Tomlinson et al. (2008) explain that because of the increased diversity in schools, the need for differentiation is greater than ever before. Tomlinson and Moon (2013) identify the five elements of a classroom where differentiation can occur: learning environment, curriculum, assessment, instruction, and classroom leadership/management. They go on to identify that teachers can differentiate through content, process, product, and affect/environment that will vary with students’ readiness, interests, and learning profile. They break each of these elements down in order to show how each can be differentiated. The struggle related to figuring out how to differentiate each of these elements is a feeling of uncertainty regarding how differentiation looks like in practice. Even when examples are provided, the next challenge is knowing how to pinpoint which specific differentiated element is needed in each class each year. With students rotating through the school, it is impossible to reuse the same differentiated setup because students’ needs will always change as students move through the system. Even if the same few students are taught the following year, their needs may have changed from one year to the next meaning specific differentiation will again need to be identified and carried out in new ways. It’s not reinventing the wheel each year, rather it’s figuring out what wheel works best based on what medium the road is made of.
Another point that Tomlinson and Moon (2013) and Tomlinson et al. (2008) discuss is “teaching up”. This method answers the question of whether it’s best to plan instruction at the level of the “average” learner and differentiate for those students objectively “below” this level, or whether instruction should be at the level of those requiring extra support and differentiate instruction for those students considered above average. When “teaching up”, lessons are planned at the level of the “above average” students and then scaffolding is provided for the struggling students to work their way up to the advanced-level task. This is considered a way to respect individual students by pushing them to strive for achievement levels beyond what they consider possible for themselves. Similar to this concept, Tomlinson and Moon (2013) discuss readiness as a compass for differentiation. Readiness relates to “teaching up” as it informs not just what students can do but rather what students need to do to succeed. Like “teaching up”, it means forward thinking with a focus on where students need to get to. While the idea of “teaching up” sounds very attractive on paper, the challenge with it is structuring differentiation in a way that both challenges “gifted” students and legitimately results in struggling students achieving success. It would have to be carried out very strategically and would likely take a lot of trial and error before it’s done successfully. While “teaching up” seems like a daunting concept to carry out, Tomlinson et al. (2008) support its use by stating “struggling students don’t often benefit by doing less of what they don’t understand, and it’s not helpful for advanced learners to do more of what they already know” (Figure 1.1). This lends good support to why “teaching up” is an effective method to use that benefits both types of students.
Applying differentiation in the classroom goes hand in hand with creating inclusive classroom culture that welcomes all learners. As Tomlinson et al. (2008) demonstrate when describing the two schools that successfully implemented differentiation, not only can it lead to increased test scores, but can “also extend to student, parent, and teacher satisfaction, [and] increased student engagement…” (para. 40). The actual application of differentiation appears intimidating, but with experience and practice should, in theory, become more natural with each passing school year.
Lauren Carlson 