Differentiated Instruction

Ever since the one room school house teachers have been struggling with the same question. “How do I divide my time, resources, and myself to meet everyone’s needs so that all my students can further develop their skills, talents, and understandings?” In the one room school house the teacher worked with very young students who had never even held a book to older, more advanced learners. There could be a ten year age span in that one room. Today teachers generally work with students that are close in age, but their learning needs and styles are as diverse as the one room school house (Tomlinson, 1999a).
For many, many years schools tried to meet the diverse needs of students through ability grouping. Ability grouping is the educational practice of placing students of similar ability into groups for instructional purposes. (Ross & Harrison, 1997) These groupings can range from within-class ability groups like reading groups to whole class ability grouping like tracking. Ross and Harrison define the different grouping practices in the table below.

Grouping Practice Description
Homogeneous Grouping A general term that refers to arrangements in which students are grouped according to some preset criteria, usually academic ability, with each resulting group containing only one ability
level.

Heterogeneous Grouping Another general term that refers to arrangements in which
students are grouped systematically or randomly, with each
resulting group containing students of all ability levels.

Within-Class Ability A grouping arrangement in which students from an otherwise
Grouping heterogeneous class are grouped together within the class for
instruction in one or more subjects. This practice is common at
the elementary school level for reading and mathematics
instruction.

Regrouping Entire An arrangement in which students spend most of the day in
Classes for Instruction heterogeneous classes but are regrouped into separate classes
in Specific Subjects for instruction in specific subjects. This practice is also most
common for reading and mathematics instruction at the
elementary school level.

Joplin and Other Cross- Arrangements in which students are primarily assigned to
Grade Plans heterogeneous classes but are regrouped-according to ability
and across grade levels-for instruction in specific subjects. The
Joplin plan is a cross-grade plan specific to grouping across
grade lines for reading instruction.

-1-

Grouping Practice Description
Comprehensive Non- Arrangements such as nongraded schools in which students are
Graded Plans not assigned to grades. Instead, students are heterogeneously
mixed by age and ability and are served by teams of teachers
who regroup the students frequently within the larger
heterogeneous group dependent upon the task.



Whole Class Ability The most extensive ability grouping arrangement in which
Grouping (also called students are separated into distinct classes by ability (generally
Tracking or XYZ low, average, and high) and remain in those classes throughout
Grouping) most or all of the school day.



Enrichment Classes Homogeneous classes, typically for gifted students, in which
students are grouped together for all or part of a day.

Accelerated Classes Arrangements in which students, typically gifted students, are
allowed to advance to higher grades or educational levels than
their same age peers.

Cooperative Learning Small heterogeneous grouping structures in which students
Groups work cooperatively on a task. This practice is often offered as
an alternative to homogeneous grouping (Ross & Harrison,
1997, pages 457-458)


Supporters of ability grouping argue that students can be fairly and accurately placed into appropriate ability groups and that the task of teaching such homogeneous groups is more efficient and effective. It is assumed that students will learn best when they learn with others who have similar characteristics. It is also argued that ability grouping alleviates the potential negative emotional impact slower students might experience by making negative self-comparisons with brighter students in heterogeneous classes. (Ross and Harrison, 1997)
The debate over the effectiveness and appropriateness of ability grouping continues today. Comprehensive reviews of ability grouping first appeared in the 1920’s and continue to the present. (Ross and Harrison, 1997) Carl M. Ross and Patti L. Harrison from the University of Alabama examined the research and issues surrounding ability grouping. They found that the homogeneous ability grouping practice of tracking, or whole-class ability grouping, at the elementary, middle and high school levels is ineffective and does not improve student achievement regardless of their ability levels. They also found that high school students with lower ability in tracked classes experienced lower self-esteem and aspirations and had more negative attitudes toward school than their counterparts in less rigidly tracked classes. At the elementary level they found low achieving students in lower tracks, when compared to low achievers in heterogeneous groups, exhibited lower self esteem, greater

