differentiated instruction higher education

Differentiated Instruction

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

Teaching differently to different students

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

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

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

Differentiated Assessment

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

More Team Project Ideas

Steps to consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Higher Ed Gamma

Differentiated Instruction in the College Classroom

By  Michael Patrick Rutter and Steven Mintz

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

One concept that higher education should borrow from K-12 educators is differentiated instruction. This is the notion – rooted in the one-room schoolhouse – that multiple forms of learning can take place simultaneously in a single classroom.

Differentiated instruction addresses differences in student preparation, interests, and strengths by offering a variety of learning pathways within the same classroom that differ in terms of content, focus, activities, or outcome.

Differentiated instruction is not the same as tracking, which divides students into ability groups. Nor should it be confused with individualized instruction, since it involves team-based learning or small group activities.

Differentiated instruction is an activity- or project-driven approach that divides students into teams which engage in a variety of projects, tasks, or problem-solving activities.

Differentiated instruction rests on five fundamental principles. The first, as my colleague Liz McKay, Director of Academic Experience, explains, is that learning isn’t simply a linear process in which ignorance gives way to mastery. Rather, learning typically involves mastering a succession of sub-competencies, each of which requires practice and reinforcement. Mastery tends to fade over time; educational psychologists call this the “forgetting curve,” and it can only be overcome through repeat practice. The purpose of a particular activity might be to combat the forgetting curve – which might be helpful for all students regardless of their progress through the course material.

A second principle is that rather than distinguishing students on the basis of pace – with the faster students considered more advanced or slower paced students “slow” in a pejorative sense – we would do better to focus on depth of understanding or proficiency with a particular skills. A fast-paced student might have only a superficial understanding of a concept, while a slower-paced student might have greater facility with the same concept and a greater ability to apply that knowledge or skill. In this case, the faster-paced student might have a lot to learn from the slower-paced student.

The third principle is that active and collaborative learning  – that is, learning by doing – is, in many instances, the most efficacious way to teach key concepts or skills. Rather than lecturing at “slower” students in order to bring them up to speed, project- and team-based learning will often help them grasp essential subjects.  Such an approach will also have a more enduring impact.

The fourth principle is that team-based learning – too often dismissed as “group work” – is anything but trivial. It can leverage the power of peer mentoring, especially if the teams are relatively small and if team members have specific, individual responsibilities. In addition to prompting discussion, team-based learning can enhance students’ collaboration skills, including the ability to pool knowledge, resolve differences, reconcile conflicting perspectives, delegate responsibilities, and ensure accountability.

The most important principle underlying differentiated instruction is the recognition that instructors aren’t simply content area specialists or evaluators of student work, but, rather, designers of educational experiences. As learning designers, instructors must specify what they want a student to know or to be able to do and, then, design activities that will help students attain that objective and devise assessments to measure whether the students have actually achieved mastery.

Designing learning experiences and appropriate assessments is far more demanding than lecturing or administering a multiple choice or even an essay examination. But as higher education moves toward a greater acceptance of hybrid modes of delivery and personalization of pace, the in-class portions of courses will inevitably include students with varying levels of fluency with the most recent material. The challenge facing instructors is to meet the learning needs of all students, not just a subset.

Steven Mintz is Executive Director of the University of Texas System's Institute for Transformational Learning and Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin.

Can AI Be Used to Cheat on Multiple-Choice Exams?

A Florida State professor found a way to catch AI cheating on multiple-choice tests.

Share This Article

More from higher ed gamma.

Navigating Life’s Layers of Complexity

What you can learn from this country’s premier chronicler of trauma and the broken heart.

Why We Should Worry About the Decline of American Intellectual History as a Field of Study

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

Using differentiated teaching to address academic diversity in higher education

Empirical evidence from two cases.

• Get Citation Alerts
• Get Permissions
• Download PDF

University educators increasingly face groups or classes of students with diverse academic levels, challenging a ‘one size fits all’ approach to teaching. In this article, we examine whether and how differentiated teaching, especially the concept of student readiness, can be applied to assess and respond to academic diversity, exemplified by two different cases; a methods lecture series and a peer-evaluation seminar. Each case presents specific tools, activities and techniques inspired by differentiated teaching that may be replicated or used for inspiration in similar contexts. The results include better fulfilment of intended learning outcomes, teaching that is perceived to be meaningful by students and educators, and a more inclusive learning environment. The two cases demonstrate the utility of differentiated teaching in higher education, challenging the prevalent assumption that differentiated teaching does not apply well to a university setting.

Higher education institutions increasingly face diverse student populations with learners from different backgrounds and with varying educational experience ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Fry et al. 2008 ; Ramburuth and McCormick 2001 ; Tomlinson and Imbeau 2013 ). In turn, university teachers supervise and instruct students within the same project or course with potentially very different prerequisites for achieving the same learning goals ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ). Ideally, the teacher is able to bring these different competencies into play in a way that adds value to the course or project and helps the students achieve the relevant learning outcomes. However, the reality is that in many cases the teacher faces an academically diverse group of students where the gap is too wide. They essentially do not speak the same academic language and have very different prerequisites for understanding and using theory and methods within the given subject. On top of this, the teacher is not necessarily trained to deal with this challenge and has no or limited knowledge of the students’ abilities.

The aim of this article is to examine in theory and practice how the pedagogy of differentiated teaching can equip university teachers with the necessary tools and theory to handle academic diversity in groups of students in project supervision or classroom teaching. Differentiated teaching is a pedagogical approach, where teachers provide different avenues for the students to learn the content of the given course, thereby adapting to meet different student needs ( Tomlinson 2017 ). However, the use of differentiated teaching has so far primarily been examined in elementary and secondary education (de Graaf et al. 2019; Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). There is thus limited documentation of application in higher education ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ; Turner et al. 2017 ). A reason for this might be that it is more challenging to apply differentiated teaching principles in higher education because of large class sizes and time constraints, among other factors ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ).

We argue that studies testing the principles of differentiated learning in higher education are necessary, first, exactly because the university classroom differs significantly from primary and secondary schools in terms of academic diversity, physical layout, number of students, teaching style and pedagogy. Second, because the few studies that do exist on differentiated learning in higher education show that it leads to improved learning experiences and outcomes for students ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ). We thus set out to address the following research question: How can differentiated teaching be used to identify and address academic diversity among university students?

