). “ Differentiating Instruction for Large Classes in Higher Education ”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 29(3), 490-500.

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher A.J. (2019). “Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 30:1, 51-67, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

FREE Poetry Worksheet Bundle! Perfect for National Poetry Month.

What Is Differentiated Instruction and What Does It Look Like in the Classroom?

It’s all about adapting learning to fit different needs.

In the last few decades, differentiation has become one of the biggest buzzwords in education. But what exactly is differentiated instruction, and how can teachers effectively use it in their classrooms? Read on to find out.

What is differentiated instruction?

Source: ASCD

Differentiated instruction means tailoring your teaching so all students, regardless of their ability, can learn the classroom material. Early one-room schoolteachers were masters of differentiation. They taught students of all ages and abilities, changing up their methods as needed.

As schools moved to dividing students by age into grade levels, differentiated instruction more or less fell by the wayside. Teachers taught all students in their classroom in the same way and expected the same results. Not surprisingly, some students struggled to keep up, while others were bored when they mastered the material more quickly than others. Inclusion made these contrasts even greater, and some began to realize education needed new approaches.

During the 1990s, Carol Ann Tomlinson introduced the concept of differentiation, and it quickly gained traction. She identified four elements (content, process, product, and learning environment) that teachers could customize in their classrooms. Her work opened the door to a wide array of differentiation approaches and techniques.

Why is differentiated instruction important?

Think back to the last time you bought a pair of jeans. You probably had a multitude of choices, like slim, relaxed, or classic fit; petite, regular, or tall; stretch fabric or plain denim—the options were likely endless. Somewhere in all those options for jeans, you found the ones that were right for you. Maybe not perfect, but something that suited you better than any of the other options.

Buying jeans wasn’t always like that. A few decades ago, there were just a few styles, in different sizes. For those with a particular body type, that was just fine. But it meant many others were left with ill-fitting, uncomfortable choices, and they just had to make do. Manufacturers and stores eventually realized they needed to differentiate their styles to meet all their customers’ needs.

Just like people have different body types, they also have different learning styles and abilities. If teachers only offer one way to learn the material, some students will always struggle. Their “jeans” will never fit, and they’ll never truly master the material they need to succeed.

Differentiated Instruction and Learning Styles

In the mid-1980s, teacher Neil Fleming introduced the VARK model of learning styles. He theorized that students learned in these four general ways, known as styles, or modalities:

• Visual: Seeing images, diagrams, videos, etc.
• Auditory: Hearing lectures and having discussions
• Read/Write: Reading the written word and writing things down
• Kinesthetic: Movement and hands-on activities

In other words, some kids learn better by reading and writing, while others prefer to listen to a lecture or watch a video. Fleming noted that each student uses a mix of these different styles, and it’s important not to pigeonhole a student into any one type. The key is to ensure your teaching methods include a variety of activities that appeal to all learning types.

This concept gets right to the heart of differentiation. Recognizing that your classroom contains students with an assortment of learning styles, along with varying abilities and diverse backgrounds, is the first step toward accommodating them.

What does differentiation look like in the classroom?

So, what does this mean for teachers? Are you expected to create an individualized lesson plan for every student in your classroom? Fortunately, that’s not necessary. What you do need to do is ensure your lesson plans include a variety of activities, and provide options when students need them.

Tomlinson recommends teachers consider how they can personalize these four elements:

Teachers don’t usually get to decide exactly what they’re going to teach in terms of content. Most schools use standards like Common Core to lay out what students at each level must master. What teachers often can decide is how they’ll present that content. Here are some ways to differentiate content ( see more here ).

• Have students read an article, watch a video, and/or listen to a lecture on a topic.
• Used leveled reading materials to help students explore the same content.
• Tailor assignments as needed, i.e., have slower workers do fewer practice problems as long as they can show mastery, while advanced students can do extra or more challenging exercises.

There are so many ways to mix up the teaching and learning process. Accommodate different learning styles with various activities, and scaffold learning by breaking it into more manageable chunks . These are examples of differentiated processes (see more here ).

• Create learning centers that give kids self-paced practice time in hands-on ways.
• Incorporate active learning with manipulatives, movement, and games.
• Form learning groups and use a tiered approach, with each group mastering content or skills at various speeds.

It’s no secret that some kids are terrible test-takers, or that speaking in front of the class is torture for others. You can work to improve those skills, of course, but in the meantime, it’s important not to punish students because they need different ways to show their mastery of a topic. For example, unless you’re specifically teaching public speaking skills, don’t force every student to do an oral book report. Here are more ways to differentiate the product ( see more examples here ).

• Doing a research project? Allow students to choose how they’ll present their findings: write a paper, give a presentation, create a video, etc.
• Use a variety of question types in written tests, and help students learn good test-taking skills.
• Provide “must do” and “may do” options for assignments.

Learning Environment

Stroll the halls of a typical school, and you’ll notice that every classroom looks and sounds different. Some have desks in rows, while in others desks are pushed together or students group around tables. One is completely silent, while another bustles with discussion. Some students adapt well to these changes, but others do better in specific environments. Try to accommodate as many as you can in your space.

• Try out flexible seating—let students sit where and how they feel comfortable and ready to learn.
• Let some students wear headphones and listen to music while they work, while keeping the classroom quiet for others.
• Create calm-down corners , collaborative spaces, sensory spaces, learning centers, and more.

For more information on Tomlinson’s theories, complete the online learning module found here .

How do I get started with differentiation in my classroom?

The best teachers are those who are observant and know their students well. They watch closely as kids work (and play), and check in regularly to find out what’s working and what’s not. Try these resources to start your journey to better differentiated instruction.

• 21 Differentiated Instruction Strategies Every Teacher Can Use
• What Are Learning Styles, and How Should Teachers Use Them?
• Reading Levels Explained: A Guide for Parents and Teachers
• 20 Creative Ways To Check for Understanding
• 25 Best Alternative Assessment Ideas
• 25 Formative Assessment Options for All Students
• 25 of the Best Flexible Seating Options for Today’s Classroom
• 8 Types of Learning Spaces for Your Classroom
• 30 Must-Try Sensory Room Ideas for Schools

Differentiated Instruction Books

• How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (Tomlinson, 2017)
• The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (Tomlinson, 2014)
• The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Differentiated Instruction (Mastropieri/Scruggs, 2018)
• Differentiation in Middle and High School: Strategies to Engage All Learners (Doubet/Hockett, 2015)
• Fair Isn’t Always Equal, 2nd edition: Assessment & Grading in the Differentiated Classroom (Wormeli, 2018)

Have questions about differentiated instruction and how to use it in your classroom? Join the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook to exchange ideas and ask for advice!

Plus, check out 20 creative ways to check for understanding ..

You Might Also Like

50 Differentiated Instruction Strategies and Examples for K-12 Classrooms

Personalize the content, process, product, or learning environment. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

Differentiated Instruction: A Primer

• Share article

How can a teacher keep a reading class of 25 on the same page when four students have dyslexia, three students are learning English as a second language, two others read three grade levels ahead, and the rest have widely disparate interests and degrees of enthusiasm about reading?

What is Differentiated Instruction?

“Differentiated instruction”—the process of identifying students’ individual learning strengths, needs, and interests and adapting lessons to match them—has become a popular approach to helping diverse students learn together. But the field of education is filled with varied and often conflicting definitions of what the practice looks like, and critics argue it requires too much training and additional work for teachers to be implemented consistently and effectively.

Differentiated Instruction Definition

The process of identifying students’ individual learning strengths, needs, and interests and adapting lessons to match them

Differentiation has much in common with many other instructional models: It has been compared to response-to-intervention models, as teachers vary their approach to the same material with different students in the same classroom; data-driven instruction, as individual students are frequently assessed or otherwise monitored, with instruction tweaked in response; and scaffolding, as assignments are intended to be structured to help students of different ability and interest levels meet the same goals.

Federal education laws and regulations do not generally set out requirements for how schools and teachers should “differentiate” instruction. However, in its 2010 National Education Technology Plan , the U.S. Department of Education lays out a framework that places differentiated teaching under the larger umbrella of “personalized learning,” instruction tailored to students’ individual learning needs, preferences, and interests. This framework assumes that all students in a heterogeneous classroom will have the same learning goals, but:

• “Individualization” tailors instruction by time . A teacher may break the material into smaller steps and allow students to master these steps at different paces; skipping topics they can prove they have mastered, while getting more help on those that prove difficult. This model has been used in iterations as far back as the late Robert Glaser’s Individually Prescribed Instruction in the 1970s, an approach which pairs diagnostic tests with objectives for mastery that is intended to help students progress through material at their own pace.
• “Differentiation” tailors instruction by presentation . A teacher may vary the method and assignments covering the material to adjust to students’ strengths, needs, and interests. For example, a teacher may allow an introverted student to write an essay on a historical topic while a more outgoing student gives an oral presentation on the same subject.

That distinction is accepted by some, though far from all, in the field.

The ambiguity has led to widespread confusion and debate over what differentiated instruction looks like in practice, and how its effectiveness can be evaluated.

For example, a 2005 study for the National Research Center on Gifted and Talented, which tracked implementation of “differentiation” over three years , found that the “vast majority” of teachers never moved beyond traditional direct lectures and seat work for students.

“Results suggest that differentiation of instruction and assessment are complex endeavors requiring extended time and concentrated effort to master,” the authors conclude. “Add to this complexity current realities of school such as large class sizes, limited resource materials, lack of planning time, lack of structures in place to allow collaboration with colleagues, and ever-increasing numbers of teacher responsibilities, and the tasks become even more daunting.”

Evolution of the Concept

Differentiated instruction as a concept evolved in part from instructional methods advocated for gifted students and in part as an alternative to academic “tracking,” or separating students of different ability levels into groups or classes. In the 1983 book, Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum , Thomas S. Popkewitz discusses differentiation in the context of “Individually Guided Education, … a management plan for pacing children through a standardized, objective-based curriculum” that would include small-group work, team teaching, objective-based testing, and monitoring of student progress.

Carol Ann Tomlinson, a co-director of the Institutes on Academic Diversity at the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, and the author of The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners , 2nd Edition (ASCD, 2014) and Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom (ASCD, 2013) argues that differentiation is, at its base, not an approach but a basic tenet of good instruction, in which a teacher develops relationships with his or her students and presents materials and assignments in ways that respond to the student’s interests and needs.

Differentiated Instruction Strategies

In theory—though critics allege not in practice—differentiation does not involve creating separate lesson plans for individual students for a given unit.

Ms. Tomlinson argues that differentiation requires more than creating options for assignments or presenting content both graphically and with hands-on projects, for example. Rather, to differentiate a unit on Rome, a teacher might consider both specific terms and overarching themes and concepts she wants students to learn, and offer a series of individual and group assignments of various levels of complexity to build those concepts and allow students to demonstrate their understanding in multiple ways, such as journal entries, oral presentations, creating costumes, and so on. In different parts of a unit students may be working with students who share their interests or have different ones, and with students who are at the same or different ability levels.

During the 1990s, teachers were also encouraged to present material differently according to a student’s “learning style”—for example, visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. But while there have been studies that show students remember more when the same material is presented and reinforced in multiple ways, recent research reviews have found no evidence that individual students can be categorized as learning best through a single type of presentation.

Rick Wormeli, an education consultant and the author of Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessment and Grading in the Differentiated Classroom , instead suggests in a 2011 essay in the journal Middle Ground that teachers differentiate based on “learner profiles” : “A learner profile is a set of observations about a student that includes any factor that affects his or her learning, including family dynamics, transiency rate, physical health, emotional health, comfort with technology, leadership qualities, personal interests, and so much more.”

Impacts of Technology

Differentiated and personalized instructional models have also evolved with technological advances, which make it easier to develop and monitor education plans for dozens of students at the same time. The influence of differentiation on school-level programs can be seen in “early warning systems” and student “dashboards” that aim to track individual student performance in real time, as well as initiatives in some schools to develop and monitor individualized learning plans with the student, his or her teachers, and parents.

Advocates of hybrid education models, such as the “flipped classroom” —in which students watch lectures and read material at home and perform practice that would normally be homework during class time—have suggested this could help teachers differentiate by recording and archiving different lectures that students could watch and rewatch as needed, and providing more one-on-one time during class.

Professional Development

By any account, differentiation is considered a complex approach to implement, requiring extensive and ongoing professional development for teachers and administrators.

It required teachers to confront and dismantle their existing, persistent beliefs about teaching and learning ...

In the 2005 longitudinal study that found no consistent implementation of differentiation, researchers noted that “many aspects of differentiation of instruction and assessment (e.g., assigning different work to different students, promoting greater student independence in the classroom) challenged teachers’ beliefs about fairness, about equity, and about how classrooms should be organized to allow students to learn most effectively. As a result, for most teachers, learning to differentiate entailed more than simply learning new practices. It required teachers to confront and dismantle their existing, persistent beliefs about teaching and learning, beliefs that were in large part shared and reinforced by other teachers, principals, parents, the community, and even students.”

In the 2009 book, Professional Development for Differentiating Instruction , Cindy A. Strickland notes that most schools do not provide sufficient training for new and experienced teachers in differentiating instruction.

Ms. Tomlinson said that teachers can begin to differentiate instruction simply by learning more about their students and trying to tailor their teaching as much as they find feasible. “Every significant endeavor seems too hard if we look only at the expert’s product. ... The success of all these ‘seasoned’ people stemmed largely from three factors: They started down a path. They wanted to do better. They kept working toward their goal.”

Including students of disparate abilities and interests also requires the teacher to rethink expectations for all students: “If a teacher uses flexible grouping lesson by lesson and does not assume a student has prior knowledge because he is a ‘higher’ student but really assesses and groups, based on need sometimes and other times by interest, the students will get what they need,” Melinda L. Fattig, a nationally recognized educator and a co-author of the 2008 book Co-Teaching in the Differentiated Classroom , told Teacher magazine that year.

In practice, differentiation is such a broad and multifaceted approach that it has proven difficult to implement properly or study empirically, critics say.

In a 2010 report by the research group McREL, author Bryan Goodwin notes that “to date, no empirical evidence exists to confirm that the total package (e.g., conducting ongoing assessments of student abilities, identifying appropriate content based on those abilities, using flexible grouping arrangements for students, and varying how students can demonstrate proficiency in their learning) has a positive impact on student achievement.” He adds: “One reason for this lack of evidence may simply be that no large-scale, scientific study of differentiated instruction has been conducted.” However, Mr. Goodwin pointed to the 2009 book Visible Learning , which synthesized studies of more than 600 models of personalizing learning based on student interests and prior performance, and found them not much better than general classroom instruction for improving students’ academic performance.

Both in planning time and instructional time, differentiation takes longer than using a single lesson plan for a given topic, and many teachers attempting to differentiate have reported feeling overwhelmed and unable to reach each student equally.

In a 2010 Education Week Commentary essay , Michael J. Schmoker, the author of the 2006 book, Results NOW: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning , says attempts to differentiate instruction frustrated teachers and “seemed to complicate teachers’ work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials” leading to “dumbed-down” teaching.

Likewise, some advocates of gifted education, such as James R. Delisle, have argued that advanced students still are not challenged enough in a differentiated environment, which may vary in the presentation of material but not necessarily in the pace of instruction. He argues that “differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back.”

“There is no one book, video, presenter, or website that will show everyone how to differentiate instruction. Let’s stop looking for it. One size rarely fits all. Our classrooms are too diverse and our communities too important for such simplistic notions,” Mr. Wormeli said in an interview with Education Week blogger Larry Ferlazzo .

“Instead, let’s realize what differentiation really is: highly effective teaching, which is complex and interwoven; no one element defining it.”

A version of this article appeared in the February 04, 2015 edition of Education Week

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

What Is Differentiated Instruction?

Instruction is tailored to meet all students' needs, interests and strengths.

Getty Images

The most challenging task for differentiated learning is the execution in the classroom.

No two students are alike, including when it comes to their academic strengths and how exactly they learn best.

That's why many educators have sought to adopt more inclusive teaching practices, one being differentiated instruction – a broad term that usually refers to a teaching approach where instruction is tailored to meet all students' needs, interests and strengths.

"When you have a one-size-fits-all approach, it connects to your high and some of your middle learners. But it doesn't connect to some of your lower learners. So this way, we are able to grab all levels of learners," says Dave Steckler, principal at Red Trail Elementary School in North Dakota and president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals. "Differentiated instruction gives our students success, which promotes that love to learn."

How Differentiated Instruction Works

Differentiated instruction may look different in every classroom, grade, school or district. But according to experts, teachers can differentiate instruction in four areas: content, process, product and learning environment.

Content differentiation is when teachers provide learning activities based on where the student is academically, while process occurs when teachers differentiate the mode of learning, says Becky Pringle, a middle school science teacher for 30 years and now president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union.

For students with dyslexia , for instance, it may be difficult to simultaneously listen and take notes. A differentiated instruction approach might adjust the process by passing out a copy of the class notes for students to follow along with, says David Arencibia, principal at Colleyville Middle School in Texas.

Product differentiation refers to ways students can demonstrate what they know, whether that's through varying assignments , projects or exams. For example, students may be given several options to show that they understood a book read in class , such as a writing an essay, drawing or creating a poem.

The physical space and feeling of a classroom can also impact learning. A differentiated classroom may have flexible seating. Students in an English class, for instance, may get the option to go to other learning areas, such as the library, to read in a more comfortable area if they so choose, Arencibia says.

"Think of yourself as a reader," he says. "Do you want to be sitting in a hard desk with a specific type of lighting where it's kind of uncomfortable or would you rather be sitting on the couch with special lighting? We differentiate even our learning environments to really be conducive to really get the most out of our learning for our students."

Differentiated Instruction vs. Other Approaches

More "traditional" approaches to learning often entail a teacher lecturing at the front of the classroom with an accompanying PowerPoint presentation, where students are asked to listen and take notes.

Children in a differentiated classroom are also all working toward the same learning goals, says Carol A. Tomlinson, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia’ s School of Education. But "they won't all be doing the same work in the same way over the same time period with the same support."

Teachers might use rotating work stations to divide students based on skill level, so students complete assignments that correlate with their academic level and needs. This can be done in a confidential way, such as through color-coding, in order to ensure students can't tell apart their levels, Arencibia says.