-2-

feelings of inferiority, and higher external locus of control. The students in my self-contained special education classroom certainly demonstrated these attitudes 10 years ago. My class was made up of 12-15 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students who had been identified with a learning problem. They were in my room most of the day. The only time they went back to their heterogeneous homeroom was for lunch count and attendance, lunch, recess, and for the specials of music, art, and gym. They frequently called themselves stupid, didn’t like school, and had a hard time making friends. The quality of their work reflected these beliefs as well. As soon as we started moving towards inclusion their attitudes completely turned around and the quality and quantity of their work improved dramatically.
Other forms of ability grouping were shown to be more effective. They were the enrichment and accelerated classes for gifted students and the Joplin plans and within-class grouping. The Joplin plans and within-class groupings were of maximum benefit when the groups created were homogeneous in the specific skills being taught, when the plans were flexible enough to allow for changes in groups after initial placement, when teachers modified their pace and instructional level to be consistent with the students’ levels, and when teachers conducted frequent and careful assessments of student performance (Ross & Harrison, 1997).
Recently though we have seen a move towards heterogeneous grouping for reading instruction for several reasons. First, according to Schumm, Moody, and Vaughn, research does not provide convincing evidence for or against ability grouping based on academic outcomes. Second, research has demonstrated that the quality of instruction provided to students in low reading groups is inferior and focuses on isolated skills rather than on reading purposeful, connected text. Third, research indicates that when students are placed in homogeneous reading groups, those groups tend to be stable, thus restricting friendship choices and contact with peers. Fourth, some have argued that homogeneous grouping frequently results in social stratification, with students of minority groups being over represented in low-ability groups. Lastly, while homogeneous grouping may enhance the motivation and self-esteem of high-achieving students, it simultaneously lowers the motivation and self-esteem of low-achieving students (Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000). As a result the traditional three-ability-grouping configuration seems to have disappeared along with differentiated instruction for students of varying reading levels. Whole class undifferentiated instruction has become the norm (Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000).
Schumm, Moody, and Vaughn conducted two studies. The first study examined teachers’ perceptions and practices for grouping for reading instruction. They found teachers use whole class instruction because they perceived that it conformed to school decisions. One teacher stated, “Ability groups used to apply to my teaching methods years ago when we had three groups to teach (high-medium-low). Now we teach whole group-whole language literature emphasis.” Another reason that teachers implemented whole class instruction involved limited access to materials. Other teachers liked whole class instruction because it made classroom management and

-3-

planning easier. Still others liked it for social reasons. Some felt if it was whole class grouping the slower students would not be identified as the low ones in the class.
The second study examined the impact of whole class instruction on the academic progress, social progress, and attitudes about reading of students representing a range of achievement levels, including students with learning disabilities. Through the use of pretesting and post testing they found that the high achieving students made 7 months growth in decoding and one years growth in comprehension. The average achieving students made 5 months growth in decoding and only 2 months growth in comprehension. The low achieving students made 4 months growth in decoding and 3 months growth in comprehension. Students with learning disabilities made 1 month of growth in decoding and 2 months growth in comprehension. They also found that students’ attitudes towards reading declined in all four achievement levels of children. Based on this study the sole use of whole class instruction does not meet the diverse needs of the classroom. In fact only the high achieving students made substantial progress, and in heterogeneous classes this is a small number of students. For all students to make meaningful progress in reading we need to move beyond one size fits all classroom practices and provide more intensive and explicit instruction, aimed at meeting students’ specific reading needs (Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000).
The results of this study should cause teachers to stop and question their practices. Last year my heterogeneous class was made up of 20 students: 5 high achieving students, 10 average achieving students and 5 low achieving and learning disabled students. According to the results in this study only 5 of my students made a full years growth in comprehension. The other 15 made only two to three months progress. We need to ask ourselves, “How can we make our classrooms places where all students learn to read and write alongside their peers, and places where all students make significant growth?”
According to Carol Ann Tomlinson, differentiated instruction is the answer. The Dictionary of Educational Terms defines differentiation this way. “Learners differ in their needs, aptitudes and capabilities and differentiation is an acknowledgement of the differences. As far as learning and teaching are concerned, the term is best explained as the process of matching learning tasks to particular groups of individuals. Teachers, therefore, have to consider differences when planning and teaching lessons in order to ensure that all abilities in the class are catered for. The approach can be based on differentiation by task or by outcome,” (Blake & Hanley, 1995, page 46). Differentiation is not a recipe for teaching, nor is it an instructional strategy. There are no kits or programs to buy. It is a way of thinking about teaching and learning. It is a philosophy. Differentiation is based on a set of beliefs:

• Students who are the same age differ in their readiness to learn, their interests, their styles of learning, their experiences, and their life circumstances.
  
  
• The differences in students are significant enough to make a major impact on what students need to learn, the pace at which they need to learn it, and the support they need from teachers and others to learn it well.
  
  

-4-

• Students will learn best when supportive adults push them slightly beyond where they can work without assistance.
  
  
• Students will learn best when they can make a connection between the curriculum and their interests and life experiences.
  
  
• Students will learn best when learning opportunities are natural.
  