In order to address this research question, we present the results of a differentiated teaching intervention in two cases at Roskilde University in Denmark. Like in other parts of the world, academic diversity has increased in Denmark; the higher education sector has expanded to include more students in general and more students with non-graduate parents in particular. At Roskilde University, this diversity is further pronounced due to an educational structure that builds on the fundamental principles of interdisciplinary degrees and problem-oriented project work ( Andersen and Heilesen 2015 ). In practice, this means that the academic staff often teach and supervise groups of students from a variety of subject combinations, such as geography and history, or communications and business studies. Thus, the students do not come only from different (academic) backgrounds. They also acquire different experiences, methods and theoretical knowledge from their various disciplines and departments at the university.

The two cases presented in this article exemplify the challenges that can occur when university teachers either supervise or instruct students at varying academic levels. The first case is a methods course for students, who take up course work in social sciences, either as a part of an interdisciplinary degree or to qualify for a master's programme. The other case is a supervision project module, where students writing projects together are clustered into a larger group with other project teams. In both cases, the authors have experienced challenges that we deem are related to academic diversity. Based on a review of literature on differentiated teaching, we identify relevant pedagogical approaches and tools that we tested in an intervention in both cases to create a better match between student level(s) and the content and process of our teaching and supervision.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. The next section elaborates on the concept and practice of differentiated teaching. In the third section, we present the two cases, as well as problem identification and design of our differentiated teaching intervention. The fourth section presents our results, where we evaluate the intervention and whether our differentiated teaching approach has helped address the identified problems in our cases. Finally, we discuss the potential and challenges of using differentiated teaching at university level.

• Differentiated teaching in higher education

Differentiated teaching is defined in somewhat different ways in the scholarly literature, but the fundamental pedagogy comprises a constructive response to what learners already know ( Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). Differentiated teaching has been divided into two approaches: divergent , where goals and teaching methods are highly specified to meet the needs of individuals or homogenous groups, and convergent , where all students work on common tasks to achieve common goals ( Corno 2008 ; de Graaf et al. 2019; Deunk et al. 2015 ).

Carol Tomlinson and her co-authors have been engaged in academic discussion of differentiation since they introduced the concept in the late 1990s (e.g., Tomlinson et al. 2003 ; Tomlinson and Imbeau 2013 ; Tomlinson and Moon 2013 ; Tomlinson 1999 , 2014 , 2017 ). Tomlinson promotes a convergent approach to differentiated teaching as she argues that common goals are a requirement for differentiated learning to happen. She further argues that differentiated learning builds on the interrelationship between three curricular elements. First, content is the input students learn, or in other words what they are taught, and how students access the material. Second, process is how the students learn. Third, the product concerns the output showing what the students have learned. Tomlinson argues that differentiated teaching is effective facilitation because it takes differences between students into account in all three of these curricular elements ( Tomlinson 2017 ).

In line with this understanding, Michelle Chamberlin and Robert Powers (2010) have outlined seven core principles that guide differentiated teaching, which we aimed to follow as we carried out our interventions: (1) Clearly communicated link between curriculum, instruction and (ongoing) assessment that informs about student understanding of material, personal interests and learning profiles. (2) Teachers respond to student differences. (3) Students are challenged at a level that is attainable, through lessons that emphasise critical thinking intended to promote individual growth, while expected to participate in respectful work. (4) Teachers and students collaborate in the learning process. (5) Group work is intermixed with whole class discussions and activities. Student groupings are based on readiness, interests, or learning profiles. (6) The approach to differentiated teaching is proactive rather than reactive. (7) Space, time, and materials are utilised to suit the needs of the various learners ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ).

Another key aspect of differentiated teaching that we applied was the use of both conceptual and practical pedagogical tools. Conceptual tools are overarching principles or guidelines that inform application of practical tools ( Grossman, Smagorinsky et al. 2000 ; Grossman, Valencia et al. 1999 ). Hilary Dack (2019) highlighted Shelley Sherman's (2009) argument that educators oftentimes forget to introduce the conceptual underpinnings behind the implementation of a practical tool. To avoid this, our introduction of practical tools to further differentiated learning will be accompanied by explanations of why these tools are implemented and the goals that we hope to achieve in doing so.

In order to differentiate, teachers must know the students’ levels of readiness in terms of prior knowledge, interests, and learning profiles ( Pashler et al. 2009 ; Tomlinson et al. 2003 ). Based on this, student readiness emerges as a key concept in differentiated teaching and in our intervention ( Pham 2011 ). However, differentiated teaching does not mean the learning goals should vary for each student depending on their readiness level. Rather, the teacher should acquire information about the students’ prior competencies/knowledge and, based on this information, provide the students with different avenues for achieving the learning goals ( Pham 2011 ).

Research design and methods

Our study consists of two cases of diverse student groups in undergraduate courses for which the authors of this article are responsible. These cases were chosen (1) because they each represent a primary form of student teacher interaction in higher education, and (2) because we have experienced challenges associated with academic diversity in both cases.

The selected cases are both within social sciences and offered to undergraduate students in the same department, but they vary in regard to class size and format, as summarised in Table 1 . This variation allows us to explore the potential and challenges of selected differentiated teaching approaches in different contexts. We elaborate on the respective challenges associated with the diverse student groups in the subsequent sections.

Description of the two cases

• Description of and problem identification in Case 1: Methods course

The first case is a methods course offered every fall semester. This course is compulsory for students from humanities and natural science who take up course work at the Department of Social Sciences and Business as part of a dual degree, but it can also be an elective course for social science students of, for example, public administration or business studies. The first group often includes students from university colleges or, in a few cases, students who have been in the labour market for some time before continuing their higher education. The composition changes somewhat from year to year. The purpose of the methods course is for the students to learn the most fundamental qualitative and quantitative methods and research designs in social sciences, and to equip the students with practical methodological skills. The course consists of nine lessons that vary from two to four hours.