How to Know if Differentiated Instruction Is Being Done Well

Though many experts say differentiated instruction is beneficial, it can be challenging to execute in the classroom – in part because teachers have to really know the ins and outs of each student.

"That should be something that all instructors should be doing anyway, but sometimes it becomes automated and you are just there to teach and get out and go home," says Joseph Lathan, professor of practice and director of online programs in the department of learning and teaching at the University of San Diego in California. "You have to spend the time to know your students to be able to best help them."

There's also immense pressure for teachers around standardized tests, Tomlinson says. "They feel like all they can do is go into the classroom, start covering the material, cover it as fast as they can and at the end of the year say, 'I did it, I made it through.' We don't have any reason to believe that's effective teaching or learning."

Experts says parents should be feel good about differentiation going on if their child can explain their learning goals, shows enthusiasm about learning and talks about working in a variety of groups and having a choice of assignments.

"It's not intended to be in your face all the time. It's intended to be subtle and smooth," Tomlinson says.

See the 2022 Best Public High Schools

Tags: K-12 education , students , elementary school , high school , middle school

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

Popular Stories

Best Colleges

College Admissions Playbook

You May Also Like

Ways students can spend spring break.

Anayat Durrani March 6, 2024

Attending an Online High School

Cole Claybourn Feb. 20, 2024

How to Perform Well on SAT, ACT Test Day

Cole Claybourn Feb. 13, 2024

High School Graduation Rates By State

Sarah Wood Dec. 1, 2023

Charter Schools vs. Public Schools

Jacob Fischler and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Understanding Media Literacy

Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

504 Plan Versus IEP: A Guide for Parents

Sally Kassab and Cole Claybourn Nov. 14, 2023

Nontraditional Student Admissions

Linda Lee Baird Oct. 31, 2023

Pros, Cons of Working in High School

Lilly Roser Sept. 29, 2023

What to Know About STEM High Schools

Sarah Wood Aug. 29, 2023

Instruction

Differentiated Instruction

So far in this discussion, we have ignored the obvious variety among students. Yet their diversity is a reality that every teacher recognizes. Whatever goals and plans we make, some students learn the material sooner or better than others. For any given goal or objective, some students need more time than others in order to learn. And any particular teaching strategy will prove more effective with some students than others. Effective teaching requires  differentiated instruction —providing different materials, arrangements, and strategies to different students. The differentiation can include unique structural arrangements in the school, such as special tutoring for individuals or special classes for small groups needing particular extra help. Differentiation can also include extra attention or coaching within a classroom for individual students or small groups (Tomlinson, 2006; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007).

Video 8.5.1.  Differentiating Instruction: It’s Not as Hard as You Think  provides an introduction to differentiation in instruction.

Differentiation is commonly used in “heterogeneous grouping”—an educational strategy in which students of different abilities, learning needs, and levels of academic achievement are grouped together. In heterogeneously grouped classrooms, for example, teachers vary instructional strategies and use more flexibly designed lessons to engage student interests and address distinct learning needs—all of which may vary from student to student. The basic idea is that the primary educational objectives—making sure all students master essential knowledge, concepts, and skills—remain the same for every student, but teachers may use different instructional methods to help students meet those expectations.

Teachers who employ differentiated instructional strategies will usually adjust the elements of a lesson from one group of students to another so that those who may need more time or a different teaching approach to grasp a concept get the specialized assistance they need, while those students who have already mastered a concept can be assigned a different learning activity or move on to a new concept or lesson.

In more diverse classrooms, teachers will tailor lessons to address the unique needs of special-education students, high-achieving students, and English-language learners, for example. Teachers also use strategies such as  formative assessment —periodic, in-process evaluations of what students are learning or not learning—to determine the best instructional approaches or modifications needed for each student.

Differentiation techniques may also be based on specific student attributes, including  interest   (what subjects inspire students to learn),  readiness   (what students have learned and still need to learn), or  learning style  (the ways in which students tend to learn the material best)

Video 8.5.2.  Differentiating Instruction: How to Plan Your Lessons  provides suggestions for including differentiation in lesson planning.

The Debate on Equity 

Differentiation plays into ongoing debates about equity and “academic tracking” in public schools. One major criticism of the approach is related to the relative complexities and difficulties entailed in teaching diverse types of students in a single classroom or educational setting. Since effective differentiation requires more sophisticated and highly specialized instructional methods, teachers typically need adequate training, mentoring, and professional development to ensure they are using differentiated instructional techniques appropriately and effectively.

Some teachers also argue that the practical realities of using differentiation—especially in larger classes comprising students with a wide range of skill levels, academic preparation, and learning needs—can be prohibitively difficult or even infeasible. Yet other educators argue that this criticism stems, at least in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the strategy. In her book  How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms , the educator and writer Carol Ann Tomlinson, who is considered an authority on differentiation, points out a potential source of confusion, “Differentiated instruction is not the ‘Individualized Instruction’ of the 1970s.”

In other words, differentiation is the  practice of varying instructional techniques in a classroom to effectively teach as many students as possible, but it does not entail the creation of di stinct courses of study for every student (i.e., individualized instruction).  The conflation of “differentiated instruction” and “individualized instruction” has likely contributed to ongoing confusion and debates about differentiation, particularly given that the terms are widely and frequently used interchangeably (Myths and Misconceptions, n.d).

Differentiated Instruction and Implication for Universal Design for Learning

To differentiate instruction is to recognize students’ varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning, and interests; and to react responsively. As Tomlinson notes in her recent book Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners  (2014), teachers in a differentiated classroom begin with their current curriculum and engaging instruction. Then they ask, what will it take to  alter or modify the curriculum and instruction so that each learner comes away with the knowledge, understanding, and skills necessary to take on the next important phase of learning. Differentiated instruction is a process of teaching and learning for students of differing abilities in the same class. Teachers, based on characteristics of their learners’ readiness, interest, and learning profile, may adapt or manipulate various elements of the curriculum (content, process, product, affect/environment). These are illustrated in the table below which presents the general principles of differentiation by showing the key elements of the concept and the relationships among those elements.

Table 8.5.1.  Principles of differentiation by key elements

Adapted with permission from Carol Tomlinson: Differentiation Central  Institutes on Academic Diversity  in the  Curry School of Education  at the  University of Virginia  (September 2014).

Identifying Components/Features

While Tomlinson and most recognize there is no magic or recipe for making a classroom differentiated, they have identified guiding principles, considered the “Pillars that Support Effective Differentiation”: Philosophy, Principles, and Practices. The premise of each is as follows:

The  Philosophy  of differentiation is based on the following tenets:

• recognizing diversity is normal and valuable,
• understanding every student has the capacity to learn,
• taking responsibility to guide and structure student success,
• championing every student entering the learning environment and assuring equity of access

The  Principles  identified that shape differentiation include

• creating an environment conducive to learning
• identifying a quality foundational curriculum
• informing teaching and learning with assessments
• designing instruction based on assessments collected
• creating and maintaining a flexible classroom

Teacher  Practices  are also essential to differentiation, highlighted as

• proactive planning  to address student profiles
• modifying instructional approaches  to meet student needs
• teaching up  (students should be working just above their individual comfort levels)
• assigning respectful tasks  responsive to student needs—challenging, engaging, purposeful
• applying flexible grouping  strategies (e.g., stations, interest groups, orbital studies)
• Several elements and materials are used to support instructional content.  These include acts, concepts, generalizations or principles, attitudes, and skills. The variation seen in a differentiated classroom is most frequently in the manner in which students gain access to important learning. Access to content is seen as key.
• Align tasks and objectives to learning goals.  Designers of differentiated instruction view the alignment of tasks with instructional goals and objectives as essential. Goals are most frequently assessed by many state-level, high-stakes tests and frequently administered standardized measures. Objectives are frequently written in incremental steps resulting in a continuum of skills-building tasks. An objectives-driven menu makes it easier to find the next instructional step for learners entering at varying levels.
• Instruction is concept-focused and principle-driven.  Instructional concepts should be broad-based, not focused on minute details or unlimited facts. Teachers must focus on the concepts, principles, and skills that students should learn. The content of instruction should address the same concepts with all students, but the degree of complexity should be adjusted to suit diverse learners.
• Clarify key concepts and generalizations.  Ensure that all learners gain powerful understandings that can serve as the foundation for future learning. Teachers are encouraged to identify essential concepts and instructional foci to ensure that all learners comprehend.
• Flexible grouping is consistently used. Strategies for flexible grouping are essential. Learners are expected to interact and work together as they develop knowledge of new content. Teachers may conduct whole-class introductory discussions of content big ideas followed by small group or paired work. Student groups may be coached from within or by the teacher to support the completion of assigned tasks. Grouping of students is not fixed. As one of the foundations of differentiated instruction, grouping and regrouping must be a dynamic process, changing with the content, project, and ongoing evaluations.
• Classroom management benefits students and teachers.  To effectively operate a classroom using differentiated instruction, teachers must carefully select organization and instructional delivery strategies. In her text, How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2001), Carol Tomlinson identifies 17 key strategies for teachers to successfully meet the challenge of designing and managing differentiated instruction.
• Emphasize critical and creative thinking as a goal in lesson design. The tasks, activities, and procedures for students should require that they understand and apply meaning. Instruction may require support, additional motivation; and varied tasks, materials, or equipment for different students in the classroom.
• Initial and ongoing assessment of student readiness and growth are essential. Meaningful pre-assessment naturally leads to functional and successful differentiation. Incorporating pre- and ongoing assessment informs teachers so that they can better provide a menu of approaches, choices, and scaffolds for the varying needs, interests, and abilities that exist in classrooms of diverse students. Assessments may be formal or informal, including interviews, surveys, performance assessments, and more formal evaluation procedures.
• Use assessment as a teaching tool to extend rather than merely measure instruction.  Assessment should occur before, during, and following the instructional episode; and it should be used to help pose questions regarding student needs and optimal learning.
• Students are active and responsible explorers.  Teachers respect that each task put before the learner will be interesting, engaging, and accessible to essential understanding and skills. Each child should feel challenged most of the time.
• Vary expectations and requirements for student responses.  Items to which students respond may be differentiated so that different students are able to demonstrate or express their knowledge and understanding in a variety of ways. A well-designed student product allows varied means of expression and alternative procedures and offers varying degrees of difficulty, types of evaluation, and scoring.

Affect/Environment

• Developing a learning environment.  Establish classroom conditions that set the tone and expectations for learning. Provide tasks that are challenging, interesting, and worthwhile to students.
• Engaging all learners is essential.  Teachers are encouraged to strive for the development of lessons that are engaging and motivating for a diverse class of students. Vary tasks within instruction as well as across students. In other words, an entire session for students should not consist of all lecture, discussion, practice, or any single structure or activity.
• Provide a balance between teacher-assigned and student-selected tasks. A balanced working structure is optimal in a differentiated classroom. Based on pre-assessment information, the balance will vary from class to class as well as lesson to lesson. Teachers should ensure that students have choices in their learning.

The following instructional approach to teaching mathematics patterns has several UDL features (see Table 8.5.2). Through the use of clearly stated goals and the implementation of flexible working groups with varying levels of challenge, this lesson helps to break down instructional barriers . We have identified additional ways to  reduce barriers in this lesson even further by employing the principles of UDL teaching methods and differentiated instruction. We provide recommendations for employing teaching methods of UDL to support this lesson in Table 8.5.3. Note that we are not making generalized recommendations for making this lesson more UDL, but instead are focusing on ways that differentiated instruction, specifically, can help achieve this goal.

Table 8.5.2. UDL elements in a differentiated instruction mathematics lesson

Table 8.5.3. UDL strategies to further minimize lesson barriers in a differentiated instruction lesson plan for mathematics

Training in Differentiated Instruction

The IRIS Center of Peabody College, Vanderbilt University provides a training module for those that wish to learn more about  Differentiated instruction:   Maximizing the learning of all students.

Candela Citations

• Differentiated Instruction. Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/differentiated-instruction/. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton. Provided by : The Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Instructional Methods, Strategies and Technologies to Meet the Needs of All Learners . Authored by : Paula Lombardi. Retrieved from : https://granite.pressbooks.pub/teachingdiverselearners/chapter/differentiated-instruction-2/. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Differentiating Instruction: Itu2019s Not as Hard as You Think. Provided by : Education Week. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/h7-D3gi2lL8. License : All Rights Reserved
• Differentiating Instruction: How to Plan Your Lessons. Provided by : Education Week. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/rumHfC1XQtc. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, what is differentiated instruction examples of how to differentiate instruction in the classroom.

Just as everyone has a unique fingerprint, every student has an individual learning style. Chances are, not all of your students grasp a subject in the same way or share the same level of ability. So how can you better deliver your lessons to reach everyone in class? Consider differentiated instruction—a method you may have heard about but haven’t explored, which is why you’re here. In this article, learn exactly what it means, how it works, and the pros and cons.

Definition of differentiated instruction

Carol Ann Tomlinson is a leader in the area of differentiated learning and professor of educational leadership, foundations, and policy at the University of Virginia. Tomlinson describes differentiated instruction as factoring students’ individual learning styles and levels of readiness first before designing a lesson plan. Research on the effectiveness of differentiation shows this method benefits a wide range of students, from those with learning disabilities to those who are considered high ability.

Differentiating instruction may mean teaching the same material to all students using a variety of instructional strategies, or it may require the teacher to deliver lessons at varying levels of difficulty based on the ability of each student.

Teachers who practice differentiation in the classroom may:

• Design lessons based on students’ learning styles.
• Group students by shared interest, topic, or ability for assignments.
• Assess students’ learning using formative assessment.
• Manage the classroom to create a safe and supportive environment.
• Continually assess and adjust lesson content to meet students’ needs.

History of differentiated instruction

The roots of differentiated instruction go all the way back to the days of the one-room schoolhouse, where one teacher had students of all ages in one classroom. As the educational system transitioned to grading schools, it was assumed that children of the same age learned similarly. However in 1912, achievement tests were introduced, and the scores revealed the gaps in student’s abilities within grade levels.

In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring that children with disabilities had equal access to public education. To reach this student population, many educators used differentiated instruction strategies. Then came the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2000, which further encouraged differentiated and skill-based instruction—and that’s because it works. Research by educator Leslie Owen Wilson supports differentiating instruction within the classroom, finding that lecture is the least effective instructional strategy, with only 5 to 10 percent retention after 24 hours. Engaging in a discussion, practicing after exposure to content, and teaching others are much more effective ways to ensure learning retention.

Four ways to differentiate instruction

According to Tomlinson, teachers can differentiate instruction through four ways: 1) content, 2) process, 3) product, and 4) learning environment.

As you already know, fundamental lesson content should cover the standards of learning set by the school district or state educational standards. But some students in your class may be completely unfamiliar with the concepts in a lesson, some students may have partial mastery, and some students may already be familiar with the content before the lesson begins.

What you could do is differentiate the content by designing activities for groups of students that cover various levels of  Bloom’s Taxonomy (a classification of levels of intellectual behavior going from lower-order thinking skills to higher-order thinking skills). The six levels are: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

Students who are unfamiliar with a lesson could be required to complete tasks on the lower levels: remembering and understanding. Students with some mastery could be asked to apply and analyze the content, and students who have high levels of mastery could be asked to complete tasks in the areas of evaluating and creating.

Examples of differentiating activities:

• Match vocabulary words to definitions.
• Read a passage of text and answer related questions.
• Think of a situation that happened to a character in the story and a different outcome.
• Differentiate fact from opinion in the story.
• Identify an author’s position and provide evidence to support this viewpoint.
• Create a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the lesson.

Each student has a preferred learning style, and successful differentiation includes delivering the material to each style: visual, auditory and kinesthetic, and through words. This process-related method also addresses the fact that not all students require the same amount of support from the teacher, and students could choose to work in pairs, small groups, or individually. And while some students may benefit from one-on-one interaction with you or the classroom aide, others may be able to progress by themselves. Teachers can enhance student learning by offering support based on individual needs.

Examples of differentiating the process:

• Provide textbooks for visual and word learners.
• Allow auditory learners to listen to audio books.
• Give kinesthetic learners the opportunity to complete an interactive assignment online.

The product is what the student creates at the end of the lesson to demonstrate the mastery of the content. This can be in the form of tests, projects, reports, or other activities. You could assign students to complete activities that show mastery of an educational concept in a way the student prefers, based on learning style.

Examples of differentiating the end product:

• Read and write learners write a book report.
• Visual learners create a graphic organizer of the story.
• Auditory learners give an oral report.
• Kinesthetic learners build a diorama illustrating the story.

4. Learning environment

The conditions for optimal learning include both physical and psychological elements. A flexible classroom layout is key, incorporating various types of furniture and arrangements to support both individual and group work. Psychologically speaking, teachers should use classroom management techniques that support a safe and supportive learning environment.

Examples of differentiating the environment:

• Break some students into reading groups to discuss the assignment.
• Allow students to read individually if preferred.
• Create quiet spaces where there are no distractions.

Pros and cons of differentiated instruction

The benefits of differentiation in the classroom are often accompanied by the drawback of an ever-increasing workload. Here are a few factors to keep in mind:

• Research shows differentiated instruction is effective for high-ability students as well as students with mild to severe disabilities.
• When students are given more options on how they can learn material, they take on more responsibility for their own learning.
• Students appear to be more engaged in learning, and there are reportedly fewer discipline problems in classrooms where teachers provide differentiated lessons.
• Differentiated instruction requires more work during lesson planning, and many teachers struggle to find the extra time in their schedule.
• The learning curve can be steep and some schools lack professional development resources.
• Critics argue there isn’t enough research to support the benefits of differentiated instruction outweighing the added prep time.

Differentiated instruction strategies

What differentiated instructional strategies can you use in your classroom? There are a set of methods that can be tailored and used across the different subjects. According to Kathy Perez (2019) and the Access Center those strategies are tiered assignments, choice boards, compacting, interest centers/groups, flexible grouping, and learning contracts. Tiered assignments are designed to teach the same skill but have the students create a different product to display their knowledge based on their comprehension skills. Choice boards allow students to choose what activity they would like to work on for a skill that the teacher chooses. On the board are usually options for the different learning styles; kinesthetic, visual, auditory, and tactile. Compacting allows the teacher to help students reach the next level in their learning when they have already mastered what is being taught to the class. To compact the teacher assesses the student’s level of knowledge, creates a plan for what they need to learn, excuses them from studying what they already know, and creates free time for them to practice an accelerated skill.