  
• Students are more effective learners when classrooms and schools create a sense of community in which students feel significant and respected.
  
  
• The central job of schools is to maximize the capacity of each student (Tomlinson, 2000, pages 6-7).
  
  

-5-

Lastly, each brain needs to make its own meaning of ideas and skills (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998). Our brains cannot effectively retain lots of unconnected facts. Students need to see patterns and connections. If they have no way to make sense of this massive amount of information that’s coming at them they tend to get confused. Lynn Erickson describes it best when she says, “It just becomes traipsing over trivia,” (Erickson, 1997). Although teachers cannot “make students understand,” they can present material in such a way to help students see patterns and make connections. If we bunch facts into categories and organize them around concepts, the brain can make its own sense out of information and begin to understand it. When we teach by the key concepts and principles, it helps students develop frameworks of meaning (Tomlinson, 1996).
The use of concepts and essential understandings play a vital role in differentiating instruction. Essentially, the concept and principles serve as the common point for all students’ learning. When you are creating a differentiated task, you are not trying to find something totally different for each student to do. You are trying to have all the students focus on the same big idea or essential understanding. How they get to that big idea is what differs. For example, some students need concrete tasks while others are ready for more abstract activities. Some students need to work with small amounts of information and make small leaps while others can work with larger amounts of information and make larger leaps in their learning.
Tomlinson offers one example of a differentiated activity in a first grade class that uses centers. One center focused on compound words. The students names were on a list and one of four colors was beside each name. Each student was to work with material in the folder that matched the color next to their name. The assignments were based on the child’s readiness level. Those using the red folder had to match words together that would form familiar compound words. The child also made a poster that illustrated each smaller word and the new compound word he or she formed. Those children using the blue folder looked around the classroom and in books to find examples of compound words. The children wrote them out and illustrated them in a booklet. Those using the purple folder had to write a poem or story that used compound words they generated on their own. They could then illustrate the compound words to make the story or poem more interesting. In the green folder there was a story the teacher had written that included correct and incorrect compound words. The children were required to find “villains” (incorrect compound words) and “good guys” (correct compound words) and list them on a chart. Then they illustrated the “good guys” and corrected the “villains” (Tomlinson, 1999a). Although all the children are working on the big idea of compound words, each child is provided with an appropriate level of challenge for optimal learning.
This first grade teacher knew how much to challenge each child by continually using assessment practices. Assessment is a very important element of differentiated instruction. Teachers who prescribe to the differentiated philosophy do not see assessment as something that comes after a unit to find out which students learned. Rather

-6-

it is something done before, during, and after the unit. It is today’s means of understanding what needs to be taught tomorrow (Tomlinson, 1999a).
Informative assessments that help direct instruction come from small-group discussions with the teacher and a few students, whole-class discussion, journal entries, portfolio entries, exit cards, skill inventories, pretests, homework assignments, student opinions, or interest inventories (Tomlinson, 1999). These assessments provide qualitative information that shows how students process information and at what level.
Teachers in a rural school in southeastern Connecticut are learning how to give and analyze running records to link assessment and instruction more closely. Running records is a curriculum-based assessment tool that uses instructional materials of the classroom and provides both quantitative and qualitative information about each student through the miscue analysis. In fact this type of analysis began as a research tool in 1963 as a way to describe the reading process (Tucker & Bakken, 2000). Depending on the purpose of the running record the teacher asks the child to read a seen or unseen passage. As the child reads the teacher records his or her responses by putting checks if the word is read correctly and writing what the child says when he or she makes an error and indicates when the child self-corrects by writing SC. Then the teacher analyzes the errors. The errors that readers make are based on three systems of language: syntactic (sentence structure), semantic (meaning), and graphophonic (letter-sound relationships). When analyzing the errors, teachers evaluate why readers make certain responses to the text and assume that these errors derive from the language and thought that the reader brings to the written material in the attempt to construct meaning from print (Tucker & Bakken, 2000). This miscue analysis helps teachers to assess reading, and it focuses on the child’s reading process. As a result teachers are able to plan reading programs and use instructional strategies that build on strengths, rather than on weaknesses. Teachers are able to determine the next teaching point that each child is ready to learn and the types of challenges that are appropriate for each child to maximize learning. This makes running records with the miscue analysis a very powerful tool for teachers.
Assessment should be about helping students to grow rather than just a means to record their mistakes. In the state of Connecticut we are all required to give the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT). Does this very “high stakes” test influence instruction in such a way as to promote student growth? For assessment to have a positive influence on instruction it must reveal the process of students’ thinking as well as the product (Falk, 1998). The CMT does not tell you how the child processes the information. For example the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test uses a cloze format that asks students to read a series of passages that increase in difficulty. The children fill in the blank by selecting the correct word from the multiple choice answer form. Students who read passages with short words and uncomplicated sentences get lower DRP ratings than those who read passages with lengthier words and more complicated sentences. Although this type of test for measuring reading abilities is quick and easy, it does not adequately reflect the complexities involved in comprehending what is read. Very