The learning activities were traditionally a mix of lectures and hands-on exercises. The exercises were sometimes in groups, sometimes individual, where students were instructed to, for instance, formulate questions for a hypothetical survey or identify different types of variables. The examination consisted of a written, home-based exam a few weeks after the last lecture to be completed within forty-eight hours. The content of the course, the readings and the exercises were altered for the intervention, as we describe later on.

Because the students in this course come from other departments or from outside the university, they may have very different levels of experience with and knowledge of methodology. For instance, the humanities students mostly have experience with qualitative methods, while natural science students have more experience with quantitative methods. Moreover, some attend the course solely to fulfil a prerequisite, while others are highly motivated and eager to learn. During previous semesters, we observed and experienced how these differences manifested in several challenges that we assess originate from academic diversity.

Selective and low attendance

While all or most of the students showed up to the first lesson, only about half attended the subsequent lessons, and the number fluctuated depending on the theme of the lesson. Based on informal talks with students and an oral evaluation midway through the course, the students seemed to use the teaching plan as a menu to choose from, indicating that many of the students did not find the course relevant as a whole.

A lack of engagement and activity during lessons

It proved difficult to engage and activate the students that were present during lectures and exercises. Some expressed that they found the readings and exercises too difficult, others that they found them too easy. Consequently, only a few students participated actively in lectures and group exercises (e.g., by posing questions, displaying enthusiasm and interest, presenting results from group discussions, etc.).

Only a subgroup achieved the learning outcomes

The student evaluation toward the end of the course showed that those students with a medium level knowledge seemed to learn and benefit from the course, while students at the ends of the spectrum did not.

• Description of and problem identification in Case 2: Cluster supervision

The second case is so-called cluster supervision. Each semester students at Roskilde University earn half of their credits by working on and delivering a group project (normally two to five students in a group). Each project group is assigned a supervisor, who they normally meet with three to four times during the semester to discuss their project and receive feedback. This supervision is supplemented with cluster supervision two times during the semester. In these sessions, three or four project groups are randomly clustered together (normally fifteen to twenty students) and meet in sessions that are moderated and structured by a faculty member.

Prior to the intervention, the learning activities within the cluster sessions consisted of a short presentation by the faculty member on a generic topic of relevance to the project report, such as what should be included in the methods section of the report. The presentation was followed by the students giving each other feedback. All groups submitted their preliminary work on the reports before the cluster session. Additionally, they were expected to prepare thorough feedback for one or two of the other randomly assigned groups. No template for feedback was given to or used by the students.

Due to the way groups are formed and the random combination of groups in the cluster supervision session, the group cluster may be highly diverse in terms of academic level and experience of working together. The students form the project groups on their own with guidance from faculty. In practice, this means that they are formed based on a mix of interest in specific topics, academic ambition, social aspects including friendships, work styles, schedules and necessity, since every student has to be assigned to a group. This means that the basis for groups differ; some groups may have been shaped based on academic ambition, while others may have been shaped simply because no other options were available. In addition, some groups may consist of students who have worked together on previous projects, while others may be working together for the first time. The students and the faculty member have no prior knowledge about the other groups, except for a brief project presentation that each group is requested to circulate to the other groups before the session. Based on informal discussions with students and our own observations, we found a number of problems that all relate to academic diversity.

Lack of broad student involvement

The ‘group to group’ feedback structure means that each group only receives in depth feedback from one other group. If this feedback is subpar, the takeaway from the session is limited. It is often only the one or two academically strongest or most talkative students from each group who provide feedback. Essentially, the ‘group to group’ feedback therefore often becomes one-to-one feedback between the strongest and/or most dominant group members.

Lack of purpose and fear of embarrassment

Challenges emerge when the gap between academically advanced and less academically advanced groups become too wide. Less advanced groups may feel that they have nothing to contribute, may provide feedback that is of little use to the stronger group, or may not be able to absorb the feedback they receive. This may create a lack of purpose for the stronger groups and instances of awkwardness or humiliation for the weaker groups.

Lack of feedback competency

When feedback is not absorbed by the receiving group, it may also be because students are not pedagogically trained or experienced, or necessarily competent in terms of the difference between ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feedback.

Lack of teacher proactiveness

Teachers have little or no prior knowledge about the students, therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, to be proactive in terms of mitigating the challenges mentioned above.

Lack of knowledge/recognition of intended learning outcomes (ILOs)

The students see the only outcome of the sessions as the feedback they receive on their own project. They are rarely aware that a key exercise and take-away comes from giving feedback.

• The intervention

The research design entails an intervention of selected differentiated teaching approaches in both cases to compare their usefulness in addressing similar problems associated with diverse student groups in different contexts. The selection of techniques is based on our problem identification and the literature review, choosing those techniques we believe match or best address the challenges we face. The result is a threefold approach, as illustrated in Figure 1 , which takes its point of departure in assessing the students’ readiness level. We describe the process and results of the actual intervention in more detail in the results section but provide a brief overview of the selected methods below and in Table 2 .

Teaching activities for the intervention

Design of the intervention

Citation: Learning and Teaching 14, 2; 10.3167/latiss.2021.140206

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The baseline for the intervention in both cases is comprised of the challenges identified in the previous sections, which stem from our own experiences and observations from previous semesters along with student evaluations. This design does not provide means for causal inference. Without an experimental design, which has not been feasible in our cases, we cannot determine whether the changes we observe are, in fact, due to our intervention, which is an issue we discuss toward the end of this article.

In Case 1, we distributed a survey to the students prior to the intervention to assess their readiness level. We asked them to rate their level of experience with and to what degree they felt equipped to use ten different qualitative and quantitative methods for collecting and analysing data (e.g., interviews, surveys, descriptive statistics), as well as five different research designs. Based on their answers, we applied differentiated teaching in two of Tomlinson's curricular elements: the content of the course (input) and the learning paths (process) we provided the students. We did this by differentiating the in-class exercises, readings and focus of the lectures – we elaborate how in the results section. The differentiation was fully implemented in six out of nine lessons; a colleague that was not involved in the intervention conducted the last three lessons. Hence, the intervention, empirical examples and the results of the intervention refer to the overall planning of the course and the first six out of nine lessons.

