What is the difference between tiered instruction and differentiated instruction

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. 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.

The studies for our best evidence synthesis were identified in a number of steps. Following the guidelines of Petticrew and Roberts , 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 and 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.

Some authors used more specific terms such as ability grouping, tiered lessons, flexible grouping and mastery learning. 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. 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. Only studies that met all 13 inclusion criteria were included in the review. 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. 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. Practicality : The differentiated instruction approach is practical for teachers Janssen et al. 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.

However, studies on the effects of fully computerized adaptive programs e. 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. 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, Quantitative empirical study : The study contains quantitative empirical data of at least 15 students per experimental group compare Slavin et al.

Other studies such as qualitative studies, case studies with fewer than 15 students, or theoretical or descriptive studies were excluded. 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, a.

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

Language : The paper is written in English or Dutch all authors master these languages , but the actual studies could be performed in any country. Differentiated instruction purpose: The study is about differentiated instruction with the aim of addressing cognitive differences e.

Implementation : The intervention is at least partly implemented. If this was not specifically reported, implementation was assumed. Experimenter-made measures were accepted if they were comprehensive and fair to the both groups; no treatment-inherent measures were included Slavin and Madden, Effect sizes : The paper provides enough information to calculate or extract effect sizes about the effectiveness of the differentiated instruction approach.

Comparability : Pretest information is provided unless random assignments of at least 30 units was used and there were no indications of initial inequality. 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.

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, ; Borenstein et al. Methods of calculating effects using different types of data are described in Borenstein et al. 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. 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.

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. Excluding duplicates, 1, 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 same applies to two other papers as well Vogt and Rogalla, ; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 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.

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. These studies covered a wide range of academic subjects, including science, mathematics and reading. However, note that all experiments had nested designs. Only the studies of Little et al.

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. 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.

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 , teachers were trained in adaptive teaching competency to improve their teaching and, in turn, to maximize students' learning.

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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Of these studies, the study of Richards and Omdal 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, students were randomly assigned to classes in which the teachers used tiered content, while 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.

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 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. 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.

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. 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 , 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. 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.

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. 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, , 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.

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. In both studies, effectiveness for the high achieving group seemed negligible.

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, ; Mitee and Obaitan, 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, , which emphasizes its aim of convergent differentiation. Wambugu and Changeiywo randomly divided four classes from four schools over the mastery learning or the experimental condition.

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. The large-scale quasi-experimental study on differentiated reading instruction in middle schools by Little et al. 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, 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 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 , the authors assessed which teaching practices teachers used to differentiate their teaching. 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.

Flexible grouping was less common and alternative assessments were very rare. Peer tutoring occurred frequently, and tiered assignments were very common. The authors conclude that teachers in their sample, on average, did not execute very elaborate differentiated instruction. 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. Nevertheless, a high pedagogical team culture in schools was found to have a positive influence teachers' differentiated instruction Smit et al. 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. 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. One of the included studies used differentiated instruction within mixed-ability learning settings.

In the study by Mastropieri et al. 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 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. 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. 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, 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. Bhagat et al. 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. 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. 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. In the studies by Huber et al. Student ages varied from about 11 to 17 years old see Table 2. Teacher characteristics were rarely reported.

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. 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.

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 funnel plot was made to check for publication bias see Appendix E. 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. 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. Except for this general suggestion, we would like to provide a number of specific recommendations for reporting on differentiated instruction interventions see Appendix F. 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, ; Schipper et al.

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 students' achievement Guskey and Pigott, ; Kulik et al.

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. 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.

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.

Alternatively, in four of the selected studies homogeneous clustering by means of tiering and ability grouping was used as a structure for differentiated instruction. 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. The effects were somewhat larger compared to those in the studies in primary education discussed by Deunk et al.

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, ; Lou et al. Add a diet of tough textbooks and less time for reading instruction to this diminished interest in personal reading, and the result is far too many students reading below grade level, struggling to learn. The U. Department of Education noted that more than 8 million students in grades 4 through 12 are struggling readers High school students in the lowest 25 percent of their class are 20 times more likely to drop out of school than excellent and proficient learners Carnevale, Gina Biancarosa and Catherine Snow , authors of Reading Next, point to a statistic that should cause all middle grade, middle school, and high school educators to rethink their instructional practices.

They note:. Whether they come from middle- and upper-class income levels, from low-income households, from families living in poverty, or from families who are English language learners, 70 percent of adolescent learners will benefit from differentiated instruction.

This is a powerful statistic that we teachers need to remember and act upon as we teach reading. Right now, too many middle schools place students in a curriculum in which everyone reads the same text and completes the same assignments. Unfortunately, this leaves too many students behind instead of moving them forward Tomlinson, You and I need to explore and try ways to teach our students at their instructional levels.

This is the heart of differentiation, and this is the primary reason I have written this book. They might even like school because they can be part of a discussion.

So what does differentiated reading instruction look like? I invite you to step inside my eighth-grade classroom at the beginning of my reading workshop. After a brief warm-up exercise, and a read aloud for enjoyment, I introduce an essential component of my approach to differentiated reading instruction — the teaching read aloud.

In fact, the read aloud has become the common mentor or teaching text for my students, and a primary teaching tool. These are the important strategies that all students — not just proficient readers — need. Not only will these important strategies help students do well on tests, but — even more gratifying — they will make reading joyful and exciting. My experiences with teaching students who are reading below grade level continue to show me that although these students may have difficulty reading, they are capable of inferring, drawing conclusions, and making connections to characters, events, people, and information.