-7-

different kinds of text can have the exact same DRP rating. For example, the children’s book Blueberries for Sal has the same DRP rating as Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea, an adult book that, despite its short length and easy-to-read words, raises pretty hefty questions about the meaning of life. The DRP way of measuring reading leaves out important information like how a test-taker can analyze, evaluate, or critically respond to a passage (Falk, 1998).
Falk conducted a study to find out how valid the DRP scores were. She asked teachers to maintain a list of texts that their students read and understood. They looked up the DRP ratings of these texts and compared them with the students DRP scores on the test. They found that only 50% of the students had test scores that were similar to the ratings of the books they had read. Correlations were off the most for low-scoring students who were often reading texts that were rated some 20 or more points higher than their test scores indicated (Falk, 2000). This would indicate that schools need to use a variety of assessments to evaluate and document student growth in reading. Using only one source of information provides only a limited view of the child and can even distort the picture of what a student actually knows and can do. Unfortunately newspapers only publish scores from the CMT and even use these single set of scores to rank towns. Because they are only using a single form of evidence communities are getting a very limited view of their schools.
Assessment should be a tool, not the goal. When “high stakes” tests like the Connecticut Mastery Test become the school’s goal you run the risk of narrowing the curriculum and bending classroom instruction toward demonstrating knowledge in the particular forms the test calls for. As a result less time is spent on higher-order thinking, real-world problem solving, and other more worthy educational goals (Haertel, 1999).
Assessments like running records and the Developmental Reading Assessment will provide a more accurate picture of the child’s reading abilities. They provide qualitative information that shows how the child processes information to read and how well the child analyzes, evaluates and critically responds to text. These assessments also document a child’s growth throughout the year and teachers can use the information to provide appropriate challenging instruction for each child. Good assessment is the key to good instruction.
In the differentiated classroom teachers use their assessment data to modify content, process, and products. Content is what he or she wants students to learn and the materials or mechanisms through which that is accomplished. Process describes activities designed to ensure that students use key skills to make sense out of the essential idea and information. Products are the vehicles through which students demonstrate and extend what they have learned. You should only modify when (1) you see a student need and (2) you are convinced that modification increases the likelihood that the learner will understand important ideas and use important skills more thoroughly as a result. Effective differentiated classrooms also use whole-class nondifferentiated activities as well

-8-

(Tomlinson, 1999). The teacher uses her assessment data to decide when to use differentiated activities and when to use whole-class nondifferentiated activities.
To differentiate for content a teacher might use curriculum compacting. Curriculum compacting is an instructional strategy that is used to streamline the learning activities for students who demonstrate proficiency on curricular objectives prior to teaching (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998). The first step of the compacting process is to define the goals and outcomes of a given unit or segment of instruction. The next step is to identify students who have already mastered those objectives or outcomes. This can be accomplished through essays, projects, other curricular activities, unit pretests, or end-of-unit tests. Finally the teacher and student work together to determine the learners abilities, interests, and learning styles. This information can be gathered through the Total Talent Portfolio (TTP). The TTP includes information about the student’s interests, hobbies, activities completed at home and in school, and other information about individual preferences. Once the teacher has identified student interests and preferences, differentiated activities can be planned. The time made available through compacting provides opportunities for exciting and challenging learning experiences (Renzulli & Reis, 1998).
In a rural elementary school in southeastern Connecticut, a fourth grade teacher and gifted and talented teacher are working together to compact the math curriculum for one very bright young lady. They have been giving her end-of-unit math tests where 90% or higher is considered mastery. The teachers use the assessments to determine which skills still need to be taught. Her grades for her report card are based on post tests of the unlearned skills identified on the end-of-unit tests. Their purpose for compacting the math for this very bright student is to allow her to accelerate in the area of math and to work on higher level independent work. The role of the talented and gifted teacher is to provide information about curriculum compacting and what to do when the child is compacted out of a certain area. She sometimes provides activities and instruction in areas compacted out of. She also teaches skills needed to complete independent activities.
The fourth grade teacher stated that she has seen many benefits to curriculum compacting. It has eliminated boredom and she isn’t hearing the student say, “This is too easy.” The child is more willing to do the work because it is new. It also gives her the opportunity to work one on one with this high achieving student and not just with the lower achieving students.
Although this fourth grade teacher likes what curriculum compacting has done for her student, it has not been easy. The biggest drawback is the extra planning that is required and the lack of time to do the actual planning and gather the materials. Classroom management has also been a challenge. What are the other children going to do while she works with the gifted student and what will the gifted student do when she is working with the rest of the class? She also found it difficult to stay on top of things so that the children are not just given busy