In Case 2, we used the online tool Peergrade, an online platform to facilitate peer feedback sessions with students, 1 to achieve the same purpose of assessing student readiness and progress in order to differentiate input and process. Peergrade was used to administer submission of content and feedback among students and makes it possible to create rubrics that convey the learning goals and expectations toward feedback in a more concrete way to the students. The students submit their project reports in Peergrade and are asked to provide feedback via the system. The feedback given is based on predesigned rubrics reflecting the intended learning outcomes. Students provide feedback individually, which allowed us to see the students’ level of competency and their ability to provide feedback in order to prepare the cluster supervision (see online supplementary material for survey questions and rubrics) – we further elaborate this in the results section.

• Data collection for evaluating the intervention

To assess the results of the intervention, we use three different types of data that can help us shed light on possible changes in the challenges described earlier.

First, we rely on the students’ perception of their own learning outcomes. In Case 1, we repeated the readiness survey after the intervention. Thereby, we can detect any changes in how the students score their degree of experience with the different methods and level of competence before and after the intervention. For Case 2, we reflected with the students in the final cluster session about what they had learned.

Secondly, we rely on our own observations to triangulate the self-evaluations from the students. In both cases, we continuously took observational notes immediately after lectures and cluster sessions. We registered our observations of the students’ activity, engagement and participation during the lessons – did they pose and answer questions during whole class sessions or were they predominately silent? Did they give thorough feedback to peers? Furthermore, in Case 1, we registered how many students were present each time.

Finally, the students’ output is used to assess their learning progress based on the feedback they gave their peers in Peergrade in Case 2 and the formal student evaluation of the course conducted by the study board in Case 1.

We do not believe that the students’ final grades constitute a reliable way of evaluating the results of the intervention. The main reason is that attendance in the cluster supervision and methods classes is not compulsory, which means that students can take the exam without participating in the intervention.

Results of the intervention

In this section, we report how the implementation of the intervention proceeded, and how the described diversity challenges have changed (or not) for Case 1 and Case 2 respectively.

Implementation of the intervention

The implementation of the intervention in the first case can be categorised into three approaches related to input and process: ‘course content based on readiness-assessment’, ‘differentiation in readings’ and ‘differentiation in student exercises’.

First, the readiness survey was helpful in planning the course content. The survey identified where the students had varying levels of experience with a method, that is, clear examples of diversity, but also where a majority of the students had similar degrees or lack of experience with a method, which is equally important for course planning. To illustrate, we present a few survey results. For instance, Figure 2 shows that approximately 48 per cent of students agreed that they were already well equipped to conduct surveys prior to the course, whereas the other half disagreed or reported a neutral stance. We saw a similar distribution in responses with respect to document analysis, where half of the students had experience with document studies and the other half did not. Meanwhile, the survey showed that around 90 per cent of the students had none or very little experience with quantitative analyses, such as descriptive statistics (see Figure 3 ). In contrast, almost 93 per cent of the sixty-seven students that responded had experience with conducting qualitative interviews. 2

Based on this information, we decided to focus the lectures on those methods where most students had either the least experience or where the students represented the most mixed levels of experience, that is, equipping the students with fundamental skills, especially in surveys, quantitative analysis and document studies. 3 The information from the survey also implied that previously fixed elements of the course, such as interviews and observational studies, were more or less entirely removed from the lectures (although not from the readings, see below), as most of the students reported feeling well equipped to work with these methods.

Second, we differentiated readings, providing both advanced and less advanced texts on each method along with texts in Danish for those who found the English textbook difficult. The purpose was to provide the students with different avenues for learning the material and going beyond the material in case the students found the mandatory readings insufficient. We also provided suggestions for supplemental readings for those students who wished to engage with the course topics at a more advanced level or learn more about methods we did not prioritise in the lessons, for example, interviews and observational studies.

Finally, we differentiated the exercises we gave the students during class by posing mandatory as well as so-called bonus questions. As an example, we asked the students to go through three or four fundamental questions on descriptive statistics, which resembled what they would have to demonstrate for the exam, while a so-called bonus question was more advanced. The purpose was to challenge those students who reported already having experience with a given method in the readiness survey.

We did not base the planning of the course entirely on the readiness survey. First, because students’ own perception of their competencies may be an insufficient indicator. Second, because we wanted to ensure a coherent course, which required that a lesson on, for instance, social science research designs was included.

• Changes to diversity challenges

We observed that the first challenge, attendance, improved markedly during the intervention. Almost all the students registered for the course participated in the first lesson and this number remained steady throughout the intervention, as opposed to earlier semesters. Comments in the midway evaluation and final evaluation of the course suggests that the students found the course topics relevant, indicating the usefulness in planning course content informed by the readiness survey.

Student self-evaluation of statistical competencies prior to the intervention

Student self-evaluation of survey competencies prior to the intervention

Secondly, lack of engagement improved as well, compared to previous semesters. From our own observations, the students were much more active and committed during lessons. We noted an increase in the number of relevant questions to the teacher during plenary sessions, lively student discussions during group exercises, and their presentations of group discussions and exercises demonstrated that they were taking the task seriously. The presentations also revealed that some groups had time to complete the bonus questions, whereas other groups had only or barely finished the mandatory questions, demonstrating the usefulness in providing different levels of exercises. During the midway evaluation, students expressed that the group exercises in general were very beneficial, as it helped them internalise the curriculum. Furthermore, they remarked that the supplemental readings were helpful, especially for those who considered the textbook too difficult.

The change in attendance and engagement also suggests that they felt challenged enough by the curriculum and exercises to stay engaged, giving them an incentive to show up for class and participate actively, but not so challenged that they became detached. This observation is substantiated by the midway evaluation, which shows that the six lessons included in the intervention were perceived as academically challenging, but that it was possible to keep up based on readings, lessons and exercises. However, both in the midway and final evaluations, some students noted that the course was very (and perhaps too) compact, as the course covered a lot of material within a limited number of lessons.

