Chapter 10: Principles of Differentiation

Mr. Thomas, a seventh grade teacher, has designed a lesson on life cycles. Last week, he asked students to take an assessment that determined their learning style. The assessment determined that ten of his students are “visual learners,” six students are “auditory learners,” and five of his students are “kinesthetic learners.” He decided to create three assignments to align with these learning styles. Visual learners would search online to create a pictorial graphic that depicted the steps of a life cycle. Auditory learners would listen to a recorded nonfiction review of life cycles and summarize their learning, either in writing or verbally. Kinesthetic learners would create a poster or model of a life cycle. One of his students, Susan, who had been identified as a “visual learner,” asked if she could listen to the recorded reading instead of creating a pictorial graphic. Mr. Thomas was unsure how to respond. He asked one of his colleagues about this, who informed him that research debunks the notion that students have specific “learning styles” and that teachers should not design instruction around perceived “learning styles.”

What is Differentiation?

Students come into our classroom with varied hobbies, interests, personalities, likes, and dislikes. So, why would we ever assume they all have the same strengths and needs when it comes to learning? Just because all students in a classroom are approximately close to the same age, does that mean we should approach instruction in a “one size, fits all” way? As voiced by Carol Tomlinson, who has researched differentiation techniques for decades and is renowned for her work in the education field, “The one-size-fits-all teacher may very well discover that the ‘size’ of instruction he or she has selected fits almost no one” (2003).

Differentiation is instruction that is responsive. It is rooted in a teacher’s understanding of how learning occurs and their response to the varied needs of the learners in their classroom (Tomlinson, 2003). The goal of differentiation is the maximization of each student’s capacity to learn by teaching in ways that allow for accessibility to content and equitable learning opportunities. A differentiated classroom provides multiple pathways to acquiring content, both in the process of learning as well as in the completion of products that demonstrate learning. The notion that a classroom can be comprised of students who may be able to complete different tasks at the same time, all of which were designed with the same learning goals in mind, may understandably elicit a wide variety of responses from students, teachers, and parents, ranging from excitement and enthusiasm to confusion to abject horror. For those who are not familiar with the concept of differentiation, it can be an overwhelming concept. Table 10.1 breaks down (in simple terms) what differentiation IS and what it IS NOT.

Table 10.1: What Differentiation Is and Is Not

(Adapted from How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms, Tomlinson, 2003)

Our shared lesson template asks you to consider what supports will be in place for students during the lesson.

Lesson Plan Template

This chapter reviews three commonly used frameworks for instructional differentiation: Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, Dr. Carol Tomlinson’s Framework for Differentiation, and Universal Design for Learning.

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

The triarchic theory of intelligence was formulated by Robert Sternberg in the 1980s. The theory categorizes human intelligence into three different forms:

• Analytical
• Creative
• Practical

Before Sternberg proposed the triarchic approach to understanding intelligence, viewing students as having an overall general intelligence was the prevailing theory in instructional approaches. However, Sternberg believed intelligence to be more complex, leading him to propose a theory that viewed intelligence with a cognitive lens, rather than a behavioral one. Sternberg argued that practical intelligence (a person’s ability to react and adapt to the world around them), as well as creativity, are equally important when measuring an individual’s overall intelligence. He also argued that intelligence is not fixed, but rather that it consists of a set of abilities that can be developed. He categorized the aspects of intelligence as componential (analytical), experiential (creative), and contextual (practical).

Componential–Analytical Intelligence

Analytical Intelligence is analogous as “book smart”. This form of intelligence is more aligned with the traditional definitions of IQ and academic achievement. It is also called componential intelligence. Because of its analytical nature, a person with high analytical intelligence typically has strong problem-solving skills and is able to think in abstract terms. An example of someone with a high analytical intelligence would be a student who consistently scores well on standardized tests because of their ability to evaluate and analyze abstract questions.