-9-

work while she works with the different groups. This teacher is also concerned about the gifted child becoming isolated and she works very hard to make sure her bright student feels like an integral part of the class. Finally she has been very disappointed in the fact that the parents are not very appreciative of the extra work she has put into making sure their daughter is challenged appropriately. This teacher realizes that the parents feelings come from a lack of trust in the school being able to challenge their daughter and tries not to take their comments personally, but it can still get very discouraging.
When asked if they had any recommendations for other teachers who are interested in curriculum compacting they suggested to start with only one or two students in one academic area. They also said that the teacher needs to use his or her assessment as the bases for planning and be aware that some students may have difficulty accepting the more challenging work since it has been easy for so long.
You can also modify the process students use to make sense of the essential idea and information. Tiered activities is one way to modify the process. Tiered activities allows students with different learning needs to work with the same essential ideas and use the same key skills. This way all students can focus on essential understandings and skills but at different levels of complexity, abstractness, and open-endedness. By keeping the focus of each activity the same, but using different activities, the teacher maximizes the likelihood that each student will learn that important skill or idea and each student is appropriately challenged.
In that same rural elementary school in southeastern Connecticut a first grade teacher uses tiered activities in her literacy program. This teacher has created book bags for each of her students for independent reading time. She fills zip lock bags with books at the child’s independent reading level. Some of the books are the student’s own published stories, some are books they used during guided reading groups and the child is ready to read on his or her own, and more books that are at the child’s independent reading level. I met with three of her first grade students to find out how the book bags work. Although I didn’t know their levels at the time, one student was a high achieving student, one was an average achieving student, and one was one of her lowest achieving students. They couldn’t wait to share their books with me. They read with confidence and expression and truly enjoyed reading. In our discussion afterwards it was very evident that each child saw himself or herself as a good reader and they all felt they were ready to read chapter books. I knew they had set reading goals for themselves when each of them said, “I can’t wait to start reading chapter books.” Talking with these children made it very clear that tiered activities build in success and increases self esteem simultaneously.
According to Tomlinson successful teaching requires two elements: student understanding and student engagement (Tomlinson, 1999b). These first grade students are making sense of reading. As they read to me I saw them using picture clues and letter sounds to help them figure out words. They also reread sentences to self correct. They were using all three systems of language, sentence structure, meaning, and letter-sound

-10-

relationships, to read. These three children were “hooked on” reading. They were engaged in the learning process. As a result learning to read has become a satisfying experience. They want to become even better readers so they are very willing and even eager to put in the time and effort it takes to one day be able to read chapter books.
Although there is no one way to create tiered activities, Tomlinson offers the following guidelines to help in planning. On the next page is a flow chart illustrating these steps.

• 1. Select the concept(s), generalization(s), and skill(s) that will be the focus of the activity for all learners.
  
  
• 2. Think about the students for whom you are planning the activity. Use assessments related to the upcoming lesson to help you think about the range of readiness for the topic. Add to that your awareness of students’ talents, learning profiles, and interests. This need not be an involved process. Just take a few minutes to consider the individuals that activity should reach.
  
  
• 3. Create an activity or draw on one you’ve successfully used in the past. It should be interesting, require high-level thought, and clearly focus on elements that will cause students to use a key skill to understand a key idea.
  
  
• 4. Think about, or actually draw, a ladder. The top rung represents students with very high skills and high complexity of understanding. The bottom rung represents students with low skills and low complexity of understanding. Thinking about the students who will use the lesson you developed, decide where the lesson should be placed on the ladder. In other words, will the lesson really stump your most advanced students? Is it likely to challenge grade-level students? Or will it challenge less advanced students? Once you visualize this kind of ladder, you can see who needs another version of the lesson.
  
  
• 5. “Clone” the activity along the ladder to provide different versions at different degrees of difficulty. There is no magic number of versions. Sometimes two will do, and sometimes three, four, or five versions are needed to reach a wide range of learners.
  