Finally, the third challenge, that only a subgroup of students achieve the learning outcomes, seemed to change for the better. After the intervention, the study board's evaluation of the course showed increased satisfaction with the academic level and curriculum. The readiness survey, which we repeated after completing the intervention, also showed that there was progress in the students’ self-evaluation of competencies. For instance, Figure 4 illustrates that approximately 55 per cent of students reported feeling well equipped to conduct descriptive statistics after completing the course, compared to approximately 10 per cent prior to the course ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 5 shows that after the intervention the percentage of students that feel well equipped to conduct surveys increased to almost 82 per cent, compared to the very mixed levels of self-reported survey competencies prior to the intervention, see Figure 3 .

However, the post-intervention survey responses come with great uncertainty and should be interpreted with caution. Only twenty-two completed the survey after the intervention, making the post-intervention survey responses much less representative and potentially biased. The drop in response rate could be due to general course fatigue, that they were engaged in exams at this point and survey overload, as the students also had to fill out an evaluation of the course from the study board.

Student self-evaluation of statistical competencies after the intervention

The implementations made as part of the intervention can be categorised into three aspects: ‘explication of learning outcomes’, ‘session restructuring based on ILOs and student feedback’ and ‘differentiation based on readiness assessment’.

First, we explicated the learning outcomes by providing the students with a written introduction to the cluster session. This contained access to the Peergrade system and instructions that each group should submit a brief introduction to their project, while each individual student should provide feedback to one randomly assigned group based on a rubric. It also contained detailed information about the ILOs for the session. It was articulated that the purpose of the session is threefold: ‘(1) A chance to learn by giving other students feedback (it is empirically proven that students learn more from giving feedback than from receiving it); (2) A place to get inspiration for your own project; and (3) A place to get feedback on your project’. Finally, the students were instructed to consider how they provide feedback and given information about what can be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feedback.

Student self-evaluation of survey competencies after the intervention

Second, we restructured the session, based on the ILOs and the student feedback collected through Peergrade. As mentioned, the cluster sessions had previously been based on oral group-to-group feedback, which in practice meant that each group often only received in-depth feedback from one other group. With the intervention, students were required to provide individual feedback, rather than group feedback, which meant that each group received in-depth written feedback from an average of three different, randomly selected, individuals. The starting point for the session in the intervention is the written feedback as well as the explicit change in focus from what can be gained by receiving feedback to also include what can be gained from giving it.

During the intervention, the session progressed as follows: The students were given a brief introductory ‘lecture’. The student groups each gave a brief (three to five minute) presentation of their project idea. The student groups were asked to read the written feedback they had received, discuss and evaluate it, and answer the following questions:

• 1. What are three aspects of the feedback that were useful to you (why?)
• 2. What were feedback elements that were less useful (why)?
• 3. How will you change your project after this discussion?

This was followed with a discussion in plenum. Instead of using this time to present direct oral feedback to the other groups, the groups were asked to present and reflect on their answers to the questions above, while the other groups were asked to reflect and comment on these answers.

Third, our access to the students’ project introductions and individual feedback prior to the session allowed us to assess general, group and individual level of competency and ability to provide feedback. We used this information to inform the contents of the initial ‘lecture’ and to design talking points for each group. We designed the talking points by reading and comparing the submitted project introductions and the written feedback from other students. Talking points could, for example, ask students to reflect on their chosen methods, theoretical choices, and more. In cases where we found a good alignment between the level/quality of the content compared to the feedback given, no or few talking points were provided. In cases where the feedback was not adequate or indicated a gap in academic level between the content and feedback, we added more talking points. Each student group was provided with a customised handout containing the feedback they had received from other students and the talking points we had prepared. They were then asked to discuss and evaluate the feedback and to reflect on what relevant changes they should make to their project based on the feedback and the talking points. Because each student group received a customised handout and only saw their own talking points, they were not aware of which and how many talking points other groups had received. This meant that in instances of marked academic diversity – where the gap between content and feedback quality was too wide – the talking points could fill the gap, without the students’ awareness. In doing so, the student groups were each addressed at their level, while avoiding an obvious division into ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ students.

We addressed the lack of knowledge/recognition of ILOs by being more explicit about the benefits and learning outcomes of giving feedback and by restructuring the sessions to also focus on evaluation of the feedback given. We observed that this changed the students’ focus from exclusively how to improve their own project to also include the act of giving feedback. While this focus, in and of itself, did not vastly improve the students lack of feedback competency, the awareness of the importance of giving ‘good’ feedback, combined with improved knowledge of what constitutes ‘good’ feedback meant that students were more careful and constructive in their feedback delivery. This resulted not only in better feedback but also in an improved atmosphere among the students. Specifically, the improved atmosphere meant that there were no awkward or uncomfortable situations provoked by differences in academic level, when compared to similar sessions in previous years.

We addressed the lack of teacher proactiveness, through use of Peergrade to collect project presentations and feedback on these from students before the session. This allowed us to assess student readiness and act proactively to prevent potential diversity challenges. A key tool in doing so were the talking points, which were added to the feedback each group received. When evaluating the session, students specifically highlighted these as very useful, and we observed that the talking points silently limited the gap between students, as they all had points to discuss and were challenged at their own academic level. This, combined with the improved atmosphere mentioned above, contributed significantly to address the lack of purpose and fear of embarrassment that some students had felt. Finally, individual rather than group-based feedback addressed the lack of broad student involvement. The most talkative students would still dominate discussions at the sessions, but since all discussion was based on the written individual feedback, it was impossible not to involve perspectives from all students to some extent.

• Discussion and conclusion: Potentials and challenges in using differentiated teaching in higher education

This article has demonstrated how differentiated teaching, especially pertaining to student readiness assessment and response, can be applied to address academic diversity in a higher education context. The results of such implementation include better fulfilment of intended learning outcomes, teaching that is perceived to be meaningful by students at varying academic levels, and a more inclusive learning environment. While the two cases represent typical student-teacher interactions in higher education, the difference in context and approach of the two cases begs the question of what more general lessons we can draw about the use of differentiated teaching.

Across our two cases, the variety of differentiated teaching approaches tested to address academic diversity in the two cases have proven useful. Specifically, the two cases demonstrate that assessing the students’ readiness level is a strong tool in a university setting. It provides the teacher with important knowledge about the experience and competencies of a group of students that makes it possible to proactively improve the process of teaching and supervising.