Experiential–Creative Intelligence

Creative Intelligence refers to the ability to create ways to solve unfamiliar or novel problems. It’s also referred to as experiential intelligence. This form of intelligence is associated with using prior knowledge to deal with newly presented problems. Creative intelligence includes finding a novel solution to an unexpected problem or producing a beautiful work of art or a well-developed short story. Imagine that you are camping in the woods with friends, and you realize you forgot to bring your camp stove. A person with creative intelligence would devise a way to heat up the food.

Practical–Contextual Intelligence

Practical Intelligence is often referred to as “street-smarts” or common sense. The ability of a person to adapt to or change in an environment to best suit one’s personal needs is the hallmark of practical intelligence. Dealing with the everyday tasks in the best possible manner shows the person’s intelligence. An example of a person with strong practical intelligence would be a student who prepares talking points prior to meeting with a teacher about a project or to seek a grade improvement.

Table 10.2 includes common verbs that are typically aligned with each type of intelligence (adapted from Shrestha, 2017).

Table 10.2: Common Verbs for Analytical, Creative, and Practice Intelligence

Criticism of Sternberg’s Theory

The primary criticism of Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence is that the theory is not rooted in empirical research. Critics argue that it’s not fully accurate to assume traditional IQ tests do not measure practical intelligence, nor can it be assumed that someone with creative intelligence cannot also approach problems from a practical standpoint. Additionally, the Triarchic Theory brings to mind Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983; Furey, 2020), which has been discredited.

Tomlinson’s Differentiation Model

According to Dr. Carol Tomlinson (2001; 2003; Tomlinson et al., 2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010), there are four student traits that teachers should address in order for learning to be effective. These traits are readiness, interest, learning profile, and affect. As teachers respond to these traits, there are four classroom elements that can be modified in order to best meet students’ instructional needs: content, process, product, and learning environment. Figure 10.1 depicts Carol Tomlinson’s model of differentiation. Explanations for each of the student traits and classroom elements follow.

Figure 10.1:  Tomlinson’s Differentiation Framework

Student Traits

Tomlinson (2003) found that there are four traits that teachers should address in order to ensure teaching that is impactful and learning that is enduring: readiness, interest, learning profile, and affect. Readiness refers to a student’s skill level and knowledge regarding a specific learning sequence. While a student’s general intelligence quotient affects their readiness, this trait is also affected by a student’s background knowledge through learning and life experiences, their attitudes about school and learning, and their habits of mind (Tomlinson, 2003). A student should work within their zone of proximal development, or at a level that is both challenging and attainable, in order for long-lasting learning to take place (Tomlinson, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). A student’s interest refers to topics that engage or provoke curiosity. These are areas in which students enjoy learning, or in which they grow to enjoy learning. Highly effective teachers tap into these areas of interest, both known and not yet discovered, to encourage engagement and persistence in learning (Maslow, 1962; Tomlinson, 2003). The term learning profile refers to how students learn best (Tomlinson, 2003). A student’s learning profile is “a preference for taking in, exploring, or expressing content (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010, p. 17). The goal of learning profile differentiation is to teach in the ways students learn best (ASCD, 2011). Finally, a student’s affect is how their emotions and feelings impact their learning (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Emotions impact a student’s motivation to learn, their ability to collaborate, and their view of themselves as a learner. A positive affect allows for positive academic growth, while a negative affect may lead to a student’s disbelief in their own abilities to learn. It is important to take note of a student’s personal affect in order to best meet their instructional needs.

When teachers design tasks or lessons based on students’ strengths and needs, it may be necessary to adjust the difficulty level so that all students experience a challenge that is neither too great nor too small. To visualize the various ways in which a task can be adjusted, Carol Tomlinson (1999) uses the metaphor of The Equalizer. The equalizer suggests nine continuums along which the difficulty level of lesson content, process, or product may be located. It works in the same way that one might adjust the volume, bass, or treble on audio equipment. If a task is moved to the right of a continuum, the task becomes more challenging. Tomlinson suggests that teachers adjust one or more of the continuums to vary the difficulty level of student work, based on their demonstrated strengths and needs.