Interest centers or groups are a way to provide autonomy in student learning. Flexible grouping allows the groups to be more fluid based on the activity or topic.  Finally, learning contracts are made between a student and teacher, laying out the teacher’s expectations for the necessary skills to be demonstrated and the assignments required components with the student putting down the methods they would like to use to complete the assignment. These contracts can allow students to use their preferred learning style, work at an ideal pace and encourages independence and planning skills. The following are strategies for some of the core subject based on these methods.

Differentiated instruction strategies for math

• Provide students with a choice board. They could have the options to learn about probability by playing a game with a peer, watching a video, reading the textbook, or working out problems on a worksheet.
• Teach mini lessons to individuals or groups of students who didn’t grasp the concept you were teaching during the large group lesson. This also lends time for compacting activities for those who have mastered the subject.
• Use manipulatives, especially with students that have more difficulty grasping a concept.
• Have students that have already mastered the subject matter create notes for students that are still learning.
• For students that have mastered the lesson being taught, require them to give in-depth, step-by-step explanation of their solution process, while not being rigid about the process with students who are still learning the basics of a concept if they arrive at the correct answer.

Differentiated instruction strategies for science

• Emma McCrea (2019) suggests setting up “Help Stations,” where peers assist each other. Those that have more knowledge of the subject will be able to teach those that are struggling as an extension activity and those that are struggling will receive.
• Set up a “question and answer” session during which learners can ask the teacher or their peers questions, in order to fill in knowledge gaps before attempting the experiment.
• Create a visual word wall. Use pictures and corresponding labels to help students remember terms.
• Set up interest centers. When learning about dinosaurs you might have an “excavation” center, a reading center, a dinosaur art project that focuses on their anatomy, and a video center.
• Provide content learning in various formats such as showing a video about dinosaurs, handing out a worksheet with pictures of dinosaurs and labels, and providing a fill-in-the-blank work sheet with interesting dinosaur facts.

Differentiated instruction strategies for ELL

• ASCD (2012) writes that all teachers need to become language teachers so that the content they are teaching the classroom can be conveyed to the students whose first language is not English.
• Start by providing the information in the language that the student speaks then pairing it with a limited amount of the corresponding vocabulary in English.
•  Although ELL need a limited amount of new vocabulary to memorize, they need to be exposed to as much of the English language as possible. This means that when teaching, the teacher needs to focus on verbs and adjectives related to the topic as well.
• Group work is important. This way they are exposed to more of the language. They should, however, be grouped with other ELL if possible as well as given tasks within the group that are within their reach such as drawing or researching.

Differentiated instruction strategies for reading

• Tiered assignments can be used in reading to allow the students to show what they have learned at a level that suites them. One student might create a visual story board while another student might write a book report. 
• Reading groups can pick a book based on interest or be assigned based on reading level
• Erin Lynch (2020) suggest that teachers scaffold instruction by giving clear explicit explanations with visuals. Verbally and visually explain the topic. Use anchor charts, drawings, diagrams, and reference guides to foster a clearer understanding. If applicable, provide a video clip for students to watch.
• Utilize flexible grouping. Students might be in one group for phonics based on their assessed level but choose to be in another group for reading because they are more interested in that book.

Differentiated instruction strategies for writing

• Hold writing conferences with your students either individually or in small groups. Talk with them throughout the writing process starting with their topic and moving through grammar, composition, and editing.
• Allow students to choose their writing topics. When the topic is of interest, they will likely put more effort into the assignment and therefore learn more.
• Keep track of and assess student’s writing progress continually throughout the year. You can do this using a journal or a checklist. This will allow you to give individualized instruction.
• Hand out graphic organizers to help students outline their writing. Try fill-in-the-blank notes that guide the students through each step of the writing process for those who need additional assistance.
• For primary grades give out lined paper instead of a journal. You can also give out differing amounts of lines based on ability level. For those who are excelling at writing give them more lines or pages to encourage them to write more. For those that are still in the beginning stages of writing, give them less lines so that they do not feel overwhelmed.

Differentiated instruction strategies for special education

• Use a multi-sensory approach. Get all five senses involved in your lessons, including taste and smell!
• Use flexible grouping to create partnerships and teach students how to work collaboratively on tasks. Create partnerships where the students are of equal ability, partnerships where once the student will be challenged by their partner and another time they will be pushing and challenging their partner.
• Assistive technology is often an important component of differential instruction in special education. Provide the students that need them with screen readers, personal tablets for communication, and voice recognition software.
• The article Differentiation & LR Information for SAS Teachers suggests teachers be flexible when giving assessments “Posters, models, performances, and drawings can show what they have learned in a way that reflects their personal strengths”. You can test for knowledge using rubrics instead of multiple-choice questions, or even build a portfolio of student work. You could also have them answer questions orally.
• Utilize explicit modeling. Whether its notetaking, problem solving in math, or making a sandwich in home living, special needs students often require a step-by-step guide to make connections.

References and resources

• https://www.thoughtco.com/differentiation-instruction-in-special-education-3111026
• https://sites.google.com/site/lrtsas/differentiation/differentiation-techniques-for-special-education
• https://www.solutiontree.com/blog/differentiated-reading-instruction/
• https://www.readingrockets.org/article/differentiated-instruction-reading
• https://www.sadlier.com/school/ela-blog/13-ideas-for-differentiated-reading-instruction-in-the-elementary-classroom
• https://inservice.ascd.org/seven-strategies-for-differentiating-instruction-for-english-learners/
• https://www.cambridge.org/us/education/blog/2019/11/13/three-approaches-differentiation-primary-science/
• https://www.brevardschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=6174&dataid=8255&FileName=Differentiated_Instruction_in_Secondary_Mathematics.pdf

Books & Videos about differentiated instruction by Carol Ann Tomlinson and others

• The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2nd Edition
• Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Marcia B. Imbeau
• The Differentiated School: Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning – Carol Ann Tomlinson, Kay Brimijoin, and Lane Narvaez
• Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Jay McTighe
• Differentiation in Practice Grades K-5: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Caroline Cunningham Eidson
• Differentiation in Practice Grades 5–9: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Caroline Cunningham Eidson
• Differentiation in Practice Grades 9–12: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Cindy A. Strickland
• Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching – Carol Ann Tomlinson
• Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms – Carol Ann Tomlinson and Susan Demirsky Allan
• How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms, 3rd Edition by Carol Ann Tomlinson
• Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom by Carol Ann Tomlinson and Tonya R. Moon
• How To Differentiate Instruction In Mixed Ability Classrooms 2nd Edition – Carol Ann Tomlinson
• How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms 3rd Edition by Carol Ann Tomlinson 
• Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom Paperback – Carol Ann Tomlinson, Tonya R. Moon
• Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom (Professional Development) 1st Edition – Carol Ann Tomlinson, Marcia B. Imbeau
• The Differentiated School: Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning 1st Edition by Carol Ann Tomlinson, Kay Brimijoin, Lane Narvaez
• Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly Classroom  – David A. Sousa, Carol Ann Tomlinson
• Leading for Differentiation: Growing Teachers Who Grow Kids – Carol Ann Tomlinson, Michael Murphy
• An Educator’s Guide to Differentiating Instruction. 10th Edition – Carol Ann Tomlinson, James M. Cooper
• A Differentiated Approach to the Common Core: How do I help a broad range of learners succeed with a challenging curriculum? – Carol Ann Tomlinson, Marcia B. Imbeau
• Managing a Differentiated Classroom: A Practical Guide – Carol Tomlinson, Marcia Imbeau
• Differentiating Instruction for Mixed-Ability Classrooms: An ASCD Professional Inquiry Kit Pck Edition – Carol Ann Tomlinson
• Using Differentiated Classroom Assessment to Enhance Student Learning (Student Assessment for Educators) 1st Edition – Tonya R. Moon, Catherine M. Brighton, Carol A. Tomlinson
• The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners 1st Edition – Carol Ann Tomlinson

You may also like to read

• Creative Academic Instruction: Music Resources for the Classroom
• How Teachers Use Student Data to Improve Instruction
• Advice on Positive Classroom Management that Works
• Five Skills Online Teachers Need for Classroom Instruction
• 3 Examples of Effective Classroom Management
• Advice on Improving your Elementary Math Instruction

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Curriculum and Instruction ,  Diversity ,  Engaging Activities ,  New Teacher ,  Pros and Cons

• Certificates in Administrative Leadership
• Trauma-Informed Practices in School: Teaching...
• Certificates for Reading Specialist

Request More Info

Fill out the form below and a member of our team will reach out right away!

" * " indicates required fields

What is Differentiated Instruction?

• History of Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated Instruction: Content, Process and Product

Differentiated instruction: classroom strategies and examples, pro & cons of differentiated instruction, differentiated instruction faq, innovative techniques for transforming your classroom.

Teachers know better than anyone that students each have their own unique gifts and challenges; interests, aptitudes and learning styles. Differentiated instruction is the practice of developing an understanding of how each student learns best, and then tailoring instruction to meet students’ individual needs.

“I think differentiated instruction actually is just teaching with the child in mind,” writes Carol Ann Tomlinson, an author and teacher regarded as a pioneer in differentiated instruction. She describes the practice as “a way of thinking about teaching which suggests that we establish very clear learning goals, that are very substantial, and then that we teach with an eye on the student.”

In her book, “How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms,” she explains: “Kids of the same age aren’t all alike when it comes to learning any more than they are alike in terms of size, hobbies, personality, or food preferences. … In a classroom with little or no differentiated instruction, only student similarities seem to take center stage. In a differentiated classroom, commonalities are acknowledged and built upon, and student differences also become important elements in teaching and learning.”

At its most basic level, Tomlinson continues, “differentiating instruction means ‘shaking up’ what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn. In other words, a differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquiring content , to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can learn effectively.”

Tomlinson’s emphasis on “Content, Process and Product” is fundamental to the theory and practice of differentiated instruction.

History of Differentiated Instruction [From One-Room Schoolhouses to the 21st Century Classroom]

The one-room schoolhouses of centuries gone by are often mentioned when your research topic is “the history of differentiated instruction.” Though not called by that name, it was understood that teachers in the traditional one-room schoolhouse setting, out of necessity, had to develop strategies for teaching students of different ages, abilities, literacy levels and backgrounds.

“Today’s teachers still contend with the essential challenge of the teacher in the one-room schoolhouse: how to reach out effectively to students who span the spectrum of learning readiness, personal interests, and culturally shaped ways of seeing and speaking about and experiencing the world,” Tomlinson writes in another of her notable texts on the topic, “ The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners.”

The magazine Educational Leadership, established in 1943 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), devoted an entire issue to the theme “The Challenge of Individual Difference” in 1953.

It invites readers to revisit the lead article by Carleton W. Washburne, “Adjusting the Program to the Child.” The report also cites the influence of Frederic Burk in the 1910s and other educators in recognizing the value of developing strategies for helping students “progress according to their own abilities.”

Some educational historians also draw connections between the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, with its emphasis on helping disadvantaged students and improving individual outcomes in education, and some of the core principles of differentiated instruction.

Today, differentiated instruction is widely practiced as a progressive approach to education that endeavors to leverage the unique learning characteristics each student brings to the classroom to deliver a more effective education than a so-called “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Reading Rockets, the Library of Congress Literacy Award-winning advocacy organization, also cites Tomlinson’s influence in mapping out the basic tenets of differentiated instruction , which guide classroom teachers in differentiating three specific aspects of the educational experience, plus a fourth that encompasses and expands upon these three:

• Content – the knowledge, concepts and skills that students need to learn based on the curriculum
• Process – the activities in which the student engages to understand and make sense of the content
• Products – the ways students demonstrate what they have come to know, understand and be able to do

Learning environment is the fourth variable in the differentiated instruction equation. It refers to the climate, or the look and feel of a classroom — the physical space as well as the tone set by the teacher to establish an atmosphere of mutually supportive learning.

A classroom with a learning environment optimized for differentiated instruction is one that:

• Establishes a safe and positive environment for learning
• Allows for individual work preferences
• Includes spaces to work quietly and without distraction as well as spaces that invite student collaboration
• Provides materials that reflect a variety of cultures and home settings
• Establishes clear guidelines for independent work that matches individual needs
• Helps students understand that some learners need to move around to learn while others do better sitting quietly

To help gauge the most effective strategies for reaching each student and helping them learn and perform to the best of their unique abilities, teachers are also encouraged to consider students’ individual:

• Readiness — This refers not as much to a student’s academic ability as to their capacity to learn new material in a particular subject or topic. Since one way to ensure learning growth is to challenge students with tasks that require them to stretch their minds, an awareness of student readiness can help teachers adjust the degree of difficulty to provide an appropriate level of challenge.
• Interest — Different students show interest in different topics and activities (from football to fashion to food, you name it). The basic theory here is that teachers can motivate students to learn by showing them how subjects being taught connect with their particular interests.
• Learning profile — The ways that students learn best can be shaped by a variety of factors including their culture, the learning environment (working solo or collaboratively, sitting still or moving around, in a quiet atmosphere or while listening to music), and their innate learning style or styles (for example, is the student a visual, auditory or kinesthetic learner?).

A simplified example of connecting a student’s interest to the content of a particular learning goal or assignment is illustrated in an Education Week video narrated by teacher and author Larry Ferlazzo, who explains that differentiating instruction is really about getting to know your students and making decisions, often in the moment, based on what they need.

During a classroom assignment that involved an “argument essay” about what would be the worst natural disaster to experience, he noticed that one student had his head down on the desk and was not participating. Knowing that this student was interested in football, Ferlazzo engaged him to write his argument essay on the topic of “why his favorite team was the best.” In this case, the learning goal was developing the skills needed to make an effective argument (not learning about natural disasters) and the product was an essay that followed all the attributes of a good argument essay.

When it comes to process , the road to the best outcomes might involve teachers asking themselves: What are the learning objectives? And what are the best roads to get there for different students? A few of the possibilities include:

• Having students work alone or in groups
• Offering a choice on a variety of writing prompts
• Connecting subject matter to individual interests
• Employing tiered activities through which the whole class works on the same important subject matter and skills, but with different levels of support, challenge or complexity

Regarding product , Tomlinson has written, “students can propose the way they’d like to show us something, or we might offer them two choices — with the notion that they can make a deal with us to do the third one.”

Ferlazzo says that when he gave tests, he sometimes included an extra blank page for students to write (or write and draw!) “anything else they remember about the topic being tested that they think is important.” He found that sometimes those responses were more inspired than the responses to his test questions. Ferlazzo said his version of differentiated instruction did not require a significant amount of extra work, but “did require that I had relationships with my students to know their strengths, challenges and interests.”

Another example of a classroom that employs an interesting variation of differentiated instruction is seen in an Edutopia video titled “Station Rotation: Differentiating Instruction to Reach All Students.” At Highlander Charter School in Rhode Island, classes start with a group lesson then break into smaller groups, each of which rotates through three stations designed to connect students with the material using different learning modalities.

The biggest criticism around differentiated instruction often centers on the idea that it requires teachers to take on an even heavier workload. Here is a brief summary of some of the chief pros and cons.

• Research suggests that differentiated instruction can be effective both for students who are academic achievers as well as those with learning challenges or even significant disabilities.
• When offered more options on how they can learn the material, students become more motivated and engaged, taking on more responsibility for their own learning.
• When students are more engaged in learning, there are typically fewer classroom disciplinary problems.
• Many educators believe that making differentiated instruction truly worthwhile requires significant additional work devoted to lesson planning.
• Though differentiated instruction comes naturally to some educators, when practiced schoolwide there can be a significant learning curve and there are often insufficient professional development resources.
• Critics contend that there isn’t enough research to justify the additional resources required to support the benefits of differentiated instruction.

What is differentiated instruction?

Carol Ann Tomlinson, an author and teacher regarded as a pioneer in differentiated instruction, describes it as “a way of thinking about teaching which suggests that … we teach with an eye on the student.” She emphasizes four key pillars of differentiated instruction: Content, Process, Product and Learning Environment.

Does differentiated instruction require more work for teachers?

The amount of additional preparation required is open to debate, but most educators agree that successfully employing differentiated instruction does require building relationships with students to know their strengths, challenges and interests.

What are the biggest benefits of differentiated learning?

Advocates contend that by connecting subject matter and learning goals to individual student strengths, interests and learning styles, differentiated instruction can inspire students to be more engaged and motivated, thereby creating improved learning outcomes by inspiring them to take on more responsibility for their own learning.

Many teachers reach a point in their career where they want to further develop their skills to make an even greater impact in their classroom, often following a particular passion or specific area of interest such as differentiated instruction. Whatever one’s desired area of focus, there are a range of master’s degree programs — including online options — designed to help working teachers achieve their career development goals.

For example, the University of San Diego offers an online Master of Education degree program with different specializations ranging from Inclusive Learning to Curriculum and Instruction . The curriculum in both specializations includes coursework focused on “strategies that provide differentiated support for the success of all students.”

Differentiated instruction is a comprehensive approach to teaching whose essence, according to the educational advocate Ferlazzo, is this: “Recognizing that all of our students bring different gifts and challenges, and that as educators we need to recognize those differences and use our professional judgment to flexibly respond to them in our teaching.”

Be Sure To Share This Article

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Top 11 Reasons to get Your Master of Education Degree

Free 22-page Book

• Master of Education

Related Posts

Initial Thoughts

Perspectives & resources, what is differentiated instruction.

• Page 1: Defining Differentiated Instruction
• Page 2: General Principles

How do teachers differentiate instruction?

• Page 3: Know Your Students
• Page 4: Differentiate Instructional Elements
• Page 5: Differentiate Content
• Page 6: Differentiate Process
• Page 7: Differentiate Product
• Page 8: Evaluate and Grade Student Performance

How do teachers prepare their students and their classrooms for differentiated instruction?