Moreover, each of our two cases have resulted in concrete and tested tools for assessing readiness in higher education that other university teachers can use and adjust to match their own classes and supervision: a survey questionnaire and rubrics. 4 The two cases can also be seen as a catalogue of ideas for how to differentiate the teaching, for example, providing customised talking points for feedback, varying the levels of student exercises and readings and planning lecture themes to match student experience.

There are two obvious counterarguments against using differentiated teaching in a university setting that need to be discussed in light of our findings. The first counterargument is that practicing differentiated teaching requires close interaction with and getting to know the students. For this reason, differentiated teaching has primarily been applied successfully in elementary and secondary education ( de Graaf et al. 2018 ; Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). This is not possible for university teachers with large student populations and few contact hours ( Ernst and Ernst 2005 ). However, the techniques we have applied in our two case studies for assessing student readiness – a short electronic survey for large groups of students and student feedback in Peergrade for smaller groups of students – do not require close and continued interaction. The two tools make it possible to gain the necessary readiness information from the students in a more anonymous and aggregated way that allows for planning variation in learning paths.

Second, we acknowledge that differentiated teaching requires an extra effort, which can pose a challenge to university teachers, where teaching is only one among several other tasks. Our two cases show how to make it manageable. Inspired by Chamberlin and Powers (2010) , we have started out small, focusing on a few relevant approaches rather than a revolutionary approach. It takes a relatively short time to prepare, collect and process the readiness information that the students provide electronically ahead of class. In many instances, the rubrics used in Peergrade and the questions developed for the survey can be re-used each semester for the same course or type of supervision. With regard to differentiating the teaching process, we have done this as a part of the normal task of preparing for class and supervision. However, the information from the readiness assessment might call for some changes from semester to semester. For instance, in the methods course, the readiness information from next semesters’ student group might require smaller changes in the level of student exercises as the composition of students change. In the cluster supervision case, it will be necessary to read not only the students’ submitted materials but also their feedback to each other to prepare differentiated talking points.

Our results should be used and interpreted with caution. We did not apply an experimental design and have no control group to compare with. In other words, although we believe that the changes we observed are a result of the differentiated teaching techniques, we cannot prove with complete certainty that this is the case. Moreover, although we strived to triangulate our results with different types of data, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions based on survey data, student evaluations and the authors’ own observations. We thus encourage more scholars to test our techniques and other differentiated teaching approaches to further our knowledge on the validity and applicability of this pedagogy in a university setting. The goal of this study was to test how similar base principles of differentiated teaching can be successful in addressing diversity challenges in vastly different contexts. Future studies may also test various differentiation approaches, principles and tools in additional similar contexts to determine specific utility in specific situations.

Despite these limitations, we found that we as teachers and the students benefitted from the introduction of differentiated learning principles in many ways. For instance, the students were generally much more engaged compared to previous semesters. This benefits both teachers and students, resulting in more students achieving the learning outcomes and smoother sessions characterised by motivated students and a positive atmosphere. When faced with academically diverse groups of students, differentiated teaching has the potential to produce positive results that outweigh the added costs ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ; Turner et al. 2017 ). Thus, our findings demonstrate the utility of differentiated teaching in higher education, challenging the prevailing assumption that differentiated teaching does not apply well to a university setting.

• Acknowledgments

We would like to highlight that the two authors contributed equally to the study and the article. Sincere thanks to Professor Eva Bendix Petersen whose expert knowledge was essential to the study.

See Peergrade, https://www.peergrade.io/ (accessed 28 May 2021).

Figures and data for this statement and other responses on particular methods can be retrieved by contacting the authors. They have been excluded here to avoid an overload of figures.

Document studies constituted the last three out of the nine lectures, which were not a part of the intervention, as explained in the methods section. The readiness survey was used to decide on including that particular method in the course as part of the overall planning, but we do not evaluate on the results of these lessons.

Available from authors.

Andersen , A. S. and S. B. Heilesen ( 2015 ), The Roskilde Model: Problem-Oriented Learning and Project Work ( Cham : Springer International Publishing ).

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Boelens , R. , M. Voet and B. D. Wever ( 2018 ), ‘ The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning ’, Computers & Education 120 : 197 – 212 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009 .

Chamberlin , M. and R. Powers ( 2010 ), ‘ The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students ’, Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications 29 , no. 3 : 113 – 139 . https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006 .

Corno , L. ( 2008 ), ‘ On teaching adaptively ’, Educational Psychologist 43 , no. 3 : 161 – 173 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466 .

Dack , H. ( 2019 ), ‘ The role of teacher preparation program coherence in supporting candidate appropriation of the pedagogical tools of differentiated instruction ’, Teaching and Teacher Education 78 : 125 – 140 . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2018.11.011 .

de Graaf , A. , H. Westbroek and F. Janssen ( 2018 ), ‘ A practical approach to differentiated instruction: How biology teachers redesigned their genetics and ecology lessons ’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 30 , no. 1 : 6 – 23 . 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1523646.

Deunk , M. , S. Doolaard , A. Smale-Jacobse and R. Bosker . ( 2015 ), Differentiation within and across Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Studies into the Cognitive Effects of Differentiation Practices ( Groningen : GION, University of Groningen ).

Ernst , H. R. and T. L. Ernst ( 2005 ), ‘ The promise and pitfalls of differentiated instruction for undergraduate political science courses: Student and instructor impressions of an unconventional teaching strategy ’, Journal of Political Science Education 1 , no. 1 : 39 – 59 . https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160590907513 .

Fry , H. , S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall ( 2008 ), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice , 3rd ed. ( New York : Routledge ).

Grossman , P. L. , P. Smagorinsky and S. Valencia ( 1999 ), ‘ Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach ’, American Journal of Education 108 : 1 – 29 . https://doi.org/10.2307/1085633 .

Grossman , P. L. , S. Valencia , K. Evans , C. Thompson , S. Martin and N. Place ( 2000 ), ‘ Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond ’, Journal of Literacy Research 32 , no. 4 : 631 – 662 . https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960009548098 .