A scale (Figure 10.2) is another metaphor to envision the various ways that you can shift the assignments, assessments, or activities in a classroom. When planning, consider the ways that a task can be weighted toward simpler or more complex, have more concrete or abstract components, or be done independently or as a group–or sometimes you might have a balance of these things, and that balance might differ for students in the same course or classroom.

Figure 10.2: Scale as Metaphor for Ongoing Adjustment

Classroom Elements

You’ve likely heard the phrase, “Equality does not equal equity.” Imagine, if you will, that you are planning to teach the history of the American Revolution to your students. The provision of the same text to every student would be considered equality. However, imagine that you have students in your classroom who are on a third grade reading level, as well as students who are on a sixth grade reading level. The provision of reading materials that thoroughly review the American Revolution, while being on varied levels that target specific reading levels, would be considered equity. This is especially true in a classroom setting when a teacher has students who have varying instructional, emotional, and social needs. All students do not need the exact same support in order to be successful in a classroom setting, and it is this distinction in which differentiation in the classroom becomes vital. Dr. Carol Tomlinson proposed that there are four ways to differentiate instruction: through content, process, product, and learning environment (2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010).

What does differentiation of content, process, product, or learning environment mean?

• Content: To differentiate the content of instruction requires that teachers purposefully and intentionally modify lessons and materials in response to students’ individual strengths and needs. Teachers can incorporate different levels of reading materials, increase access to visual supports, offer videos and auditory supports and offer opportunities for students to learn individually, in small groups, or as a whole group.
• Process: To differentiate the process of learning means to consider ways to personalize instructional approaches. Scaffolding the level of support the teacher gives each student, provision of learning stations/centers, offering modified time limits, and having a multitude of diverse materials for lessons are ways to differentiate the process of learning. Students may be offered opportunities to work individually, with a partner, or with a small group. They may also be offered the opportunity to work at home, in the classroom, or a combination of both.
• Product: To differentiate the product of learning is a way to provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate their learning and content understanding. Rubrics can be utilized, with the understanding that many different products may be measured by the same learning targets on a rubric (i.e., A research paper may be measured by the same rubric as a verbal presentation or a video, per the rubric expectations.)  The provision of student choice in how to demonstrate their understanding of newly taught content is powerful and encourages motivation and autonomy.
• Learning Environment: To differentiate the learning environment is to ensure equitable access for all students to content. Establishing clear norms/rules and expectations, allowing for moving and flexible seating, and ensuring students are presented with multiple ways they can work within the classroom are ways that teachers can differentiate the learning environment.

Table 10.3 presents examples of ways in which teachers may differentiate instruction and learning based on student traits and classroom elements.

Table 10.3: Differentiation of Learning and Instruction Based on Student Traits and Classroom Elements

Universal Design for Learning Framework for Differentiation

When lessons are differentiated, student variance is embraced and student learning is increased through responsive teaching (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998).There are many efforts among educators to design and plan differentiated instruction in ways that allows accessibility and equity to all students. One of these approaches is Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The term “universal design” originated in the field of architecture, where it became apparent that modifications in buildings, structures, and systems that were originally meant to accommodate those with disabilities were also useful to those without disabilities. One example of this type of accommodation is closed captioning, which benefits both individuals who are hard of hearing as well as those who try to view media in loud surroundings. Ramps and curb cuts are another example of building modifications that not only benefit those who require wheelchairs, but also those using wheeled transportation, such as skateboards and strollers (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). Based on the recognition that these universally designed systems and structures served those with and without disabilities, UDL was formed with the intention to reduce barriers in curriculum and instruction through the proactive planning of supports in order for all students to access curriculum (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012; Rose & Meyer, 2006; Rose et al., 2005). The UDL framework guides teachers to consider and frontload students’ variable needs while designing lessons, through the planning for multiple means of representation, engagement, and/or expression, thereby minimizing the need for subsequent accommodations (CAST, 2007; Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). The UDL framework provides curricular flexibility through integrations of these three modalities:

Multiple Means of Representation

• Present content in different formats and allow students to choose the formats in which they learn best. Provide text options when audio is used and audio or text options where visuals are used. This allows students to gain access to content via the methods most accessible to them.