• Page 9: Communicate with Students and Parents
• Page 10: Organize the Classroom
• Page 11: Employ Effective Behavior Management

What does differentiated instruction look like in the classroom?

• Page 12: Classroom Implementation
• Page 13: References & Additional Resources
• Page 14: Credits

Differentiated Instruction: Maximizing the Learning of All Students

This module discusses the importance of differentiating three aspects of instruction: content, process (instructional methods), and product (assessment). It explores the student traits—readiness level, interest, and learning preferences—that influence learning (est. completion time: 3 hours).

Work through the sections of this module in the order presented in the STAR graphic above.

Related to this module

Copyright 2022 Vanderbilt University. All rights reserved.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Differentiated instruction in secondary education: a systematic review of research evidence.

• Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Differentiated instruction is a pedagogical-didactical approach that provides teachers with a starting point for meeting students' diverse learning needs. Although differentiated instruction has gained a lot of attention in practice and research, not much is known about the status of the empirical evidence and its benefits for enhancing student achievement in secondary education. The current review sets out to provide an overview of the theoretical conceptualizations of differentiated instruction as well as prior findings on its effectiveness. Then, by means of a systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2016, empirical evidence on the effects of within-class differentiated instruction for secondary school students' academic achievement is evaluated and summarized. After a rigorous search and selection process, only 14 papers about 12 unique empirical studies on the topic were selected for review. A narrative description of the selected papers shows that differentiated instruction has been operationalized in many different ways. The selection includes studies on generic teacher trainings for differentiated instruction, ability grouping and tiering, individualization, mastery learning, heterogeneous grouping, and remediation in flipped classroom lessons. The majority of the studies show small to moderate positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. Summarized effect sizes across studies range from d = +0.741 to +0.509 (omitting an outlier). These empirical findings give some indication of the possible benefits of differentiated instruction. However, they also point out that there are still severe knowledge gaps. More research is needed before drawing convincing conclusions regarding the effectiveness and value of different approaches to differentiated instruction for secondary school classes.

Introduction

Differentiation is a hot-topic in education nowadays. Policy-makers and researchers urge teachers to embrace diversity and to adapt their instruction to the diverse learning needs of students in their classrooms ( Schleicher, 2016 ; Unesco, 2017 ). Differentiation is a philosophy of teaching rooted in deep respect for students, acknowledgment of their differences, and the drive to help all students thrive. Such ideas imply that teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, or requirements for student products to better meet students' learning needs ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). When teachers deliberately plan such adaptations to facilitate students' learning and execute these adaptations during their lessons we call it differentiated instruction. A number of developments in education have boosted the need for differentiated instruction. First, contemporary classes are becoming relatively heterogeneous because of policies focused on detracking, the inclusion of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and inclusive education in which special education students (SEN) attend classes along with non-SEN students ( Rock et al., 2008 ; Tomlinson, 2015 ). Since early stratification of students may have unintended effects on the educational opportunities of students with varying background characteristics, addressing students' learning needs by teaching adaptively within heterogeneous classrooms has been proposed as the best choice for a fair educational system ( Oakes, 2008 ; Schütz et al., 2008 ; Schofield, 2010 ; OECD, 2012 , 2018 ). In addition, even within relatively homogeneous classrooms, there are considerable differences between students that need attention ( Wilkinson and Penney, 2014 ). Second, the idea that learners have different learning needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach does not suffice, is gaining momentum ( Subban, 2006 ). Policy makers stress that all students should be supported to develop their knowledge and skills at their own level ( Rock et al., 2008 ; Schleicher, 2016 ) and there is the wish to improve equity or equality among students ( Unesco, 2017 ; Kyriakides et al., 2018 ). When the aim is to decrease the gap between low and high achieving students, teachers could invest most in supporting low achieving students. This is called convergent differentiation ( Bosker, 2005 ). Alternatively, teachers may apply divergent differentiation in which they strive for equality by dividing their efforts equally across all students, allowing for variation between students in the learning goals they reach, time they use, and outcomes they produce ( Bosker, 2005 ).

Although the concept of differentiated instruction is quite well-known, teachers find it difficult to grasp how differentiated instruction should be implemented in their classrooms ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). A recent study found that teachers across different countries infrequently adapt their instruction to student characteristics ( Schleicher, 2016 ). Struggling students may work on too difficult tasks or, conversely, high ability students may practice skills they have already mastered ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Clearly, more information about effective practices is needed. A recent review and meta-analysis of differentiated instruction practices in primary education shows that differentiated instruction has some potential for improving student outcomes, when implemented well ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). However, these results may not generalize directly to secondary education, since the situation in which teachers teach multiple classes in secondary education is rather different in nature compared to primary education ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). For secondary education, evidence for the benefits of differentiated instruction is scarce ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). The bulk of studies in secondary education focus on differentiation of students between classes by means of streaming or tracking ( Slavin, 1990a ; Schofield, 2010 ). Alternatively, the current study seeks to scrutinize which empirical evidence there is on the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education, how studies operationalize the approach, and in which contexts the studies were performed.

Theory and Operationalizations

Operationalizing differentiated instruction in the classroom.

Theories of differentiation are bound by several guiding principles. They include a focus on essential ideas and skills in each content area, responsiveness to individual differences, integration of assessment and instruction, and ongoing adjustment of content, process, and products to meet students' learning needs ( Rock et al., 2008 ). Differentiation typically includes pro-active and deliberate adaptations of the content, process, product, learning environment or learning time, based on the assessment of students' readiness or another relevant student characteristic such as learning preference or interest ( Roy et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). In Table 1 , we have schematized the theoretical construct of differentiated instruction in the lesson within the broader definition of within-class differentiation.

Table 1 . Theoretical model of within-class differentiation.

Differentiated instruction in the classroom entails two aspects. First is the pedagogy and didactics of differentiated instruction : which teaching practices and techniques do teachers use and what do they differentiate ( McQuarrie et al., 2008 ; Valiande and Koutselini, 2009 )? Teachers may offer students' adapted content , offer various options in the learning process , use different assessment products , or adapt the learning environment to students' learning needs ( Tomlinson, 2014 ). Teachers may also offer certain students more learning time or conversely, encourage high achievers to speed up their learning process ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). Regarding the process , they may use pre-teaching or extended instruction to cater to the needs of students ( Smets and Struyven, 2018 ), or they could adapt instructions throughout the lesson. Second, the organizational aspect of differentiated instruction entails the structure in which it is embedded. There are different approaches a teacher may choose (see Table 1 ). In macro-adaptive approaches, teachers use some form of homogeneous clustering to organize their differentiated instruction ( Corno, 2008 ), including fixed or flexible grouping of students based on a common characteristic such as readiness or interest. Alternatively, teachers could use heterogeneous grouping to organize their differentiated instruction. Differentiation of the learning process may occur because students divide tasks within the group based on their learning preferences or abilities. Alternatively, a teacher may suggest a division of tasks or support based on assessment of learning needs ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). When adaptations are taken to the level at which individual students work at their own rate on their level, this is called individualization ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). The learning goals are the same, but learning trajectories are tailored to individuals' needs. Some authors include individualized approaches into the theoretical construct of differentiated instruction ( Smit et al., 2011 ; Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ), whereas others separate it from differentiated instruction ( Bray and McClaskey, 2013 ; Roy et al., 2013 ).

Lastly, there are teaching models or strategies in which differentiated instruction has a central place. One well-known example is group-based mastery learning . In this approach, subject matter is divided into small blocks or units. For each unit, the teacher gives uniform instructions to the whole group of students. Then, a formative assessment informs the teacher which students reach the desired level of mastery of the unit (usually set at 80–90% correct). Students below this criterion receive corrective instruction in small groups, or alternatively, forms of tutoring, peer tutoring or independent practice are also possible to differentiate the learning process ( Slavin, 1987 ). Differentiated instruction may also be embedded in other instructional approaches like peer tutoring, problem-based learning, flipped classroom models etc. ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Altemueller and Lindquist, 2017 ).

Immediate, unplanned adaptations to student needs, so-called “micro-adaptations” ( Corno, 2008 ), are not included in the theoretical model in Table 1 , since differentiated instruction is—by nature—planned and deliberate ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Keuning et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, we did not include the concept of “personalization” in our model since in personalized approaches students follow their own learning trajectories, pursue their own learning goals, and co-construct the learning trajectory, which makes it notably different from typical operationalizations of differentiated instruction ( Bray and McClaskey, 2013 ; Cavanagh, 2014 ).

Differentiation as a Sum of Its Parts

As noted above, differentiated instruction during the lesson is in fact only one piece of the mosaic ( Tomlinson, 1999 ). There are a lot of other steps that are crucial for successful implementation of differentiated instruction ( Keuning et al., 2017 ; Van Geel et al., 2019 ). Table 1 shows other behaviors that are related to what teachers do in the classroom. First, continuous monitoring and (formative) assessment and differentiated instruction are inseparable ( Hall, 1992 ; Valiande and Koutselini, 2009 ; Roy et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Denessen and Douglas, 2015 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). Some teachers may be inclined to use rather one-dimensional, fixed categorizations of students based on their learning needs at some point in time ( Smets and Struyven, 2018 ). Nevertheless, high quality differentiated instruction is based on the frequent assessment of learning needs and flexible adaptations to meet those needs. Prior to the lesson including differentiated instruction, teachers should have clear goals for their students, use some form of pre-assessment , and plan their adaptive instruction ( Prast et al., 2015 ; Keuning et al., 2017 ; Van Geel et al., 2019 ). Then, teachers proceed to the actual differentiated instruction during the lesson . After the lesson, teachers should evaluate students' progress toward their goals.

Besides these steps, more general high-quality teaching behaviors are preconditions to create a good context for differentiated instruction ( Wang et al., 1990 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). For instance, creating a safe and stimulating learning environment in which students feel welcomed and respected is essential ( Tomlinson, 2014 ). In addition, good classroom management may help teachers to implement differentiated instruction in an orderly manner ( Maulana et al., 2015 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). In empirical studies, differentiated instruction has been found to be a separate domain of teaching, while at the same time being strongly interrelated with other high quality teaching behaviors ( Van de Grift et al., 2014 ; Maulana et al., 2015 ; Van der Lans et al., 2017 , 2018 ). In turn, high quality teaching behaviors like questioning, explaining the lesson content, or giving examples can be applied in a differentiated way, stressing that high quality teaching is both a contextual factor as a direct source of input for teachers' differentiated instruction.

Prior Review Studies on Differentiated Instruction

Although studies on within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education are scarce, a number of reviews and meta-analyses have shed some light on the effects on student achievement. Subban (2006) discusses a number of studies showing that adapting content or processes can make learning more engaging for students than one-size-fits-all teaching, and some studies showed positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. The narrative review by Tomlinson et al. (2003) revealed studies showing that students achieve better results in mixed-ability classrooms in which the teacher differentiates instruction than in homogeneous classes were a more single-size approach is used. In a recent narrative research synthesis on adaptive teaching, one study on differentiated instruction was included. The authors found positive results of different types of adaptive teaching on students' academic and non-academic outcomes in primary education ( Parsons et al., 2018 ). In a large-scale meta-analysis by Scheerens (2016) , adaptive teaching was operationalized with some relevant indicators such as using variable teaching methods, orientation toward individual learning processes, and considering students' prerequisites. In this meta-analysis, a very small effect of adaptive teaching on student achievement was found.

A number of reviews report on specific operationalizations of within-class differentiated instruction. One of the most frequently reviewed forms is ability grouping . In within-class ability grouping, teachers cluster students into different homogeneous groups based on their abilities or readiness. In her narrative review, Tieso (2003) summarizes that ability grouping has a potential influence on student achievement when grouping is flexible, and teachers adapt their instruction to the needs of different groups. Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) performed a meta-synthesis including five other meta-analyses of the effects of ability grouping in K-12 education. In their study, within-class grouping was found to have at least a small positive impact on students' academic achievement (Hedges g = + 0.25). In the study of Kulik (1992) , who also combined results from different meta-analyses, a comparable effect size of Glass's Δ = + 0.25 in favor of within-class ability grouping was found. In the meta-analysis of Lou et al. (1996) on grouping in secondary education, within-class grouping was found to have a small positive effect (Cohen's d = + 0.12) on student outcomes. Substantive achievement gains were found in studies in which teachers adapted their teaching to needs of the different ability groups (Cohen's d = + 0.25), but not in studies in which teachers provided the same instruction for the different groups (Cohen's d = + 0.02). In his large meta-analysis of effects of instructional approaches on student outcomes, Hattie (2009) reported a small positive effect of within-class ability grouping on students' academic achievement (Cohen's d = +0.16). Conversely, Slavin (1990a) did not find significant effects of (between and within-class) ability grouping on achievement in secondary education. In a meta-synthesis of multiple meta-analyses on ability grouping—including between-class ability grouping—no overall positive effects of the approach were found ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). Some studies have found that ability grouping effects may differ for subgroups of students. For instance, Lou et al. (1996) found that low-ability students learned significantly more in heterogeneous (mixed-ability) groups, average-ability students benefitted most in homogeneous ability groups, and for high-ability students group composition made no significant difference. In primary education, Deunk et al. (2018) found a negative effect of within-class homogeneous grouping for low achieving pupils. Conversely, Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) concluded that high-, average-, and low-ability students all benefited equally from ability grouping. Thus, the findings on differential effects of ability grouping remain inconclusive.

Another possible approach to differentiated instruction is tiering. Tiering refers to using the same curriculum material for all learners, but adjusting the depth of content, the learning activity process, and/or the type of product developed by the student to students' readiness, interest or learning style ( Pierce and Adams, 2005 ; Richards and Omdal, 2007 ). Teachers design a number of variations or tiers to a learning task, process or product, to which students are assigned based on assessed abilities. To our knowledge, there are no specific reviews of the literature or meta-analyses summarizing the effects of tiering on student achievement, but the approach is often combined with homogeneous (ability) grouping.

Alternatively, turning to heterogeneous grouping as an organizational structure for differentiated instruction, there is evidence that students of varying backgrounds working together may learn from each other's knowledge, from observing each other, and from commenting on each other's errors ( Nokes-Malach et al., 2015 ). However, based on their narrative review about differentiated instruction in secondary schools, Coubergs et al. (2013) concluded that there is little known about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in heterogeneous settings They found that guiding heterogeneous groups is challenging for teachers, and that it is difficult to address the learning needs of all students in these mixed groups.

Reviews of effectiveness of individualized instruction indicate small effects on student outcomes. Hattie (2009) reports a small effect of individualization on student achievement (Cohen's d = +0.23). In addition, in another review a wide range of effects across meta-analyses was found of individualization on academic achievement of students (from −0.07 to +0.40; Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). Currently, mostly ICT-applications are used to individualize instruction. Review studies show that such adaptive ICT applications may considerably improve student achievement ( Ma et al., 2014 ; Van der Kleij et al., 2015 ; Kulik and Fletcher, 2016 ; Shute and Rahimi, 2017 ).

Guskey and Pigott (1988) performed a meta-analysis on the effects of group-based mastery learning on students' academic outcomes from grade one up to college. They reported positive effects on students' academic achievement as a result of the application of group-based mastery learning for, among others, high school students (Hedges g = +0.48). Later on, Kulik et al. (1990) and Hattie (2009) also reported relatively large positive effects of group-based mastery learning on student achievement (ES = +0.59 and Cohen's d = +0.58, respectively). Low ability students were generally found to profit most from the convergent approach ( Guskey and Pigott, 1988 ; Kulik et al., 1990 ). Mastery learning was among the most effective educational approaches in a meta-synthesis of multiple meta-analyses ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). However, mastery learning may be particularly valuable to train specific skills but may yield fewer positive results for more general skills as measured by standardized tests ( Slavin, 1987 , 1990b ). Mastery learning has also been incorporated into broader interventions in secondary education such as the IMPROVE method ( Mevarech and Kramarski, 1997 ).

Overall, from previous review studies we can draw the conclusion that there is some evidence that differentiated instruction has potential power to affect students' academic achievement positively with small to medium effects. However, the evidence is limited and heterogeneous in nature. The effectiveness of some approaches to differentiated instruction, such as ability grouping, has been reviewed extensively, while other approaches have received less attention. Furthermore, most studies were executed some time ago and were executed in the context of primary education, while only few studies focus specifically on secondary education.

Contextual and Personal Factors Influencing Differentiated Instruction

When analyzing the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, it is important to acknowledge that classroom processes do not occur in a vacuum. Both internal and external sources determine whether teachers will succeed in developing complex teaching skills ( Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002 ). In the case of differentiated instruction, teacher-level variables like education, professional development and personal characteristics like knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values and self-efficacy may influence their behavior ( Tomlinson, 1995 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ; Kiley, 2011 ; De Jager, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2013 ; Dixon et al., 2014 ; De Neve and Devos, 2016 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Teachers need thorough content knowledge and a broad range of pedagogical and didactic skills to plan and execute differentiated instruction ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). At the classroom level, diversity of the student population ( De Neve and Devos, 2016 ) and class-size ( Blatchford et al., 2011 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Stollman, 2018 ) influence interactions between teachers and their students. Moreover, school characteristics matter. For instance, a school principal's support can influence implementation of differentiated instruction ( Hertberg-Davis and Brighton, 2006 ). Additionally, structural organizational conditions, such as time and resources available for professional development, and cultural organizational conditions such as the learning environment, support from the school board, and a professional culture of collaboration may influence teaching ( Imants and Van Veen, 2010 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Teachers have reported that preparation time is a crucial factor determining the implementation of differentiated instruction ( De Jager, 2013 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Moreover, collaboration is key; a high pedagogical team culture influences both the learning climate and the implementation of differentiated instruction ( Smit and Humpert, 2012 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Lastly, country level requirements and (assessment) policies that stress differentiated instruction may influence implementation ( Mills et al., 2014 ).

Research Questions

Researchers and teachers lack a systematic overview of the current empirical evidence for different approaches to within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education. Therefore, we aim to (1) give an overview of the empirical literature on effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement in secondary education, and (2) consider the degree to which contextual and personal factors inhibit or enhance the effects of within-class differentiated instruction.

Our study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1. What is the research base regarding the effects of within-class differentiated instruction on students' academic achievement in secondary education?