Ismajli , H. and I. Imami-Morina ( 2018 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction: Understanding and applying interactive strategies to meet the needs of all the students ’, International Journal of Instruction 11 , no. 3 : 207 – 218 . https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11315a .

Pashler , H. , M. Mcdaniel , D. Rohrer and R. Bjork ( 2009 ), ‘ Learning styles concepts and evidence ’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9 , no. 3 : 105 – 119 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x .

Pham , H. L. ( 2011 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice ’, Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC) 9 , no. 1 : 13 – 20 . https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6710 .

Ramburuth , P. and J. McCormick ( 2001 ), ‘ Learning diversity in higher education: A comparative study of Asian international and Australian students ’, Higher Education 42 no. 3 : 333 – 350 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017982716482 .

Santangelo , T. and C. A. Tomlinson ( 2009 ), ‘ The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions ’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20 , no. 3 : 307 – 324 .

Sherman , S. C. ( 2009 ), ‘ Haven't we seen this before? Sustaining a vision in teacher education for progressive teaching practice ’, Teacher Education Quarterly 36 , no. 4 : 41 – 60 . https://doi.org/10.2307/23479283 .

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 1999 ), The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 2014 ), The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners , 2nd ed. ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 2017 ), How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. , C. Brighton , H. Hertberg , C. M. Callahan , T. R. Moon , K. Brimijoin , L. A. Conover and T. Reynolds ( 2003 ), ‘ Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature ’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27 , no. 2–3 : 119 – 145 . https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203 .

Tomlinson , C. A. and M. B. Imbeau ( 2013 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction ’, in B. J. Irby , G. Brown , R. Lara-Alecio and S. Jackson (eds), The Handbook of Educational Theories ( Charlotte, NC : Information A ), 1097 – 1117 .

Tomlinson , C. A. and T. R. Moon ( 2013 ), Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Turner , W. D. , O. J. Solis and D. H. Kincade ( 2017 ), ‘ Differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education ’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29 , no. 3 : 490 – 500 .

Contributor Notes

Matias Thuen Jørgensen is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Denmark. Matias's research mainly focuses on the tourism phenomenon and sector. He teaches marketing management and supervises students enrolled in business programmes at both the master and bachelor level. He continuously works to develop and refine his pedagogical approach. E-mail: [email protected]

Lena Brogaard is Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Denmark. Lena's research focuses on public-private collaboration and contracting out. She teaches and supervises undergraduate and graduate students in quantitative methods, evidence and performance measurement in the public sector as well as marketisation. She is continuously working to develop her teaching strategies and pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. E-mail: [email protected]

• Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on twitter

Learning and Teaching

The international journal of higher education in the social sciences.

Article Information

Issue table of contents, section headings.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Google Scholar

• Article by Matias Thuen Jørgensen
• Article by Lena Brogaard

• Accessibility
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 Berghahn Books

Powered by:

• [91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

Differentiated Instruction as an Approach to Establish Effective Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

• Open Access
• First Online: 28 June 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Esther Gheyssens   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4871-6780 4 , 5 ,
• Júlia Griful-Freixenet   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-9617 5 , 6 &
• Katrien Struyven   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6562-2172 5 , 7  

18k Accesses

3 Citations

Differentiated Instruction has been promoted as a model to create more inclusive classrooms by addressing individual learning needs and maximizing learning opportunities. Whilst differentiated instruction was originally interpreted as a set of teaching practices, theories now consider differentiated instruction rather a pedagogical model with philosophical and practical components than the simple act of differentiating. However, do teachers also consider differentiated instruction as a model of teaching? This chapter is based on a doctoral thesis that adopted differentiated instruction as an approach to establish effective teaching in inclusive classrooms. The first objective of the dissertation focused on how differentiated instruction is perceived by teachers and resulted in the DI-Quest model. This model, based on a validated questionnaire towards differentiated instruction, pinpoints different factors that explain differences in the adoption of differentiated instruction. The second objective focused on how differentiated instruction is implemented. This research consisted of four empirical studies using two samples of teachers and mixed method. The results of four empirical studies of this dissertation are discussed and put next to other studies and literature about differentiation. The conclusions highlight the importance of teachers’ philosophy when it comes to implementing differentiated instruction, the importance of perceiving and implementing differentiated instruction as a pedagogical model and the importance and complexity of professional development with regard to differentiated instruction.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Differentiated Instruction, Perceptions and Practices

Measuring differentiated instruction in The Netherlands and South Korea: factor structure equivalence, correlates, and complexity level

Defining differentiation in cyber schools: what online teachers say.

• Differentiated instruction
• Effective teaching
• Inclusive classrooms

1 Introduction

Differentiated Instruction (DI) has been promoted as a model to facilitate more inclusive classrooms by addressing individual learning needs and maximizing learning opportunities (Gheyssens et al., 2020c ). DI aims to establish maximal learning opportunities by differentiating the instruction in terms of content, process, and product in accordance with students their readiness, interests and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2017 ). This chapter is based on a doctoral thesis that adopted DI as an approach to establish effective teaching in inclusive classrooms. This doctoral dissertation consisted of four empirical studies towards the conceptualisation and implementation of DI (Gheyssens, 2020 ). This chapter summarizes the most important results of this dissertation and includes three parts. First the conceptualisation of DI is discussed. Second, we discuss literature findings regarding the effectiveness of DI. Third, the results of the studies about the implementation of DI are discussed. Finally, based on the previous parts some recommendations for implementation are presented.