Multiple Means of Engagement

• Provide options and a variety of ways for students to interact with the content, their classmates, and you, as the teacher. Allow students to make choices in as many aspects of the course as possible, thus building their autonomy and self-determination.

Multiple Means of Action & Expression

• Create different ways for students to demonstrate understanding. Certain types of assessments can create barriers for some learners. Providing choice helps them avoid those barriers and better demonstrate what they know. Also, offer different ways for students to communicate and participate during class.

The goal of UDL is to provide a framework that supports teachers to systematically consider individual student needs at the early planning stage of lesson design in order to plan differentiated lessons that are proactive, rather than having to retroactively accommodate students’ needs after instruction. “Thinking about differentiation as a kind of universal design makes it seem achievable” (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 96). If teachers are able to provide greater access to instruction by presenting content in multiple ways through different modalities (multiple means of representation), employing various ways to engage students (multiple means of engagement), and allowing students to demonstrate their understandings in various ways (multiple means of expression), students at all levels of achievement will benefit (see Figure 10.3).

Figure 10.3: UDL Principles and Accompanying Guidelines

Table 10.4 provides examples of common instructional approaches and activities that align with the UDL framework, addressing each of the three modalities (representation, engagement, and action and expression):

Table 10.4:  Common Instructional Approaches Aligning with UDL Framework

Adapted from Kelly, C. (2018). A practitioner’s guide to using UDL to plan differentiated literacy instruction Reading in Virginia, 4, 71-79.

Learning Styles Debunked

Studies have shown that as many as ninety percent of teachers believe in the myth of learning styles, which is the notion that students have different learning styles, such as “visual” or “kinesthetic”. The learning styles theory is rooted in the idea that students perform better in school when teachers tailor instruction to their specific learning styles; for example, delivering a lecture orally and that students perform better when teachers tailor instruction to their predominant style; for instance, by delivering instruction orally for auditory learners, visually for visual learners, or integrating hands-on experiences for kinesthetic learners.

So, why is the “learning styles” approach so popular? We each have systems for auditory memory, visual memory, and muscle memory in our brains. One of these systems may be stronger or weaker than the others. Those who ascribe to the theory of learning styles interpret a specific type of memory strength as a “predominant learning style,” which has been debunked through research.

Perhaps because of the theory’s attractiveness, there have been several studies focused on learning styles. While examining this research, Pashler and his research team (2009) found that few of the studies incorporated research methods that proved causality. Rather, the studies explored relationships and ironically, many of the experimental studies showed results that contradicted the learning styles myth!

Revisiting Mr. Thomas

Mr. Thomas was flustered by his student’s request after he had so thoroughly applied the learning styles assessment results to his assignments. He reluctantly said, “Yes, but it doesn’t align with your learning style.” If you were Mr. Thomas, knowing what research shows us about “learning styles,” how would you modify your lesson as well as your response to the student?

References

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.

Furey, W. (2020). The stubborn myth of learning styles: State teacher-license prep materials peddle a debunked theory. Education Next, 20(3).

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing access to the general education curriculum: Universal design for learning. Sage.

Kelly, C. (2018). A practitioner’s guide to using UDL to plan differentiated literacy instruction. Reading in Virginia, 4, 71-79.

Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Nancekivell, S., Shah, P., & Gelman, S. (2019). Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), Sage.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press.

Rose, D., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Harvard Education Press.

Shrestha, P. (2017). Triarchic theory of intelligence. Psychestudy.   https://www.psychestudy.com/cognitive/intelligence/triarchic

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 611.

Tomlinson, C.A.(2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. ASCD.

Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. Moon, T., Brimijoin, K.,Conover, L., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2), 119-145.

Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. ASCD.