RQ2. How are the selected approaches to differentiated instruction operationalized?

RQ3. What are the overall effects of differentiated instruction on students' academic achievement?

RQ4. Which contextual and personal factors inhibit or enhance the effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement?

Based on previous research, we hypothesize to find literature on multiple possible approaches to differentiated instruction in the classroom. Probably, there will be more evidence for some operationalizations (like ability grouping) than for others. Overall, we hypothesize that differentiated instruction will have a small to medium positive effect on students' academic achievement. Several contextual and personal factors may affect the implementation. In this review, we will include information about relevant contextual and personal variables—when provided—into the interpretation of the literature.

Study Design

In order to provide a systematic overview of the literature on within-class differentiated instruction, a best evidence synthesis ( Slavin, 1986 , 1995 ; Best Evidence Encyclopedia, n.d.) was applied. This was done by a-priori defining consistent, transparent standards to identify relevant studies about within-class differentiated instruction. Each selected study is discussed in some detail and results are evaluated. In case enough papers are found that are comparable, findings can be pooled across studies. The best-evidence strategy is particularly suitable for topics—such as differentiated instruction—for which the body of literature is expected to be rather small and diverse. In such cases, it is important to learn as much as possible from each study, not just to average quantitative outcomes and study characteristics (compare Slavin and Cheung, 2005 ). In a recent review study on differentiated instruction in primary schools, the best evidence synthesis approach was used as well ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). In this study, the authors mentioned the benefits of selecting studies using strict pre-defined criteria (to avoid a garbage in-garbage-out effect). Moreover, combining a meta-analysis with relatively extended descriptions of the included studies in order to make the information more fine-grained was found to improve the interpretability of the results.

Working Definition of Differentiated Instruction

To select relevant studies for our review, we used the following working definition of differentiated instruction: Differentiated teaching in the classroom consisting of planned adaptations in process, learning time, content, product or learning environment for groups of students or individual students. Adaptations can be based on achievement/readiness or another relevant student characteristic (such as prior knowledge, learning preferences, and interest) with the goal of meeting students' learning needs.

Adaptations that are merely organizational, such as placing students in homogeneous groups without adapting the teaching to relevant inter-learner differences, were excluded. Interventions using approaches like peer tutoring, project-based learning and other types of collaborative leaning were eligible, but only when planned differentiated instruction was applied based on relevant student characteristics (e.g., by assigning specific roles based on students' abilities). Beyond the scope of this review were studies on differentiated instruction outside the classroom such as between-class differentiation (streaming or tracking), tutoring outside the classroom, or stratification of students between schools.

Search Strategy

The studies for our best evidence synthesis were identified in a number of steps. First, we performed a systematic search in the online databases ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (SSCI). Following the guidelines of Petticrew and Roberts (2006) , a set of keywords referring to the intervention (differentiation combined with keywords referring to instruction), the population (secondary education) and the outcomes of interest (academic outcomes) were used. We limited the findings to studies published between 2006 and 2016 that were published in academic journals. Although this first search yielded relevant studies, it failed to identify a number of important studies on differentiated instruction practices known from the literature. This was because search terms like “differentiation” and “adaptive” were not used in all relevant studies. Some authors used more specific terms such as ability grouping, tiered lessons, flexible grouping and mastery learning. Therefore, an additional search was performed in ERIC and PsycINFO with more specific keywords associated with differentiated instruction. We added keywords referring to various homogeneous or heterogeneous clustering approaches, to mastery learning approaches, or to convergent or divergent approaches (see Appendix A for the full search string) 1 .

Additional to this protocol-driven approach, we used more informal approaches to trace relevant studies. We cross-referenced the selected papers and recent review studies on related topics, used personal knowledge about relevant papers, and consulted experts in the field. We only used newly identified papers in case they were from journals indexed in the online databases Ebscohost, Web of Science, or Scopus to avoid selecting predatory journal outputs.

Selection of Papers

The identified papers were screened in pre-designed Excel sheets in two stages. First, two independent coders applied a set of inclusion criteria (criteria 1–8) to all papers based on title, abstract, and keywords. The papers that met the following conditions were reviewed in full text: (1) one or both of the coders judged the paper to be included for full text review based on the inclusion criteria using the title, abstract, and keywords, or (2) the study fulfilled some of the inclusion criteria but not all criteria could be discerned clearly from the title, abstract or keywords. Second, in a full text review, two coders applied the inclusion criteria again after reading the full paper. If a study met the basic criteria 1–8, additional methodological criteria (9–13) were checked in order to make the final selection. To assure the quality of the coding process, full-text coding of both coders was compared. Differences between coders about whether the study met certain inclusion criteria were resolved by discussion and consensus. The dual coding process by two reviewers was used since this substantially increases the chance that eligible studies are rightfully included ( Edwards et al., 2002 ). Only studies that met all 13 inclusion criteria were included in the review.

Inclusion Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were used to select the relevant papers. These criteria were based on a prior review study on differentiated instruction in primary education ( Deunk et al., 2018 ) and the best evidence studies by Slavin and colleagues ( Slavin and Cheung, 2005 ; Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ).

1. Within-class differentiated instruction: The study is about the effect of within-class differentiated instruction, as defined in our study (see section Working Definition of Differentiated Instruction).

2. Practicality : The differentiated instruction approach is practical for teachers ( Janssen et al., 2015 ). Teachers must be able to apply this intervention themselves in a regular classroom. In addition, the intervention is time- and cost-effective, meaning that it should not take excessive training or coaching nor use of external teachers in the classroom to implement the approach. Interventions in which ICT applications are used to support the teachers' instruction and can be controlled by the teacher (e.g., in blended learning environments in which teachers make use of on-line tools or PowerPoint) could be included. However, studies on the effects of fully computerized adaptive programs (e.g., with adaptive feedback or intelligent tutors) or differentiation approaches for which an external teacher (or tutor) is needed (such as pullout interventions) were excluded.

3. Study type: Students in a differentiated instruction intervention condition are compared to those in a control condition in which students are taught using standard practice (“business as usual”), or to an alternative intervention (compare Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). The design could be truly randomized or quasi-experimental or matched (the control condition could be a group of other students in a between-group design, or students could be their own control group in a within-groups design) 2 . Additionally, large-scale survey designs in which within-class differentiated instruction is retrospectively linked to academic outcomes were eligible for inclusion (compare Deunk et al., 2018 ). Surveys have increasingly included been used in reviews of effectiveness, although one must keep in mind that no finding from a survey is definitive ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ).

4. Quantitative empirical study : The study contains quantitative empirical data of at least 15 students per experimental group (compare Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). Other studies such as qualitative studies, case studies with fewer than 15 students, or theoretical or descriptive studies were excluded.

5. Secondary education: The study was executed in secondary education. For example, in middle schools, high schools, vocational schools, sixth-form schools or comparable levels of education for students from an age of about 11 or 12 years onwards. In some contexts, secondary schools could include grades as low as five, but they usually start with sixth or seventh grades (compare Slavin, 1990a ).

6. Mainstream education : The study was performed in a mainstream school setting (in a regular school, during school hours). Studies that were performed in non-school settings (e.g., in a laboratory or the workplace) or in an alternate school setting (e.g., an on-line course, a summer school, a special needs school) were excluded.

7. Academic achievement : Academic achievement of students is reported as a quantitative dependent variable, such as mathematics skills, language comprehension, or knowledge of history.

8. Language : The paper is written in English or Dutch (all authors master these languages), but the actual studies could be performed in any country.

Additional inclusion criteria used in the full-text review:

9. Differentiated instruction purpose: The study is about differentiated instruction with the aim of addressing cognitive differences (e.g., readiness, achievement level, intelligence) or differences in motivation / interest or learning profiles ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Studies in which adaptions were made based on other factors such as culture (“culturally responsive teaching”) or physical or mental disabilities are beyond the scope of this review.

10. Implementation : The intervention is (at least partly) implemented. If this was not specifically reported, implementation was assumed.

11. Outcome measurement: The dependent variables/outcome measures include quantitative measures of achievement. Experimenter-made measures were accepted if they were comprehensive and fair to the both groups; no treatment-inherent measures were included ( Slavin and Madden, 2011 ).

12. Effect sizes : The paper provides enough information to calculate or extract effect sizes about the effectiveness of the differentiated instruction approach.

13. Comparability : Pretest information is provided (unless random assignments of at least 30 units was used and there were no indications of initial inequality). Studies with pretest differences of more than 50% of a standard deviation were excluded because—even with analyses of covariance—large pretest differences cannot be adequately adjusted for ( Slavin et al., 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; compare Deunk et al., 2018 ).

Data Extraction

After the final selection of papers based on the criteria above, relevant information was extracted from the papers and coded by two independent reviewers in a pre-designed Excel sheet (see Appendix B ). Discrepancies between the extractions of both reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. Missing information regarding the methodology or results was requested from the authors by e-mail (although only few responses were received). The content coding was used (additional to the full texts) to inform the literature synthesis and to extract data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Data Analysis

We transformed all outcomes on student achievement from the selected papers to Cohen's d , which is the standardized mean difference between groups ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ; Borenstein et al., 2009 ). To do so, the program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2 was used ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). Effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model since we have no reason to assume that the studies are “identical” in the sense that the true effect size is exactly the same in all studies ( Borenstein et al., 2010 ). Methods of calculating effects using different types of data are described in Borenstein et al. (2009) and Lyons (2003) . When outcomes were reported in multiple formats in the paper, we chose the means and standard deviations to come to transparent and comparable outcomes. The effects were standardized using post-score standard deviations for measures where this was needed. For some outcome formats, CMA requires the user to insert a pre-post correlation. Since none of the selected papers provided this number, we assumed a correlation of 0.80 in the analyses since it is reasonable to assume such a pre- post correlation in studies in secondary education ( Swanson and Lussier, 2001 ; Cole et al., 2011 ). This correlation does not affect the Cohen's d statistic but has impact on its variance component. For the papers in which multiple outcome measures were reported, we used the means of the different measures. In case only subgroup means (of subgroups within classes of schools) were reported, we combined the outcomes of the subgroups with study as the unit of analysis to calculate a combined effect ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). For one study in which the intervention was executed in separate schools differing in implementation and findings, we have included the schools in the analyses separately (using schools in which the intervention took place as the unit of analysis).

Search Results

Our search led to 1,365 hits from the online databases ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science and 34 cross-referenced papers. Excluding duplicates, 1,029 papers were reviewed. See Appendix C for a flow-chart of the selection process. In total, 14 papers met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Papers reporting on the same project and outcomes were taken together as one study. The papers by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) report on the same project. The same applies to two other papers as well ( Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 2011 ). Thus, in the end, 12 unique studies were included in our review and meta-analysis leading to 15 effects in total (since for one study the four different schools in which the intervention was executed were taken as the unit of analysis).

Study Characteristics

In Table 2 , the characteristics and individual effects of the studies included in our review are summarized. The selection of studies includes eight quasi-experimental studies in which classes were randomly allocated to a control or experimental condition ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Huber et al., 2009 ; Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Little et al., 2014 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bhagat et al., 2016 ), three studies in which schools were randomly allocated to conditions ( Wambugu and Changeiywo, 2008 ; Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ), and one survey-study ( Smit and Humpert, 2012 ). These studies covered a wide range of academic subjects, including science, mathematics and reading. In terms of the number of participating students, six studies were small-scale studies ( N < 250) and six were large-scale studies ( N > 250). However, note that all experiments had nested designs. Only the studies of Little et al. (2014) and Vogt and Rogalla (2009) have at least 15 cases in each experimental condition at the level of randomization. Four studies were performed in the United States of America, five in Europe, one in Taiwan, and two in Africa. All studies were performed in secondary education, but the Vogt and Rogalla study represents a combined sample of primary- and secondary education students.

Table 2 . Summary of contents of the selected papers and the effects of the individual studies on student achievement.

Literature Synthesis

To further reflect on the findings from the selected studies in respect to our research questions, we will give a more detailed description of the study designs, implementations and findings here.

Studies on Generic Approaches to Differentiated Instruction

Although adaptive teaching does not necessarily include differentiated instruction, we found two quasi-experimental studies on adaptive teaching that (to some extent) matched our definition of differentiated instruction. In the large-scale study by Vogt and Rogalla (2009) , teachers were trained in adaptive teaching competency to improve their teaching and, in turn, to maximize students' learning. In the project “Adaptive Teaching Competency,” that was also included in the paper of Bruhwiler and Blatchford (2011) , adaptive teaching was characterized as including: sufficient subject knowledge, taking the diverse pre-conditions and learning processes of students into account, using various effective teaching methods for the whole group, differentiating for students' varying learning needs, supporting students in the regulation of learning processes, and using effective classroom management. In the project, teachers learned to focus on both adaptive planning prior to the lesson, as well as making adaptations during the lesson. Teachers of 27 primary school classes and 23 secondary school classes with 623 students were recruited to learn more about adaptive teaching. They participated in a 2-day workshop, received several coaching sessions in the classroom and used the adaptive teaching framework in their classes for eight science lessons. After the intervention, it was measured—among others—whether teachers differentiated to meet students' diverse skills and interests. After the intervention, teachers' competency in planning adaptive lessons significantly increased but their “Adaptive Implementation” did not change much. Unfortunately, in the coaching sessions, teachers often did not discuss about issues of adapting to the diversity of students' skills and their pre-existing knowledge. The results of students in the experimental classes were compared to those of 299 control students. The authors reported that the secondary students in the experimental group outperformed their counterparts in control classrooms on a science achievement test after the intervention. However, since we only had access to the means of the combined sample in primary and secondary education we used the combined sample results. Our calculation based on these means shows a small non-significant intervention effect of d = +0.133 (see Table 2 ). The authors argue that more coaching may be needed to foster the implementation of adaptive teaching in the classroom, although it would decrease the cost-effectiveness of the approach.

In the study by Huber et al. (2009) , teachers learned about adaptive teaching in a workshop, and were asked to incorporate it into their lessons. The intervention was the Prevention through Alternative Learning Styles (PALS) program aimed at prevention of alcohol-, tobacco-, and other drug (AOTD) abuse. Prevention of alcohol-, tobacco-, and other drugs is rather commonplace in secondary schools. For instance, in the US, students typically get into prevention programs more than once in their school career ( Kumar et al., 2013 ) and European schools are also encouraged to take action in promoting students' health ( World Health Organiasation, 2011 ). Teachers attended a 1-day workshop about adaptive teaching by means of: modifying time, increasing or decreasing the number of items to be learned or completed, increasing the level of support, changing the input or the way the material is presented, changing the output, adapting the amount of active participation, changing to alternate goals and expectations, adapting the level of difficulty for each individual, and providing different instruction and materials. In addition, teachers learned about alternative learning styles and disabilities. PALS materials were developed by the research team to match students' specific needs and related abilities. In a quasi-experimental study, four grade 6–8 teachers taught the 10 PALS intervention lessons to their classes and PALS team members taught another 24 classes. School officials suggested a convenient comparison group receiving the traditional prevention program. In reference to the control group, the PALS program had a large significant effect of d = +1.374 on students' knowledge of the effects of ATOD (see Table 2 ). These results were replicated in a second, within-group repeated measures design. Although the findings seem promising, more information is needed about how the approach was implemented; in the paper, it is unclear how teachers applied the information from the training in their instruction. Moreover, replication of the findings in a study in which teachers teach all project lessons may also help clarify whether the effects of the intervention were affected by the fact that project staff taught most lessons in the experimental condition.

We only selected two studies using a generic approach to differentiated instruction and the effects of the studies described above differ considerably regarding their intervention, school subject, and findings. This makes it hard to estimate the overall effectiveness of generic approaches. The study of Huber seems promising, but unfortunately, the study of Vogt and Rogalla did not lead to positive achievement effects for students across the primary and secondary school group. More studies are needed to gain insight in how teachers could effectively and efficiently be supported or coached to master the multifaceted approach of differentiated instruction.

Studies on Differentiated Instruction Using Homogeneous Clustering

A number of selected studies use a macro-adaptive approach to differentiated instruction ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ). Of these studies, the study of Richards and Omdal (2007) has the most robust design. In this study, first year students were randomized over 14 classes and then classes were randomly assigned to conditions. Within the experimental condition, the science content for ability groups was adapted to students' learning needs by means of tiering. To study the effectiveness of the approach, 194 students were randomly assigned to classes in which the teachers used tiered content, while 194 other students were in the control group that worked with the midrange curriculum for 4 weeks. Each teacher was assigned at least one treatment and one control class. After a pretest, students in the experimental condition were assigned to three ability groups: a low background knowledge group (around the lowest scoring 10 percent of all students), a midrange group (about 80 percent), and a high background group (the highest scoring 10 percent). One of the researchers produced the instructional materials for the study. To develop the differentiated materials, first core instructional materials were developed that were aimed at the midrange group. Next, the content was differentiated for the low and high background students. Adaptations were made to the depth of content, the degree of teacher dependence and structuring, the number of steps, the skills, time on task, the product, and the available resources. Students were asked to work together within their tiers. There was an overall small significant effect of the intervention of d = +0.284 in favor of the tiering condition (see Table 2 ). Closer analyses of subgroup results (see Table 2 ) show that this is particularly due to a large effect for the low background learners of d = +1.057. For high-range learners, differences between the control condition and the experimental condition are near to zero ( d = +0.077), although this may be partly due to a ceiling effect on the test. The authors conclude that curriculum differentiation through tiered assignments can be an effective way to address the needs of low achieving students. They recommend, however, that it should be accompanied by professional support and that teachers who design the tiers should have substantial subject matter knowledge and experience with learners with different needs.