  
• 6. Match a version of the task to each student based on student need and task requirements. The goal is to match the task’s degree of difficulty and its pacing to student readiness, remembering that you want to stretch the student slightly beyond his or her comfort zone (Tomlinson, 1999a, page 84)
  
  

-11-

Developing a Tiered Activity

1. Select the activity organizer which are 2. Think about your students or use
essential to building a framework of assessments.
understanding. *readiness range in
*concept -skills
*skill -reading
generalization -thinking
-information
*interests
*learning profile
*talents


3. Create an activity that is
*interesting
*high level 4. Chart the complexity of the activity.
*causes students to use key skill(s)
to understand a key idea High skill or complexity




Low skill or complexity



5. Clone the activity along the ladder, as needed to ensure challenge and success for you students,
assess it in terms of
*materials - basic to advanced
*form of expression - from familiar to unfamiliar
*from experience - from personal experience to removed from personal experience.




6. Match a version of the task to a student based on student profile
and task requirements (Tomlinson, 1999a, page 85)


Each polygon was given a dollar amount. The students had to tell which polygons were used and how many of each. Using the chart that told how much each was worth they then figured out how much their design was worth.
Stations 5, 6, and 7 were games to practice math facts and calendar skills.
Every student had to do stations 1-4 and only a few students that were having difficulty with their math facts and/or calendar skills had to do stations 5,6, and 7. For some students I was their station, and we worked on skills they were having difficulty with. These stations allowed me to work one on one and in small groups. As a result 20 of my 21 math students got A’s and B’s on the geometry test. One person did get a 67%.

-12-

However, I have never had 95% of my class do so well. Usually I get the whole range of grades from A’s to F’s. One year I gave my third graders a science test on rocks and minerals. There were 20 students in my class. There were 4 A’s, 4 B’s, 4 C’s, 4 D’s, and 4 F’s. When I was talking to my colleagues about it one said, “You got the perfect bell curve. You did a good job.” I accepted that then, but not any more. Not after I saw what happened with this math unit.
We can also modify the product that students use to demonstrate what they have learned. Students with writing difficulties may need to make a poster or give an oral presentation instead of writing a report. Students who process information very slowly may be required to do less than the others or be given more time to complete the task. An example of a modified product when studying poetry would be having some students write an acrostic poem that includes alliteration while others write an acrostic poem that includes alliteration and onomatopoeia. By modifying the product each student is engaged in the essential skill at his or her level of readiness and is challenged appropriately.
Another element of the differentiated classroom is that all students participate in respectful work (Tomlinson, 1999a). Respectful work means work that is at the appropriate challenge level based on the child’s readiness level. Work that will support continual growth for all children. Reis and others wrote about a girl in a large urban school district who was not given respectful work. Here is her story.

Latoya was an advanced reader when she entered first grade. Her teacher noticed the challenging chapter books Latoya brought to school and read with little effort. After administering a reading assessment, the school’s reading consultant confirmed that Latoya was reading at the 5th grade level. Latoya’s parents reported with pride that she had started to read independently when she was 3 years old and “had read every book she could get her hands on.”
In 1998 Latoya was a fifth grader. When Latoya was in first grade, her teacher had to simultaneously meet Latoya’s educational needs and address the needs of her classmates, many of whom neither recognized initial consonant sounds nor had begun to read. Four years later, Latoya’s fifth grade teacher, looking for information in Latoya’s permanent file, noticed the reading assessment completed in first grade and read with amazement about her early, advanced reading. As a fifth grader, Latoya is still reading only slightly above the fifth grade level. Her teacher could find no evidence that any curricular or instructional adjustments had been made in previous years to meet Latoya’s learning needs (Reis, Kaplan, Tomlinson, Westberg, Callahan, & Cooper, 1998).