My read aloud shows that struggling readers can think at high levels. When I provide them with books at their instructional levels, they also know that they can analyze and think while they read. Stay longer in my classroom, and you would observe that writing has taken center stage. During my read aloud, conferences, and small-group meetings, students write to explore hunches, concepts, meaning, and connections. This writing is critical in a differentiated reading classroom.

You would also notice that I use multiple texts for my instructional reading lessons. Sometimes, I use a whole-class instructional approach, where each students is reading a different text while exploring an issue or practicing the application of a reading strategy that I have modeled in my read aloud.

Other times, students work in small groups. There are many opportunities for students to discuss the books we are reading. Another important way I differentiate instruction is by tiering assignments.

Tiering asks teachers to adjust class experiences to meet students where they are so students can complete meaningful tasks that move them forward Tomlinson, ; Wormeli, I select either one broad goal to be incorporated into all nine options on the board we'll call this A or I look for three smaller goals, which can each have three assignment options we'll call this B.

If I use format B, the students are given the directions that they must choose one assignment in each column thereby meeting each of the goals they cannot choose all three assignments in one column or they will miss the two other goals. If I choose format A, students can work in any tic-tac-toe pattern.

Once I have a clear sense of the goal of the larger assessment learning contract , I generate the nine possible products that students will create.

Once I have my topics, I determine which learning styles and intelligences each topic supports. If there seems to be imbalance, I go back to the drawing board. As soon as I have nine great ideas, then I put each on an index card. I move the index cards around until I have a three by three square where I would be happy with students working on any pattern. It takes some time to make sure that I like each student's potential choices.

If I am working with an inclusionary group of students of varying levels, I sometimes suggest or request that students work on a particular pattern that will suit their readiness levels and will provide a balance between comfort and challenge.

Next, I begin writing the score explanation of how each choice will be graded. This breakdown of scoring makes like much easier for the teacher, student, and parents!

Once the scoring is done, I publish the tic-tac-toe board, put the scoring for all nine on the back of the paper and write a letter to parents. On the back of the letter is a contract that students and parents sign with the understanding that once a pattern is selected, students may not switch topics part way through. Once their choices are approved, the student keeps a copy of the contract showing their selections and signatures, directions for each choice and scoring guide at home and I keep a copy at school.

Those students then have to further negotiate with me how they will be my goal for their learning while getting to create a product that they are excited about.

Note: A word of caution. This type of project can be overwhelming and exciting at the same time! I love learning contracts, but would suggest starting out small and building a few of these types of learning experiences into your classroom over time.

It is really easy to jump in without considering parent reaction, student perception, time constraints etc. One or two of these during the school year is plenty. Gifted: I know that when I wrote this, I did not specifically target gifted students in my explanation. I have used this with all types of students english language learners, special education, extremely intrinsically motivated students, truly gifted students, and so on.

I think this system of negotiating curriculum is great for all learners. It is differentiated in so many ways that there is something for everyone! Really, gifted students deserve the benefit of having a few options to work that really push them, the freedom to direct their learning further based on their interests, and the opportunity to work in an area that is not their strength so that they are learning something new Yet again, I feel like I wrote a boring essay I hope it makes sense.

If you have questions, let me know! Last edited by jdonick; at PM.. DI has always intrugued me and I have gone to several workshops on it. I always return home with the promise that I am going to implement it and find it so overwhelming that I don't embrace it as much as I should. This summer's workshop took the approach of integrating the Understanding by Design approach and the DI. Still overwhelming, but seems to make sense. Our District has a very "loose" curriculum and the state has definite expectations for each grade level.

It has basically been up to the individual teacher to make up for the difference. The Understanding by Design UbD seems to be the missing piece. I need to start off small and ease into it. Right now, I have having a difficult time focussing on the small. I have to admit discovering this site has distracted me greatly. I have gleaned so many great ideas.

Do many teachers use it? How does it work out? Thank you first2no for asking the question. Thanks again jdonick. A very busy time, as I expect it has been for you all also!

To me, it seems that there are many different ways to answer that question Do many veteran teachers differentiate instruction? I would have to say yes, however, many teachers only differentiate in one or two formats.

For instance, one teacher may alter a quiz for special education students and they may also incorporate multiple intelligences into their instruction. But, they do not consider offering multiple intelligences as a form of assessment to indicate mastery of the material. Why doesn't their instruction involving DI expand to best serve all students? Well, possibly due to the time that many educators believe it will take, comfort level ex: if the teacher's strongest intelligences are verbal and bodily kinesthetic, the idea of allowing the students to perform a song etc might not even be considered because it isn't something that they would have prefered to do when they were in school.

Generally, teachers teach the way that they would want to be taught! Do many teachers use [UbD]? I think that there are many teachers who use pieces of UbD, but haven't necessarily read much by Wiggins or McTighe.

It is just part of their teaching practice I see UbD as a philosophy used by teachers who are interested in moving beyond just general recall towards true student understanding. Teaching for understanding invites DI because teachers who believe in this philosophy certainly want to address the needs of all learners. UbD is the philosophy, that if entertained by teachers, will continuously suggest that teachers reach out to students in numerous ways by differentiating their instruction.

Well, I think that it's it for now PS - Glad to know that you are enjoying proteacher. It is a wonderful resource! What doesthe word tiered mean? Are you teaching ESL? What grade level? Post as a guest or become a member today. New members welcome!