In the study by Bikić et al. (2016) , the effectiveness of differentiated instruction of geometry content within a problem-based learning approach is studied. In the quasi-experiment, the authors compare an approach in which students solved mathematics problems on three levels differing in complexity using problem-based learning to a control condition. The study design is not described in detail, but since the authors state “students of the experimental group and control group were not the students from the same school” it seems that schools were allocated to an experimental or control condition to study the effectiveness of the approach. Within the experimental condition, 88 secondary school students were assigned to three groups (low- average-, or high-achievers) based on an initial test, and then worked on adapted levels of geometry problems for 16 lessons before completing a final test. An example of the differentiated materials in the paper shows that the three ability groups all received a different task (which was a variation of the same task differing in complexity). Unfortunately, it is not described how the students exactly processed the content. In the control condition, 77 other students were taught in the usual, traditional manner. Students in the ability grouping condition outperformed the control students with a moderate positive effect of d = +0.539 (see Table 2 ). Subgroup analyses indicate that the approach was most effective for average ability students; students in the high achieving group did not outperform high achieving students in the control group. Do note however that the high achieving groups were small (12 exp. vs. 14 contr. students), hence, these results should be interpreted with caution. More research would be needed to clarify to which extent the differentiated content improved the effectiveness of the problem-based learning approach.

A different grouping approach is one based on preferred learning styles. In the study of Bal (2016) , grade 6 students completed an algebra pre-test as well as filling out a learning style inventory (kinesthetic, visual, affective learning styles). Algebra-learning materials an activities are adapted for two tiers; for low performing students and high performing students, also adapted for different learning styles of students in the experimental group. Despite the fact that there are reasons not to use learning styles as a distinction between students (see e.g., Kirschner et al., 2018 ), the authors did find large positive effects of the tiering approach after 4 weeks of teaching ( d = + 1.085, see Table 2 ). Do note however that ANCOVA results were used to calculate the effects which may lead to some positive bias in this estimate. Based on information from student-interviews presented in the paper, it seems that students experienced success in learning and enjoyed the materials and activities developed for the experimental condition. It is unclear however, how the materials and activities were made more appropriate for students' readiness (and learning style) and how they differed from the approach in the control condition that used traditional teaching. In that sense, it is difficult to judge what caused these positive findings. In another study on mathematics by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) , teachers assessed students' preferred learning modalities by taking a multiple intelligences inventory. The data obtained from the inventory were used to determine the students' project topics, to select the teachers' teaching strategies, and to determine the relevant factors for motivating students. The effectiveness of the approach, which was originally designed for gifted students, was evaluated in a sample of 5 to 7th grade students in Turkey. After pretesting, one class of students was allocated to the experimental condition and one class of the same grade formed the control group. The authors report a very large effect of the intervention after six practices lasting 7 weeks each when compared to classes working with the Purdue model for both grade 6 and grade 7 students ( d = +4.504 across subgroups, see Table 2 ). However, it is difficult to discern what exactly caused this finding. Little information was provided about how exactly the teachers planned and executed the lessons and how students' activities and objectives were matched to their dominant intelligences, nor was there much information about possible confounding factors. In addition, since the researcher who developed the multiple intelligences theory admits that the theory is no longer up to date ( Gardner, 2016 ), one could question whether learning preferences could be better determined based on another distinction.

In summary, from the studies we found on the effectiveness approaches to differentiated instruction using homogeneous clustering, we could infer that overall small to medium sized effects (and in some cases also large effects) of the approach on student achievement can be achieved in beta subjects. The study of Altintas and Özdemir shows a very large effect of this approach and the study of Bal also shows large effects. However, before we can corroborate these findings, more information would be needed. When we look at the operationalizations of differentiated instruction in the two larger studies, we see that teachers used variations of learning tasks that were designed to better match the learning needs of different ability groups. Differential effects for student outcomes are somewhat variable; the results are most profound for the low achieving group in the study by Richards and Omdal (2007) , and for the low and average achieving group in the study of Bikić et al. (2016) . In both studies, effectiveness for the high achieving group seemed negligible.

Studies on Mastery Learning

In two included studies, mastery learning was used to boost student achievement in physics and mathematics. The quasi-experimental studies reporting on mastery learning approaches in secondary education used randomization of schools to conditions and were both performed in African schools ( Wambugu and Changeiywo, 2008 ; Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ). In the papers, the authors describe similar characteristics of mastery learning in their theoretical framework, such as specifying learning goals, breaking down the curriculum into small units, formative assessment, using corrective instruction for students who did not reach mastery, and retesting. This process continues until virtually all the students master the taught material ( Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ), which emphasizes its aim of convergent differentiation. Mittee and Obaitan report a large effect of the mastery learning approach of d = +1.461 based on an experiment in which about 400 students from four schools were allocated to a mastery learning or a control condition (see Table 2 ). Wambugu and Changeiywo randomly divided four classes from four schools over the mastery learning or the experimental condition. Comparing the results on the physics achievement test of the two experimental classes a two control classes, they found a large effect of mastery learning ( d = +1.322 based on the findings of an ANOVA, see Table 2 ). However, do note that pretests were only available for two out of four classes (one control and one experimental).

Unfortunately, the information on the mastery learning approach in the lessons is rather limited in both papers. Therefore, it is difficult to judge how such large achievement gains can be reached by implementing mastery learning in secondary education. Nevertheless, we can extract a number of recommendations: First, both studies use corrective instruction for helping students gain mastery. Secondly, in both studies the authors refer to some type of collaborative learning in the corrective instruction phase. Lastly, Wambugu and Changeiywo note that the time needed to develop the learning objectives, formative tests, and corrective activities is considerable so teachers may want to work together in teacher teams to achieve these goals. More high-quality research is needed to replicate these findings and to gain insight in how teachers can apply this approach in practice.

Studies on Individualized Differentiated Instruction

The large-scale quasi-experimental study on differentiated reading instruction in middle schools by Little et al. (2014) used individualized adaptations to address students' learning needs. They used a program called the Schoolwide Enrichment Model-Reading Framework (SEM-R) to support students' reading adaptively. The SEM-R approach consists of three phases: (1) short read-alouds by the teacher (“Book Hooks”) and brief discussions about books, (2) students read independently in self-selected, challenging books while the teacher organizes individualized 5- to 7-min conferences with each student once every 1 to 2 weeks, (3) interest-based and more project-oriented activities. Professional development of teachers included workshops as well as classroom support from project staff. The focus of the intervention was on phases 1 and 2. Teachers were expected to implement SEM-R on a daily basis for about 40 to 45 min per day or 3 h per week. In a cluster-randomized design executed in four middle schools with 2,150 students, the effectiveness of the approach was compared to that of traditional teaching. The effects of the approach varied considerably across the different schools. The authors reported that, for the reading fluency outcome, SEM-R students significantly outperformed their control counterparts in two out of four schools. The standardized mean differences ranged from about −0.1 to +0.3 between the schools (see Table 2 ). The authors conclude that the intervention was at least as effective as traditional instruction. However, the wide range of implementations and effects on student outcomes between classes and schools illustrates the difficulty of implementing intensive forms of individualization in practice.

In the survey study of Smit and Humpert (2012) , the authors assessed which teaching practices teachers used to differentiate their teaching. In this sub-study of the project “Schools in Alpine Regions,” teachers from 8 primary schools and 14 secondary schools in the rural Alpine region of Switzerland participated. Teachers responded to a teacher questionnaire about differentiated instruction. They mainly reported to make adaptations at the individual level by, for instance, providing students with individual tasks (tiered assignments), adapting the number of tasks, or providing more time to work on tasks. Teachers often used “learning plans” as well as tasks in which students could take individual learning trajectories varying the content or learning rate. Flexible grouping was less common and alternative assessments were very rare. Peer tutoring occurred frequently, and tiered assignments were very common. On average, 38% of teachers' weekly lessons were differentiated. The authors conclude that teachers in their sample, on average, did not execute very elaborate differentiated instruction. Moreover, no significant relation between differentiated instruction and student achievement was found for neither a standardized language test ( d = −0.092) nor a standardized mathematics test ( d = −0.085, see Table 2 ). Following the survey study, an intervention study was executed with 10 of the schools that were included in the survey-study. In this study (that was not included in our selection since it was not published in an academic journal), teachers participated in workshops and team meetings and logged their learning experiences in portfolios. Teachers barely progressed in their differentiated instruction during the 2.5-year project ( Smit et al., 2011 ). Nevertheless, a high pedagogical team culture in schools was found to have a positive influence teachers' differentiated instruction ( Smit et al., 2011 ; Smit and Humpert, 2012) , and as such may be one of the keys to achieve improvement.

Overall, it seems that it is rather difficult to boost the achievement of the whole class by means of individualized approaches. However, as Little et al. (2014) suggest, individualization may be used as an approach to increase students' engagement with the learning content. A drawback of the approach may be that the requirements for organizing and monitoring learning activities by the teacher in individualized approaches could leave less time for high quality pedagogical interaction. Possibly, future research on individualization supported by digital technology may open up more possibilities for this approach to have high impact on student achievement ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ).

Studies on Differentiated Instruction Using Heterogeneous Clustering

One of the included studies used differentiated instruction within mixed-ability learning settings. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , grade eight students worked on science assignments in groups of two or three. Peer-mediated differentiated instruction and tiering was used to adapt the content to students' learning needs within the groups. The authors developed three tiers of each assignment varying in complexity. Within the peer groups, students could work on activities on their own appropriate level and continue to the next level once proficiency was obtained. All lower ability level students—including students with learning disabilities—were required to begin with the lowest tier. In the experiment, 13 classes with a total of 216 students were assigned to the peer-mediated differentiated content condition or a teacher-led control condition. The researchers divided the classes in such a way that each teacher taught at least one experimental and one control classroom. After about 12 weeks, a small positive effect was found in favor of the peer-mediated condition with tiered content on both the unit test and the high stakes end of year test (respectively d = + 0.466 and d = + 0.306, see Table 2 ). The overall effect of d = +0.386 is comparable to that of the tiering intervention of Richards and Omdal (2007) discussed earlier. The effect is slightly higher, but this may also partly be affected by the use of adjusted means. In any case, more research is needed to disentangle the effects of the peer-learning and the differentiated content.

Studies on Differentiated Instruction in Flipped Classrooms

In flipped classroom instruction, content dissemination (lecture) is moved outside of the classroom, typically by letting students watch instructional videos before the lesson. This opens up more time for active learning inside the classroom ( Leo and Puzio, 2016 ). This format implies differentiation of learning time and pace before the lesson since students may rewind, pause or watch the video's multiple times according to their learning needs. However, whether the activities during the lesson encompass our operationalization of differentiated instruction (see Table 1 ) varies. From a recent meta-analysis on flipping the classroom ( Akçayir and Akçayir, 2018 ), we found one study in secondary education in which remediation in the classroom was mentioned as being part of the intervention. Bhagat et al. (2016) report on a quasi-experiment in which 41 high school students were assigned to a classroom using flipping-the-classroom and 41 students were in the control condition. The experimental group underwent “flipped” lessons on trigonometry for 6 weeks, while the control group followed similar lessons using the conventional learning method. Students in the flipped condition watched videos of 15–20 min before the lesson. During the lesson, students discussed problems collaboratively and, in the meantime, students who needed remediation were provided with extra instruction. After the intervention, students from the flipped classrooms outperformed their counterparts on a mathematics test and were more motivated. The authors report a large effect of the intervention on students' mathematics achievement based on analysis of covariance. However, the combined effect across the subgroup mean differences is modest d = 0.376, see Table 2 ). On average, experimental students of all abilities performed better, except for high achievers who did not significantly outperform the control group. These differential effects should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of students in the subgroups. The pro of this study is that it gives some insights in the benefits of differentiated instruction embedded in an innovative approach to teaching. Yet, the authors did not specify clearly what the remediation and collaborative learning in the classroom consisted of and cannot disentangle effects of different elements of the intervention. More research would be needed to clarify the role and effectiveness of differentiated instruction in flipped settings.

Contextual and Personal Variables

As we discussed in the theoretical framework, many variables may influence teachers' implementation of differentiated instruction. We hoped to find evidence for this assumption in our selection of papers. However, in general, little information was provided about contextual and personal factors such as school, class, or teacher characteristics.

In our sample of studies, differentiated instruction was mostly applied to teaching mathematics and science. Additionally, there were also papers on literacy and social sciences. No clear differences in effectiveness could be observed between the subjects. Students varied in background characteristics across the studies. In the study by Little et al. (2014) , for instance, about 48 to 77 percent of students were from low SES. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , many ethnicities were represented. In the studies by Huber et al. (2009) , students were mostly European-American. Student ages varied from about 11 to 17 years old (see Table 2 ). Teacher characteristics were rarely reported. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , relatively inexperienced teachers participated with a mean of about 3 years in their current position, and in the studies by Vogt and Rogalla (2009) and Smit and Humpert (2012) , years of teaching experience varied considerably, with an average of about 15 to 17 years.

The only variable that is rather consistent across the studies is that teachers in the included studies relied considerably on external sources of information or support to help them implement differentiated instruction within their classrooms. In most of the selected studies, the research team developed materials for students, and teachers were instructed or coached in implementing the interventions (see Table 2 ). Although we aimed to select practical interventions, little information is provided about whether teachers were able to successfully execute the differentiated instruction practices independently in the long run.

Overall Effects of Differentiated Instruction

Ideally, combining our narrative reflection on the included papers with a meta-analysis of the findings would give us an answer as to how effective within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education may be. However, unfortunately, the number of papers that remained after applying our selection criteria is limited and the studies are heterogeneous in nature so meta-analyses of results should be interpreted with caution. To inform the readers however, we did add a forest plot with an overview of the average effect size of each individual study to the appendix (see Appendix D ). In Table 2 the effects and intermediate calculations for individual studies are described. A summary effect across all studies is also reported ( d = +0.741; 95% CI = 0.397–1.1085; Q = 507.701; df = 14; p < 0.01). The p -value of the Q statistic was significant which may indicate heterogeneity of the papers meaning that the true effects of the interventions may vary. Noticeably, the largest studies in our sample show small positive effects of differentiated instruction. In contrast, the relatively small studies reported on large effects, and the other studies mostly show moderate effects of the approach. A cumulative analysis (see Appendix D ) illustrates that the small study by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) considerably shifts the point estimate of the effect size in the positive direction. Excluding this outlier, the summary effect of differentiated instruction is d = +0.509 (95% CI = 0.215–0.803; see Appendix D ). A funnel plot was made to check for publication bias (see Appendix E ). Using Duval and Tweedie's Trim and Fill method ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ), no adjusted values were estimated. This indicates that there is no evidence of publication bias. These analyses give some information about the range of effects that can be achieved with differentiated instruction interventions ranging. However, unquestionably, more information is needed before drawing a more definitive conclusion about the overall and relative effects of different approaches to differentiated instruction in secondary schools.

Suggestions for Reporting on Differentiated Instruction Interventions

One of the issues we encountered when performing this review, was that interventions and research methodologies were often described rather briefly. In addition, relevant context information was frequently missing. This is problematic, not only from a scientific point of view, but also to judge the transferability of the findings to practice. Therefore, we encourage researchers to diligently report on the methods and analytical techniques they used and to be specific about the outcomes that led to their conclusions (see e.g., Hancock and Mueller, 2010 ). Except for this general suggestion, we would like to provide a number of specific recommendations for reporting on differentiated instruction interventions (see Appendix F ).

Conclusion and discussion

The most important conclusion from our systematic review of the literature is that there are too few high-quality studies on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education. Only 12 studies from 14 papers were selected after applying strict selection criteria to a large amount of literature on the topic. As expected, we found papers on various operationalizations of differentiated instruction like homogeneous grouping, differentiated instruction in peer-learning, and individualization. However, even within the most well-known approaches like ability grouping, the empirical evidence was limited. High quality teacher-led differentiated instruction studies in secondary education are scarce, although the literature on ICT-applications for differentiated instruction seems to be on the rise. This paucity has not changed much after our search, although there are some recent interesting endeavors for teacher professionalization in differentiated instruction ( Brink and Bartz, 2017 ; Schipper et al., 2017 , 2018 ; Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ) and there have been some recent small-scale studies including aspects of differentiated instruction ( Sezer, 2017 ; Adeniji et al., 2018 ). This paucity is remarkable given the large interest for the topic of differentiated instruction in both the literature as well as in policy and practice. Apparently, the premises of differentiated instruction seems substantial enough for schools and policy makers to move towards implementation before a solid research base has been established. On the one hand, this seems defendable; differentiated instruction matches the ambitions of educationists to be more student-oriented and to improve equity among students. In addition, there is prior research showing benefits of approaches like ability grouping and mastery learning for K-12 students' achievement ( Guskey and Pigott, 1988 ; Kulik et al., 1990 ; Kulik, 1992 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Hattie, 2009 ; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the ideas behind differentiated instruction are in line with approaches which have repeatedly been linked to better learning such as having students work on an appropriate level of moderate challenge according to their “zone of proximal development” and matching learning tasks to students' abilities and interests to create “flow” ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). On the other hand, more research on different operationalizations of differentiated instruction is needed to help teachers and policy makers to determine which approaches are helpful for students of different characteristics and to gain insight in how these could be implemented successfully. From prior research in primary education, we know that it is likely that not all approaches have comparable effects, and that effects for low- average- and high ability students may vary ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). Our current review shows that there is much work to be done in order to further clarify which approaches work and why within the context of secondary education.

Having said that, the studies that we did find do give us some directions about the expectations we may have about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education. Most well-designed studies in our sample reported small to medium-sized positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. This finding is comparable to the moderate effects found in most differentiated instruction reviews (e.g., Kulik, 1992 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016 ) and other studies on educational interventions ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). The overall effect in our study is a bit higher than in prior reviews, possibly due to the inclusion of various approaches to differentiated instruction, including mastery learning and more holistic approaches. Although we cannot give a conclusive answer about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education, most of the included studies do illustrate the possibility of improving student achievement by means of differentiated instruction.