-13-

Latoya is not alone. Many of our most capable students get overlooked. Winebrenner offers two reasons to explain why this happens. First is their ability to score high on assessments. This has led to the erroneous assumption that they must be learning. These gifted students probably would have earned high scores if they were given the assessments before instruction because they already know the information. Secondly, many educational leaders have misunderstood the research on role modeling to mean that some gifted students should be present in all classrooms to facilitate forward progress for other students. Struggling learners do benefit from mixed ability classes, but they can get the same benefits from students who function well at that grade level. The gap between the struggling learner and the gifted learner is too wide for there to be any real benefits for the struggling learner (Winebrenner, 2000).
With the passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, inclusion became the norm and regular classroom teachers were having to be more responsible for providing an educational program for students with disabilities. Our first attempts at inclusion saw us trying to fit the child to the classroom program. As a result these children were not given respectful work, work that takes their readiness level into consideration. In the differentiated classroom the teacher considers each child’s level of readiness and learning style and supports their continual growth by creating a classroom where all students fit (Strosnider, Lyon, & Gartland, 1997).
Another aspect of the differentiated classroom is that the teacher and students collaborate in learning (Tomlinson, 1999a). The teacher leads by deciding what constitutes essential learning, assessing, developing appropriate activities, using the appropriate instructional approach, ensuring smooth functioning of the classroom, and making sure that time is used wisely (Tomlinson, 1999a). It is the student’s job to provide diagnostic information when being assessed, help develop and follow classroom rules, and use time wisely. Planning sheets can help children learn to use their time wisely. Planning sheets are forms that tell the child what you expect them to do during independent work times. My planning sheets are simple “To Do” lists. I give them a new one every Monday telling them the work they still need to do. As I give new assignments throughout the week they write it on the list and cross off completed assignments as they finish and turn them in. They know which assignments need to be completed by Friday and which ones can be carried over into the next week. These “To Do” lists teaches them to manage their time and provides guidance by telling them what needs to be done. While they are working on their assignments I am able to work with small groups. I also put a “help box” on the board where the students can write their names if they are having difficulty when I am working with the small groups. Between each group I help those students whose names are in the box, check to make sure everyone is on task, and refocus those students who may have gotten off task. This allows me to work with small groups without any interruptions. I have also found that the “help box” gives students extra time to solve their own problems. Often

-14-

times I am told they don’t need me anymore when I get around to helping them. I smile, congratulate them on solving their own problem and move on to the next person.
The differentiated teacher also balances group and individual norms (Tomlinson, 1999a). Our students are alike and different in many ways. As teachers we need to address their sameness and their differences. Every child needs our time, but the time we spend with our students will differ in format and content. Each student needs opportunities and guidance to grow, but those opportunities and guidance will differ in accordance with the nature of the child.
Finally, the teacher and students work together flexibly in the differentiated classroom (Tomlinson, 1999a). The teacher strategically uses whole class, small group, and one on one instruction to address the various learning needs of the classroom. She or he is also armed with a wide range of strategies. These instructional approaches and strategies are used to match the learners with essential understandings and skills at appropriate levels of challenge and interest.
Many of us have gone to workshops or taken classes where the information we were listening to is being repeated for the tenth time. We knew it and we were looking for the next step. Or maybe you have been to a workshop where the information was way above what you already knew and the presenter was going through the information so quickly you had no hope of learning a thing. Technology workshops quickly come to mind. As adults we can walk out of these places and never go back. There are no teachers telling us to quit daydreaming and pay attention. Many of our children, though, have to attend classes day after day where the information and activities are either too easy or too hard.
When teachers plan their instruction they use what they know and believe to be true about the ways children learn. As we read more and more of the research about how children learn best our beliefs, our philosophies grow and change. As such our teaching practices grow and change as well.
Research shows that tracking and whole-class ability grouping does not improve student achievement and may even cause lower self-esteem, feelings of inferiority, and one to feel as though others have more control over their life than they do. However, the Joplin plan and heterogeneous classes that used with-in class groupings maximized learning when the groups created were homogeneous in the specific skills being taught, when the plans were flexible enough to allow for changes in groups after initial placement, when teachers modified their pace and instructional level to be consistent with the students’ levels, and when teachers conducted frequent and careful assessments of student performance (Ross & Harrison, 1997). These suggested instructional practices for grouping by Ross and Harrison are all elements of a differentiated classroom.
The sole use of whole class instruction does not seem to help most students make significant growth. According to the Schumm, Moody, and Vaughn study the average achieving, low achieving, and learning disabled students make only minimal growth because they are either being over challenged or under challenged.

-15-

Research on how the brain learns tells us that students must feel emotionally safe in their learning environment, they must experience appropriate levels of challenge, and the brain needs to make its own meaning of ideas and skills for optimal learning to occur. The principles that guide the differentiated classroom embrace these findings. Teachers who use the elements of differentiation (1) focus on the essential concepts to help students make meaning, (2) attend to student differences, (3) link assessment and instruction, (4) modify for content, process, and product, (5) make sure all students participate in respectful work, (6) collaborate with their students, (7) balance group and individual norms, and (8) work in a variety of ways with their students (Tomlinson, 1999a).
Putting all of these elements together can seem like a very daunting task. In fact Tomlinson estimates that it can take seven to ten years to really institutionalize a differentiated program (Tomlinson, 2000b). But don’t let that stop you from taking the first step. I have taken that step with six of my colleagues. With all I have read and the affects I have seen it have on children I am very glad I have taken that first step and am eager to try more and more differentiated activities. The most helpful part, though, has been having six other people doing it with me. Being able to share ideas, triumphs, and defeats with others who are going through the same experiences has provided the support I need to grow in my teaching practices. I would highly recommend working with a colleague if you choose to try differentiation. Support one another in your challenges and celebrate your victories together. Good luck in your endeavors.