Moreover, the selected papers give insight in the many different ways that differentiated instruction can be operationalized and studied in secondary education. For instance, a number of studies used generic training of teachers in principles of differentiated instruction. Based on the findings, we would suggest that more research is needed to study how teachers can adequately be guided to implement such holistic approaches into their daily teaching (compare practicality theory by Janssen et al., 2015 ). Alternatively, in four of the selected studies homogeneous clustering by means of tiering and ability grouping was used as a structure for differentiated instruction. For the subgroups, learning content was adapted to better fit the needs of the students ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ). Medium to large positive effects were reported of such an approach, indicating this may be one of the ways teachers may address differentiated instruction. This finding is comparable to findings on ability grouping in the meta-analyses by Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) and Lou et al. (1996) . The effects were somewhat larger compared to those in the studies in primary education discussed by Deunk et al. (2018) and Slavin (1990a) . One possible explanation might be that some of the studies mentioned in those previous reviews may have included grouping without any instructional adaptations, which was excluded from the current review. Also, in our selected papers on homogeneous clustering, researcher-developed outcome measures were used. Researcher-developed measures have previously been associated with larger effects than standardized measures ( Slavin, 1987 ; Lou et al., 1996 ). Turning to another approach, two studies were reviewed on the effectiveness of mastery learning. The authors reported large effects of mastery learning on student achievement. However, since the research methods were not thoroughly described in the papers, we cannot say much about the quality of the intervention nor the implementation. Two other studies focused on individualization. Overall, small and non-significant effects of this approach were found. It could be that teachers grapple with the organizational requirements of individualized instruction ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). Additionally, a study was found that successfully embedded differentiated instruction in a peer-learning setting by means tiered content matching students' learning needs ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ). Lastly, one of the studies embedded remediation and collaboration in a flipped-classroom format illustrating how differentiated instruction can be applied within different approaches to teaching ( Bhagat et al., 2016 ).

Unfortunately, in only three studies, authors reported on differential effects for subgroups of students within classes. This makes it difficult to judge which differentiated instruction approach is most suitable for whom. In the studies ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Bhagat et al., 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ) that did report effects for subgroups, the interventions were shown to be most beneficial for low achieving (and in case of Bikić also the average achieving) subgroups of students, even though the learning content was adapted to better match the needs of other students too. However, it remains unclear whether this was caused by the differentiated instruction, by the fact that the teachers directed more attention toward low performing students, or by the fact that the outcome measures did not match the adapted content. In addition, the subgroups were relatively small, limiting the power of the findings. Therefore, more empirical evidence is needed about the implementation and relative effects of differentiated instruction to further inform the “differentiation-dilemma” of how to best divide time over students with different needs ( Denessen, 2017 ).

Regarding the contextual and personal variables across studies, students' age, the school subjects and teaching experience of teachers varied. The fact that positive results have been replicated in several settings with different populations, gives a first indication that the approach may be transferable across different contexts ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ). One consistent finding across the studies is that teachers relied on external support to implement within-class differentiated instruction during the interventions. This is to be expected, since prior reviews found that implementing differentiated instruction is quite complex for teachers and that they may need considerable guidance to get it right ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ; Subban, 2006 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Previous studies show that teachers receiving more professional development in differentiated instruction perceive higher efficacy and adapt their teaching to students more often ( Dixon et al., 2014 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ).

The contribution of the current review to existing knowledge of the effects of differentiated instruction on students' achievement in secondary education is as follows: First, it provides an overview of theoretical concepts and operationalizations of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Next, it shows that a systematic review of the literature leads to a limited body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education. This overview of the state of the art within this theme may inform further research initiatives. Additionally, the study addresses some contextual and personal factors that may affect teachers' differentiated instruction.

Limitations

The most salient drawback of the review is the limited number of studies that were included. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that the limited number of selected papers makes it difficult to come to definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction. On the other hand, the importance of using systematic reviews to identify research gaps to inform further development of the field should not be underestimated ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ). Defining consistent criteria for the selection of the best evidence available—as we have done in this study—may limit the number of selected studies but does help to ensure that the studies that are selected are highly informative ( Slavin, 1995 ). The limited number of studies we found is just about comparable to the number of within-class approaches that were selected in a recent review of between-class and within-class differentiated instruction in primary education ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). We only included studies in which student achievement was reported as an outcome measure. In future research, adding other types of outcomes and other types of study designs could add to the breadth of the research base.

Another limitation has to do with the quality of the selected papers and consequently with our approach to the analyses. First, the fact that we did not locate any truly randomized designs necessitates caution in interpreting the findings. Potential biases are likely to be greater for non-randomized studies compared to randomized trials ( Higgins and Green, 2011 ). Second, the number of participants at the level of randomization (often the classroom level) was mostly low. Furthermore, it was sometimes difficult to determine the quality of the studies due to a lack of information in the papers. We tried to gain insight in the differentiated instruction interventions, but often essential information was omitted. Also, the conversion to Cohen's d could not always be done using an identical approach across the different studies. Must studies reported pre- and/or post-scores on achievement tests that we could use to calculate the effects in a rather straightforward manner, but in a few cases we had to estimate effects based on other types of information (for instance adjusted means or analyses of variance) which may complicate comparability across studies. Another drawback is that authors sometimes provided the outcomes of subgroups (for instance classes or ability groups within classes), sometimes only outcomes of the experimental conditions, or sometimes both. In the case of differentiated teaching, researchers should clearly explain their aims regarding which students they want to support (convergent or divergent). And if the aims differ per subgroup, they should ideally report these separate effects too. To inform future research on the topic, we have suggested some reporting guidelines that may help to clarify the content of future approaches to differentiated instruction and how they were studied in the Appendix.

A final limitation, inherent to a topic that is so multifaceted, is that the choices we have made in how we defined within-class differentiated instruction have influenced our selection of the literature and, thus, should be considered when interpreting the findings. The existing literature is marked by different ways of defining and operationalizing differentiated instruction ( Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). As such, our review may differ from the operationalizations of other authors. In addition, other ways to adapt teaching to students' learning needs are also certainly interesting to consider by teachers who want to better align teaching to students' needs. For example, the use of scaffolding techniques in which instruction is broken up in chunks, and instruction in each chunk is provided contingent to students' level of understanding is a promising instructional technique ( Van de Pol et al., 2010 , 2015 ). In addition, formative assessment is a helpful starting point for differentiated instruction or other types of adaptive teaching ( Kingston and Nash, 2011 ). Furthermore, as discussed in the theoretical framework, differentiated instruction is a broad construct that adds up as a sum of its parts including lesson planning, differentiated instruction, evaluation and general high-quality teaching behaviors. We could not include all these factors into the working definition used to select and synthesize the studies. Therefore, readers should keep in mind that in order to understand differentiated instruction comprehensively and apply it in practice, there is more to it than just executing a differentiated lesson. A thoughtful approach using different steps starting from planning to evaluation including high quality teaching behaviors is key.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

We would like to urge researchers to further study the impact and implementation of differentiated instruction. First, reviews and meta-analyses combining quantitative and qualitative information on the effects of different approaches to differentiated instruction for different outcomes may add further to the current knowledge base ( Dixon-Woods et al., 2005 ). When more quantitative studies are located, this enables more statistical possibilities that can be used to gain insight in differential effects and predictive characteristics of different student outcomes ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Moeyaert et al., 2016 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). And qualitative studies may help us understand how teachers differentiate and how their subjective experiences in the classroom influence their differentiated instruction ( Civitillo et al., 2016 ). In addition, authors may want to add studies on affective student outcomes as well. For example, students may have better attitudes and motivation in differentiated classes in which teaching better matches their learning needs ( Kulik and Kulik, 1982 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Maulana et al., 2017 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ).

Second, future studies on the development and evaluation of differentiated instruction interventions could add to the knowledge base about how to reach differentiated instruction's potential in practice. In order to support teachers, specific coaching on the job by experienced peers or external coaches or other types of professionalization may help to develop awareness and implementation of differentiated instruction ( Latz et al., 2009 ; Smit and Humpert, 2012 ; Parsons et al., 2018 ; Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ). Teachers should learn to reflect upon the decisions they make when adapting their teaching ( Parsons et al., 2018 ). Moreover, teachers need team support and sufficient time to develop their differentiated instruction ( Stollman, 2018 ). Research shows that teachers themselves are quite enthusiastic about bottom-up professionalization approaches like peer-coaching or professional learning communities ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Whatever approach one chooses, there are some characteristics which may facilitate the effectiveness of professionalization including: a focus on both content and pedagogical knowledge, sufficient duration of the intervention, initial training and follow-up sessions, a facilitation of collaboration and communication with colleagues and experts, constant on-site support and help during the implementation- and the development of personal skills for reflection and self-evaluation of teachers ( Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ). In addition, teacher educators should be mindful of teacher differences themselves too by providing differentiated professionalization ( Stollman, 2018 ). In this review, we did not include studies on the effectiveness of adaptive ICT applications on students' progress. However, ICT can play a significant role in the creation of student-centered learning environments when used as more than a simple add-on to regular teaching ( Smeets and Mooij, 2001 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). Some recent studies on adaptive or personalized ICT programs, digital pen technologies, and blended learning show that such interventions can support differentiated instruction and have positive effects on student achievement ( Walkington, 2013 ; Chen et al., 2016 ; Van Halem et al., 2017 ; Ghysels and Haelermans, 2018 ), although more research is needed to assess for whom and for which type of outcomes these approaches are beneficial ( Van Klaveren et al., 2017 ). In the studies in this review, fixed outcome measures were used to assess students' learning. Possibly, adaptive testing will provide more room for assessing differentiated growth trajectories in future studies ( Martin and Lazendic, 2018 ).

Lastly, when aiming to gain further insight in the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, authors may want to reflect on how differentiated instruction is operationalized and measured. In prior research, teacher questionnaires were often used to assess teachers' differentiated instruction practices ( Roy et al., 2013 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). In addition, classroom observations of differentiated instruction or adaptive teaching behavior have been used ( Cassady et al., 2004 ; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2006 ; Van de Grift, 2007 ). Alternatively, in our selection of papers, we found some interesting ways to determine how teachers differentiate. For example, using vignette or video tests ( Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 2011 ) or by means of teacher logs or observations ( Little et al., 2014 ). Enriching measures of teacher behavior with information about the match of the behavior with students' needs may be another step forward ( Van Geel et al., 2019 ). We would like to recommend authors to further develop, evaluate and apply measures for differentiated instruction that can be used to gain insight in how differentiated instruction is linked to various student outcomes.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

AS-J set up the methods of the paper, analyzed the theoretical backgrounds and is responsible for the concept of the article, and together with co-authors, extracted data, performed the analyses, and wrote the paper. AM coordinated the selection of studies, worked on data selection and extraction, and contributed to writing the paper. MH-L and RM designed the overarching project, acquired funding for the execution, and contributed to the conceptualization of differentiated instruction and the review process.

This work was supported by the Dutch scientific funding agency (NRO) under Grant number 405-15-732.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Bernie Helms for his contribution to the practical work needed to execute this study. Additionally, we greatly value the consultations regarding the analyses with our colleagues Dr. Hester de Boer and Prof. Dr. Roel Bosker from GION Educational Sciences.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ We did not include search terms specifically referring to heterogeneous approaches in the search string. Although heterogeneous grouping may include differentiation, adaptiveness is often not the focus of these studies.

2. ^ Quasi-experimental studies in which experimental and control groups are well matched, and covariates that correlate strongly with pretests are used to adjust outcomes, can be a valuable source of information usable for meta-analyses ( Slavin et al., 2008 ; Slavin and Smith, 2009 ), although the results of (especially small-scale) quasi-experimental studies should be evaluated with caution ( Cheung and Slavin, 2016 ).

3. ^ References included in the systematic review are marked with an asterisk.

Adeniji, S. M., Ameen, S. K., Dambatta, B. U., and Orilonise, R. (2018). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior school students' academic performance and retention in circle geometry. Int. J. Instruct. 11, 951–962. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11460a

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akçayir, G., and Akçayir, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: a review of its advantages and challenges. Comput. Educ. 126, 334–345. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021

Altemueller, L., and Lindquist, C. (2017). Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 44, 341–358. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12177

* Altintas, E., and Özdemir, A. S. (2015a). The effect of the developed differentiation approach on the achievements of the students. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 61, 199–216. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.61.11

* Altintas, E., and Özdemir, A. S. (2015b). Evaluating a newly developed differentiation approach in terms of student achievement and teachers' opinions. Educ. Sci. Theor. Pract. 15, 1103–1118. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.4.2540

* and Bal, A. P. (2016). The effect of the differentiated teaching approach in the algebraic learning field on students' academic achievements. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 63, 185–204. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2016.63.11

Best Evidence Encyclopedia (n.d.). Review Methods. Criteria for Inclusion in the Best Evidence Encyclopedia . Available online at: http://www.bestevidence.org/methods/criteria.htm

Google Scholar

* Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C., and Chang, C. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19, 134–142. Available online at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-35586-003

* Bikić, N., Maričić, S. M., and Pikula, M. (2016). The effects of differentiation of content in problem-solving in learning geometry in secondary school. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12, 2783–2795. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.02304a

Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., and Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher-pupil interaction: differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learn. Instruct. 21, 715–730. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.001

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis . Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470743386

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1, 97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12

Bosker, R. J. (2005). De Grenzen van Gedifferentiëerd Onderwijs. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen . Available online at: http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14812458/bosker.pdf

Bray, B., and McClaskey, K. (2013). Personalization vs. Differentiation vs. Individualization. (No. version 3) . Available online at: http://www.personalizelearning.com/2012/04/explaining-chart.html

Brink, M., and Bartz, D. E. (2017). Effective use of formative assessment by high school teachers. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 22, 1–10. Available online at: https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=22&n=8

* Bruhwiler, C., and Blatchford, P. (2011). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learn. Instruct. 21, 95–108. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.004

Cassady, J. C., Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Dixon, F. A., and Pierce, R. L. (2004). The differentiated classroom observation scale. Roeper Rev. 26, 139–146. doi: 10.1080/02783190409554259

Cavanagh, S. (2014). What is personalised learning? Educators seek clarity. Education Week . Available online at: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-overview.h34.html

Chen, C., Tan, C., and Lo, B. (2016). Facilitating English-language learners' oral reading fluency with digital pen technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24, 96–118. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817442

Cheung, A. C. K., and Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educ. Res. 45, 283–292. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16656615

Cheung, A. C. K., Slavin, R. E., Kim, E., and Lake, C. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: a best-evidence synthesis. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 58–81. doi: 10.1002/tea.21338

Civitillo, S., Denessen, E., and Molenaar, I. (2016). How to see the classroom through the eyes of a teacher: consistency between perceptions on diversity and differentiation practices. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 16, 587–591. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12190

Clarke, D., and Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teach. Teach. Educ. 18, 947–967. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

Cole, R., Haimson, J., Perez-Johnson, I., and May, H. (2011). Variability in Pretest-Posttest Correlation Coefficients by Student Achievement Level. (NCEE Reference Report 2011-4033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educ. Psychol. 43, 161–173. doi: 10.1080/00461520802178466

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Engels, N., Cools, W., and De Martelaer, K. (2013). Binnenklas-Differentiatie. Leerkansen Voor Alle Leerlingen . Leuven: Uitgeverij Acco.

De Jager, T. (2013). Guidelines to assist the implementation of differentiated learning activities in south African secondary schools. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 17, 80–94. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580465

De Neve, D., and Devos, G. (2016). The role of environmental factors in beginning teachers' professional learning related to differentiated instruction. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 27, 557–579. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2015.1122637

Denessen, E. J. P. G. (2017). Verantwoord Omgaan met Verschillen: Social-Culturele Achtergronden en Differentiatie in Het Onderwijs. [Soundly Dealing with Differences: Socialcultural Background and Differentiation in Education]. (Inaugural lecture). Leiden: Leiden University . Available online at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.~nl/handle/1887/51574

Denessen, E. J. P. G., and Douglas, A. S. (2015). “Teacher expectations and within-classroom differentiation,” in Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom , eds C. M. Rubie-Davies, J. M. Stephens, and P. Watson (London: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group, 296–303.

Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., and Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educ. Res. Rev. 24, 31–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., and Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. J. Educ. Gifted 37, 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., and Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 45–53. doi: 10.1177/135581960501000110

Duval, S., and Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

Education Endowment Foundation (n.d.). Teaching Learning Toolkit An Accessible Summary of the International Evidence on Teaching 5-16 year-Olds . Available online at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/

Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., and Wentz, R. (2002). Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat. Med. 21, 1635–1640. doi: 10.1002/sim.1190

Gardner, H. (2016). “Multiple intelligences: prelude, theory, and aftermath,” in Scientists Making a Difference , eds R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske, and D. J. Foss (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316422250

Ghysels, J., and Haelermans, C. (2018). New evidence on the effect of computerized individualized practice and instruction on language skills. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 34, 440–449. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12248

Guskey, T. R., and Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Res. 81, 197–216. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1988.10885824

Hall, E. F. (1992). Assessment for differentiation. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 19, 20–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.1992.tb00397.x

Hancock, G. R., and Mueller, R. O. (2010). The Reviewer's Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences . New York, NY: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Oxon: Routledge.

Hertberg-Davis, H., and Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: principals' influence on middle school teachers' responses to differentiation. J. Secondary Gifted Educ. 17, 90–102. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2006-685

Higgins, J.P.T., and Green, S., (eds). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration . Available online at: www.handbook.cochrane.org .

* Huber, M. J., Workman, J., Ford, J. A., Moore, D., and Mayer, T. (2009). Evaluating the prevention through alternative learning styles program. J. Drug Educ. 39, 239–259. doi: 10.2190/DE.39.3.b

Imants, J., and Van Veen, K. (2010). “Teacher learning as workplace learning,” in International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edn . eds P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw (Oxford: Elsevier), 569–574. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00657-6

Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., and Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: how to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. J. Learn. Sci. 24, 176–186. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2014.954751

Keuning, T., Van Geel, M., Frèrejean, J., Van Merriënboer, J., Dolmans, D., and Visscher, A. (2017). Differentiëren bij rekenen: Een cognitieve taakanalyse van het denken en handelen van basisschoolleerkrachten [Differentiating in mathematics: a cognitive task analysis of primary school teachers' reflections and practices]. Pedagog. Stud. 94, 160–181. Available online at: http://pedagogischestudien.nl/download?type=document&identifier=640319

Kiley, D. (2011). Differentiated Instruction in the Secondary Classroom: Analysis of the Level of Implementation and Factors that Influence Practice (Partial FULFILLMENT of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education) . Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Kingston, N., and Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 30, 28–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x

Kirschner, P. A., Claessens, L., and Raaijmakers, S. (2018). Op de Schouders van Reuzen. Inspirerende Inzichten uit de Cognitieve Psychologie voor Leerkrachten. [On the Shoulders of Giants. Inspiring Insights from Cognitive Psychology for Teachers] . Meppel: Drukkerij Ten Brink Uitgevers.

Kulik, C. C., and Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: a meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Am. Educ. Res. J. 19, 415–428. doi: 10.3102/00028312019003415

Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., and Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 265–299. doi: 10.3102/00346543060002265

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Research-Based Decision Making Series. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented . Available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb=ericandAN=ED350777andsite=ehost-liveandscope=site

Kulik, J. A., and Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 42–78. doi: 10.3102/0034654315581420

Kumar, R., O'malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., and Laetz, V. B. (2013). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention programs in U.S. schools: a descriptive summary. Prev. Sci. 14, 581–592. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0340-z

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., and Charalambous, E. (2018). Equity and Quality Dimensions in Educational Effectiveness. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72066-1

Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., and Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Rev. 31, 27–39. doi: 10.1080/02783190802527356

Leo, J., and Puzio, K. (2016). Flipped instruction in a high school science classroom. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 775–781. doi: 10.1007/s10956-016-9634-4

* Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., and Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction on student achievement in middle school. J. Adv. Acad. 25, 384–402. doi: 10.1177/1932202X14549250

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., and d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 423–458. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004423

Lyons, L. C. (2003). Meta-Analysis: Methods of Accumulating Results Across Research Domains . Available online at: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons/metaAnalysis/index.cfm

Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., and Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 901–918. doi: 10.1037/a0037123

Martin, A. J., and Lazendic, G. (2018). Computer-adaptive testing: implications for students' achievement, motivation, engagement, and subjective test experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 110, 27–45. doi: 10.1037/edu0000205

* Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. J. Spec. Educ. 40, 130–137. doi: 10.1177/00224669060400030101

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2015). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour: a rasch modelling approach. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 26, 169–194. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2014.939198

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2017). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 23, 471–493. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102

McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., and Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated Instruction Provincial Research Review. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Initiative for School Improvement.

Mevarech, Z. R., and Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: a multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34, 365–394. doi: 10.3102/00028312034002365

Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., et al. (2014). Differentiated learning: from policy to classroom. Oxford Rev. Educ. 40, 331–348. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2014.911725

* Mitee, T. L., and Obaitan, G. N. (2015). Effect of mastery learning on senior secondary school students' cognitive learning outcome in quantitative chemistry. J. Educ. Pract. 6, 34–38. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083639.pdf

Moeyaert, M., Ugille, M., Beretvas, N., Ferron, J., Bunuan, R., and Van den Noortgate, W. (2016). Methods for dealing with multiple outcomes in meta-analysis: a comparison between averaging effect sizes, robust variance estimation and multilevel meta-analysis. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 20, 559–572. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1252189

Nokes-Malach, T., Richey, J., and Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 645–656. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8

Oakes, J. (2008). Keeping track: structuring equality and inequality in an era of accountability. Teach. College Rec. 110, 700–712. Available online at: https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=14610

OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education. Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264130852-en

OECD (2018). The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background. Factors that Shape Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264292093-en

Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., and Cohen Burrowbridge, S. (2013). Broadening the view of differentiated instruction differentiation shouldn't end with planning but should continue as teachers adapt their instruction during lessons. Kappan 95, 38–42. doi: 10.1177/003172171309500107

Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., et al. (2018). Teachers' instructional adaptations: a research synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 205–242. doi: 10.3102/0034654317743198

Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: USA Blackwell publishing. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887

Pierce, R., and Adams, C. (2005). Using tiered lessons in mathematics. Math. Teach. Middle Sch. 11, 144–149.

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, and Johannes, E. H. (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learn. Res. 3, 90–116. doi: 10.14786/flr.v3i2.163

* Richards, M. R. E., and Omdal, S. N. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic achievement in a secondary science course. J. Adv. Acad. 18, 424–453. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2007-499

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., and Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: a framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Prev. Sch. Fail. 52, 31–47. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-47

Roy, A., Guay, F., and Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 17, 1186–1204. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2012.743604

Scheerens, J. (2016). “Meta-analyses of school and instructional effectiveness,” in Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness , ed J. Scheerens (Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media), 175–223. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-7459-8_8

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., and van Veen, K. (2017). Professional growth in adaptive teaching competence as a result of lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 68, 289–303. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.015

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., and van Veen, K. (2018). Developing teachers' self-efficacy and adaptive teaching behaviour through lesson study. International Journal of Educational Research , 88, 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.011

Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching Excellence Through Professional Learning and Policy Reform: Lessons from Around the World . Paris: International Summit on the Teaching Profession; OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264252059-en

Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teach. College Rec. 112, 1492–1528. Available online at: https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15684

Schütz, G., Ursprung, H., and Wößmann, L. (2008). Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity, Vol. 61 (Kyklos: Wiley Blackwell), 279–308.

Sezer, B. (2017). The effectiveness of a technology-enhanced flipped science classroom. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 55, 471–494. doi: 10.1177/0735633116671325

Shute, V. J., and Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 33, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12172

Sipe, T. A., and Curlette, W. L. (1996). A meta-synthesis of factors related to educational achievement: a methodological approach to summarizing and synthesizing meta-analyses. Int. J. Educ. Res. 25, 83–698. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(96)80001-2

Slavin, R., and Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 31, 500–506. doi: 10.3102/0162373709352369

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ. Res. 15, 5–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015009005

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Rev. Educ. Res. 57, 175–214. doi: 10.3102/00346543057002175

Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 471–499. doi: 10.3102/00346543060003471

Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Mastery learning re-reconsidered. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 300–302. doi: 10.3102/00346543060002300

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis. An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A

Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: lessons from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 24, 383–391. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2013.797913

Slavin, R. E., and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 247–284. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002247

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., and Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Read. Res. Q. 43, 290–322. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., and Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: a best-evidence synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 839–911. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330968

Slavin, R. E., and Madden, N. A. (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 4, 370–380. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2011.558986

Smeets, E., and Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centred learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: observations in educational practice. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 32, 403. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00210

Smets, W., and Struyven, K. (2018). Realist review of literature on catering for different instructional needs with preteaching and extended instruction. Educ. Sci . 8, 113. doi: 10.3390/educsci8030113

* Smit, R., and Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28, 1152–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.003

Smit, R., Humpert, W., Obertüfer-Gahler, R., Engeli, E., and Breuer-Brodmüller, M. (2011). “Differenzierung als Chance für kleine schulen - empirische befunde im längsschnitt,” in Schule im Alpinen Raum , eds R. Müller, A. Keller, U. Kerle, A. Raggl, and E. Steiner (Innsbruck: Studienverlag), 435–488.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., and Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K−12 students' academic achievement: findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 849–899. doi: 10.3102/0034654316675417

Stollman, S. H. M. (2018). Differentiated Instruction in Practice: A Teacher Perspective . Leiden: ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research basis. Int. Educ. J. 7, 935–947. Available online at: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v7n7/Subban/BEGIN.HTM

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., and Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 291–301. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

Swanson, H. L., and Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Rev. Educ. Res. 71, 321–363. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002321

Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Rev. 26, 29–36. doi: 10.1080/02783190309554236

Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society 52, 203–209. doi: 10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: one school's journey. Gifted Child Q. 39, 77–87. doi: 10.1177/001698629503900204

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Pers. Learn. 57, 12–16.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom. Responding to the Needs of All Learrners, 2nd Edn . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature. J. Educ. Gifted 27, 119–145. doi: 10.1177/016235320302700203

Unesco (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . Available online at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254

Valiande, S., and Koutselini, M. I. (2009). (2009). “Application and evaluation of differentiation instruction in mixed ability classrooms,” Paper presented at the 4th Hellenic Observatory PhD Symposium (London: LSE, 25–26.

Valiandes, S., and Neophytou, L. (2018). Teachers' professional development for differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: investigating the impact of a development program on teachers' professional learning and on students' achievement. Teach. Dev. 22, 123–138. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

Van Casteren, W., Bendig-Jacobs, J., Wartenbergh-Cras, F., Van Essen, M., and Kurver, B. (2017). Differentiëren en Differentiatievaardigheden in Het Voortgezet Onderwijs. Nijmegen: ResearchNed.

Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educ. Res. 49, 127–152. doi: 10.1080/00131880701369651

Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Maulana, R. (2014). Teaching skills of student teachers: calibration of an evaluation instrument and its value in predicting student academic engagement. Stud. Educ. Eval. 43, 150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.09.003

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., and Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student interaction: a decade of research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 271–296. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., and Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instruct. Sci. 43, 615–641. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z

Van der Kleij, F., Feskens, R. C. W., and Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students' learning outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 475–511. doi: 10.3102/0034654314564881

Van der Lans, R. M., Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., and van Veen, K. (2017). Individual differences in teacher development: an exploration of the applicability of a stage model to assess individual teachers. Learn. Individ. Diff. 58, 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.007

Van der Lans, R. M., Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., and van Veen, K. (2018). Developing an instrument for teacher feedback: using the rasch model to explore teachers' development of effective teaching strategies and behaviors. J. Exp. Educ. 86, 247–264. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1268086

Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., Van Merriënboer, J., and Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 30, 51–67. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

Van Halem, N., Van Klaveren, C. P. B. J., and Cornelisz, I. (2017). Oefent een leerling meer door niveaudifferentiatie? Het effect van data-gestuurde differentiatie op leerinspanning en de rol van eerder behaalde cijfers. [Does a learner practice more because of readiness-based differentiation? The effect of data-driven differentiation on learning effort and the role of prior grades]. Pedagog. Stud. 94, 182–195. Available online at: http://pedagogischestudien.nl/download?type=document&identifier=640298

Van Klaveren, C., Vonk, S., and Cornelisz, I. (2017). The effect of adaptive versus static practicing on student learning - evidence from a randomized field experiment. Econ. Educ. Rev. 58, 175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.04.003

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., and Feng, A. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Rev. 29, 84–92. doi: 10.1080/02783190709554391

* Vogt, F., and Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 25, 1051–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.002

Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: the impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 932–945. doi: 10.1037/a0031882

* Wambugu, P. W., and Changeiywo, J. M. (2008). Effects of mastery learning approach on secondary school students' physics achievement. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 4, 293–302. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75352

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., and Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. J. Educ. Res. 84, 30–43. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1990.10885988

Wilkinson, S. D., and Penney, D. (2014). The effects of setting on classroom teaching and student learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: a critical review of the literature in England. Educ. Rev. 66, 411–427. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.787971

World Health Organiasation (2011). European Action Plan to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol 2012–2020. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe . Available online at: https://www.stap.nl/en/home/european-alcohol-policy.html

Keywords: review, differentiation, differentiated instruction, adaptive teaching, ability grouping, secondary education, student performance, effectiveness

Citation: Smale-Jacobse AE, Meijer A, Helms-Lorenz M and Maulana R (2019) Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence. Front. Psychol. 10:2366. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Received: 14 May 2019; Accepted: 04 October 2019; Published: 22 November 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Smale-Jacobse, Meijer, Helms-Lorenz and Maulana. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, a.e.smale-jacobse@rug.nl

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Differentiated Instruction Made Practical

Additional Resources

• Request More Information

Learn what adjustments teachers can make daily to increase equity, access, rigor, and engagement for all students. Explore the dispositions, skills, and actions needed to differentiate instruction, online and off.

Effective differentiated instruction is critical to student success, yet it can be difficult to develop and implement. Given the diversity of today’s classrooms and the variability of in-person, hybrid, and online learning, how can teachers provide instruction that offers equity, access, rigor, and engagement for all of their students?

Differentiated Instruction Made Practical provides targeted professional development that enables teachers to differentiate instruction as part of their daily classroom routines. The program is based on a four-step decision-making framework and structured classroom routines rooted in research on student cognition and motivation.

Over the course of seven modules, you’ll learn  the agile thinking you need to analyze problems of student learning and effectively differentiate instruction within a range of time and curriculum constraints.

Program Details

Students come to the classroom with diverse experiences, understandings, interests, strengths, and needs. Differentiated Instruction Made Practical will teach you the why and how of building differentiated instruction into your daily teaching habits and routines.

Course content includes theory and practice, emphasizing sustainability for instructors and engaging, flexible, deep, and durable learning for all students. Through videos, readings, personal reflection, and online forums, you'll experience differentiated instruction for yourself and learn methods for implementing it in your classroom. 

Learning Goals

• Learn the theory and methods of differentiated instruction and how it can serve all learners including English language learners, students with disabilities, and students needing further challenge.
• Practice adjusting instruction through a practical four-step method designed to help you better meet the needs of diverse learners.
• Learn and practice agile decision-making about when and what kind of help to provide, when and how to use group work, and how to offer student choice. 
• Begin to measure the impact of differentiated instruction on student learning and ensure alignment with established standards in your system.

Faculty Chair

Rhonda Bondie

Who should attend.

• Classroom teachers
• Instructional leaders
• School leaders
• Administrators 
• Educators from various settings (museums, after-school programs, and other informal learning contexts).

Team Application

Teams of 3-6 are encouraged to apply. Teams may be comprised of people from within or across schools or organizations. Teams should be prepared to try out course ideas with students/learners in classrooms or other learning environments. Teams should also be able to meet synchronously, in person, at least once per module to engage in group-based activities.

Individual Application

Individuals are also invited to participate; they will be placed in a virtual team with others who have enrolled as individuals. Individuals will be expected to meet synchronously (via phone call or video conference) with the teams once per session. We will strive to group individuals with others who are in the same or similar time zones; if this is not possible, exceptions to the team meeting requirement can be made. 

Required Text

There is one required textbook for this program, Differentiated Instruction Made Practical: Engaging the Extremes through Classroom Routines , by Rhonda Bondie and Akane Zusho. Please order the required textbook early to ensure you have it by the program’s start. You can buy a paper copy or a digital edition from Amazon or Routledge . If you order from Routledge, you may use the following coupon code to receive a 20% discount: FLR40.

Considering this program?

Related article, what makes an excellent online teacher.

Related Programs

Using instructional rounds to cultivate high-quality learning in schools, articulating the intangibles of teaching: aligning your purpose and practice for instructional leadership.

• Jun 20, 2024 - Jul 31, 2024 Price: $399.00
• Oct 3, 2024 - Nov 14, 2024 Price: $399.00

Data Wise in Action

• Sep 17, 2024 - Apr 25, 2025 Price: $1,875.00

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Differentiation

Differentiation refers to a wide variety of teaching techniques and lesson adaptations that educators use to instruct a diverse group of students, with diverse learning needs, in the same course, classroom, or learning environment . Differentiation is commonly used in “heterogeneous grouping”—an educational strategy in which students of different abilities, learning needs, and levels of academic achievement are grouped together. In heterogeneously grouped classrooms, for example, teachers vary instructional strategies and use more flexibly designed lessons to engage student interests and address distinct learning needs—all of which may vary from student to student. The basic idea is that the primary educational objectives—making sure all students master essential knowledge, concepts, and skills—remain the same for every student, but teachers may use different instructional methods to help students meet those expectations.

Teachers who employ differentiated instructional strategies will usually adjust the elements of a lesson from one group of students to another, so that those who may need more time or a different teaching approach to grasp a concept get the specialized assistance they need, while those students who have already mastered a concept can be assigned a different learning activity or move on to a new concept or lesson. In more diverse classrooms, teachers will tailor lessons to address the unique needs of special-education students, high-achieving students, and English-language learners, for example. Teachers also use strategies such as formative assessment —periodic, in-process evaluations of what students are learning or not learning—to determine the best instructional approaches or modifications needed for each student.

Also called “differentiated instruction,” differentiation typically entails modifications to practice (how teachers deliver instruction to students), process (how the lesson is designed for students), products (the kinds of work products students will be asked to complete), content (the specific readings, research, or materials students will study), assessment (how teachers measure what students have learned), and grouping (how students are arranged in the classroom or paired up with other students). Differentiation techniques may also be based on specific student attributes, including interest (what subjects inspire students to learn), readiness (what students have learned and still need to learn), or learning style (the ways in which students tend to learn material best).

Differentiation vs. Scaffolding As a general instructional strategy, differentiation shares may similarities with scaffolding, which refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and, ultimately, greater independence in the learning process. Because differentiation and scaffolding techniques are used to achieve similar instructional goals—i.e., moving student learning and understanding from where it is to where it needs to be—the two approaches may be blended together in some classrooms to the point of being indistinguishable. That said, the two approaches are distinct in several ways. When teachers differentiate instruction, they might give some students an entirely different reading (to better match their reading level and ability), give the entire class the option to choose from among several texts (so each student can pick the one that interests them most), or give the class several options for completing a related assignment (for example, the students might be allowed to write a traditional essay, draw an illustrated essay in comic-style form, create a slideshow “essay” with text and images, or deliver an oral presentation). Alternatively, when teachers scaffold instruction, they typically break up a learning experience, concept, or skill into discrete parts, and then give students the assistance they need to learn each part. For example, teachers may give students an excerpt of a longer text to read, engage them in a discussion of the excerpt to improve their understanding of its purpose, and teach them the vocabulary they need to comprehend the text before assigning them the full reading.

The following comparison chart will help illustrate the differentiation concept and its major component strategies:

Differentiation plays into ongoing debates about equity and “academic tracking” in public schools. One major criticism of the approach is related to the relative complexities and difficulties entailed in teaching diverse types of students in a single classroom or educational setting. Since effective differentiation requires more sophisticated and highly specialized instructional methods, teachers typically need adequate training, mentoring, and professional development to ensure they are using differentiated instructional techniques appropriately and effectively. Some teachers also argue that the practical realities of using differentiation—especially in larger classes comprising students with a wide range of skill levels, academic preparation, and learning needs—can be prohibitively difficult or even infeasible.

Yet other educators argue that this criticism stems, at least in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the strategy. In her book How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms , the educator and writer Carol Ann Tomlinson, who is considered an authority on differentiation, points out a potential source of confusion: “Differentiated instruction is not the “Individualized Instruction” of the 1970s.” In other words, differentiation is the practice of varying instructional techniques in a classroom to effectively teach as many students as possible, but it does not entail the creation of distinct courses of study for every student (i.e., individualized instruction). The conflation of “differentiated instruction” and “individualized instruction” has likely contributed to ongoing confusion and debates about differentiation, particularly given that the terms are widely and frequently used interchangeably.

Alphabetical Search