Bibliography

Blake, David & Hanley, Vincent. (1995). The Dictionary of Educational Terms. Published by Ashgate
Publishing Company. Page 46.

Erickson, Lynn. (1997). from an interview with Leslie J. Kiernan. (Copied from internet -
http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/differentiated2.html)

Falk, Beverly. (1998). Testing the Way Children Learn: Principles for Valid Literacy Assessments. Language
Arts, 76,57-64.

Haertel, Edward H. (1999). Performance Assessment and Education Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662-671.

Howard, 1994 & Jensen, 1998 & McGaugh et al., 1993 quoted in Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Kalbfleisch, M.
Layn. (1998). Teach Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Educational
Leadership, 56, Pages ?. (Copied from the internet -
http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/tomlinson.html)

Koob & Cole & Swerdlow & leMoal. (1990) quoted in Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Kalbfleisch, M. Layn. (1998). Teach Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56, Pages ?. (Copied from the internet - http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/tomlinson.html)

Reis, Sally M. & Kaplan, Sandra N. & Tomlinson, Carol A. & Westberg, Karen L. & Callahan, Carolyn M. &
Cooper, Carolyn R. (1998). Equal Does Not Mean Identical. Educational Leadership, 56, pages ?
(Copied from internet - http://www.asck.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/reis.html)

Reis, Sally M. & Westberg, Karen L. & Kulikowich, Jonna M. & Purcell, Jeanne H. (1998). Curriculum
Compacting and Achievement Test Scores: What Does the Research Say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42,
123-129.

Renzulli, Joseph S. & Reis, Sally M. (1998). Talent Development Through Curriculum Differentiation. NASSP
Bulletin, 86, 61-74.

Ross, Carl M. & Harrison, Patti L. (1997). Ability Grouping. Children’s Needs II: Development,
Problems, and Alternatives. Published by National Association of School Psychologists. Pages 457-
465.

Schumm, Jeanne Shay & Moody, Sally W. & Vaughn, Sharon. (2000). Grouping for Reading Instruction: Does
One Size Fit All? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 477-488.

Shultz & Dayan & Montague (1997) quoted in Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Kalbfleisch, M. Layn. (1998). Teach
Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56, Pages ?.
(Copied from the internet - http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/tomlinson.html)

Strosnider, Roberta & Lyon, Carla & Gartland, Debi. (1997). Including Students with Disabilities into the
Regular Classroom. Students With Disabilities, 117, 611-621.

Tomlinson, Carol A. (1998). quoted by Hess, Mary Ann. Teaching in Mixed-Ability Classrooms: Teachers
Guide Students Down Many Paths to a Common Destination. Article was distributed by NEA
Communications. (Copied from internet - http://www.weac.org/kids/1998-99/march99/differhtm)

Tomlinson, Carol Ann (1999a). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All
Learners. Published by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

-17-

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (1999b). Mapping a Route Toward Differentiated Instruction. Educational Leadership,
57, 12-16.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (2000). Reconcilable Differences? Standards-Based Teaching and Differentiation.
Educational Leadership, 58, 6-11.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Kalbfleisch, M. Layn. (1998). Teach Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated
Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56, Pages ?. (Copied from the internet -
http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/tomlinson.html)

Tucker, David L. & Bakken, Jeffrey P. (2000). How Do Your Kids Do at Reading? And How Do You Assess
Them? Teaching Exceptional Children, July/August, 14-19.

White & Milner (1992) quoted in Tomlinson, Carol Ann & Kalbfleisch, M. Layn. (1998). Teach Me, Teach My
Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56, Pages ?. (Copied from the
internet - http://www.ascd.org/pdi/demo/diffinstr/tomlinson.html)

Winebrenner, Susan. (2000). Gifted Students Need an Education, Too. Educational Leadership, 58, 52-56.


Interviews

Fourth grade teacher at a rural elementary school in southeastern Connecticut.

Talented and gifted teacher at a rural elementary school in southeastern Connecticut.



Observed and interviewed 3 first grade students at a rural elementary school in southeastern Connecticut.

-18-