2 Conceptualisation of Differentiated Instruction

2.1 defining differentiated instruction.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an approach that aims to meet the learning needs of all students in mixed ability classrooms by establishing maximal learning and differentiating instruction with regard to content, process and product in accordance with student needs in terms of their readiness (i.e., student’s proximity to specified learning goal), interests (i.e., passions, affinities that motivate learning) and learning profiles (i.e., preferred approaches to learning) (Tomlinson, 2014 ). Whilst DI was originally interpreted as a set of teaching practices or simplified as the act of differentiating (e.g. van Kraayenoord, 2007 ; Tobin, 2006 ), it is evolved towards a pedagogical model with philosophical and practical components (Gheyssens, 2020 ). This model is rooted in the belief that diversity is present in every classroom and that teachers should adjust their education accordingly (Tomlinson, 1999 ). Tomlinson ( 2017 ) states that DI is an approach where teachers are proactive and focus on common goals for each student by providing them with multiple options in anticipation of and in response to differences in readiness, interest, and learning needs (Tomlinson, 2017 ). From this perspective, differentiation refers to an educational process where students are made accountable for their abilities, talents, learning pace, and personal interests (Op ‘t Eynde, 2004 ). This means that teachers proactively plan varied activities addressing what students need to learn, how they will learn it, and how they show what they have learned. This increases the likelihood that each student will learn as much as he or she can as efficiently as possible (Tomlinson, 2005 ). Moreover, DI emphasizes the needs of both advanced and struggling learners in mixed-ability classroom. In more detail, Bearne ( 2006 ) and Tomlinson ( 1999 ) consider differentiation as an approach to teaching in which teachers proactively adjust curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and student product so that various student’s needs are satisfied (individuals or small groups) and every student is provided with maximum learning opportunities (in Tomlinson et al., 2003 ).

2.2 The DI-Quest Model

Considering DI as a pedagogical model rather than as a set of teaching strategies became also clear in the validity study of Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) when they tried to measure DI empirically. Their research resulted in the so-called ‘DI-Quest model’, based on the DI-questionnaire the researchers developed for investigating DI. This model pinpoints different factors that explain differences in the adoption of differentiated instruction (Coubergs et al., 2017 ). It was inspired by the differentiated instruction model developed by Tomlinson ( 2014 ), which presents a step by step process demonstrating how a teacher moves from thinking about DI toward implementing it in the classroom. According to this model, the teacher can differentiate content, process, product, and environments to respond to different needs in learning based on students’ readiness, learning profiles, and interests. Tomlinson ( 2014 ) also stipulates that, to respond adequately to students’ learning needs, teachers should apply general classroom principles such as respectful tasks, flexible grouping, and ongoing assessment and adjustment. In contrast with Tomlinson’s well-known DI model, which also contains concepts relating to good teaching, the DI-Quest model distinguishes teachers who use DI less often from those who use it more often (Gheyssens et al., 2020c ). The DI-Quest model comprises five factors. The five factors are presented in three categories. The key factor, similar to Tomlinson’s ( 2014 ) model, is adapting teaching to students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles. This is the main factor because it represents the ‘core business’ of differentiating: the teachers adapt his/her teaching to three essential differences in learning. The second and third factors represent DI as a philosophy. The fourth and fifth factor represent differentiated strategies in the classroom (Fig. 30.1 ). Below the figure the different factors are discussed on detail.

The DI-Quest model

2.2.1 Adaptive Teaching

Adaptive teaching illustrates that the teacher provides various options to enable students to acquire information, digest, and express their understanding in accordance with their readiness, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2001 ). Differences in learning profiles are described by Tomlinson and colleagues ( 2003 , p. 129) as “a student’s preferred mode of learning that can be affected by a number of factors, including learning style, intelligence preference and culture.” Applying different learning profiles positively influences the effectiveness of learning because students get the opportunity to lean the way they learn best. Responding to student interests also appears to be related to more positive learning experiences, both in the short and long term (Woolfolk, 2010 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Ryan and Deci ( 2000 ) claimed that understanding what motivates students will help develop interest, joy, and perseverance during the learning process. Thus, investing in differences in interests increases learning motivation among students. Taking account of students’ readiness can also lead to higher academic achievement. Readiness focuses on differences arising from a student’s learning position relative to the learning goals that are to be attained (Woolfolk, 2010 ). When taking students’ readiness into account enables every student to attain the learning objectives in accordance with their learning pace and position (Gheyssens et al., 2021 ).

2.2.2 Philosophy of DI

The first philosophical factor to consider is the ‘growth mindset’. Tomlinson ( 2001 ) addressed the concept of mindset in her DI model by stating that a teacher’s mindset can affect the successful implementation of differentiated instruction (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011 ). Teachers with a growth mindset set high goals for their students and believe that every student is able to achieve success when they show commitment and engagement (Dweck, 2006 ). The second philosophical factor is the ‘ethical compass’. This envisions the use of curriculum, textbooks, and other external influences as a compass for teaching rather than observations of the student (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). An ethical compass that focuses on the student embodies the development of meaningful learning outcomes, devises assessments in line with these, and creates engaging lesson plans designed to enhance students’ proficiency in achieving their learning goals (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). Research on self-reported practices demonstrated that teachers with an overly rigid adherence to a curriculum that does not take students’ needs into account, report to adopt less adaptive teaching practices (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Gheyssens et al., 2020c ).

2.2.3 Differentiated Classroom Practices

The next factor is the differentiated practice to be explained is ‘flexible grouping’. Switching between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups helps students to progress based on their abilities (when in homogeneous groups) and facilitates learning through interaction (when in heterogeneous groups) (Whitburn, 2001 ). Given that the aim of differentiated instruction is to provide maximal learning opportunities for all students, variation between homogeneous and heterogeneous teaching methods is essential. Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) found that combining different forms of flexible grouping positively predicts the self-reported use of adaptive teaching in accordance with differences in learning. The final factor in the DI-Quest model is the differentiated practice ‘Output = input.’ This factor represents the importance of using output from students (such as information from conversations, tasks, evaluation, and classroom behaviour) as a source of information. This output of students is input for the learning process of the students themselves by providing them with feedback. But this output is also crucial input for the teacher in terms of information about how students react to his/her teaching (Hattie, 2009 ). Assessment and feedback are not the final steps in the process of teaching, but they are an essential part of the process of teaching and learning (Gijbels et al., 2005 ). In this regard, Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) state that including feedback as an essential aspect of learning positively predicts the self-reported use of adaptive teaching.

3 Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction

Several studies dealing with the effectiveness of DI have demonstrated a positive impact on student achievement (e.g. Beecher & Sweeny, 2008 ; Endal et al., 2013 ; Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Reis et al., 2011 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ; Valiandes, 2015 ). However, while recent theories plead for a more holistic interpretation of DI, being a philosophy and a practice of teaching, empirical studies on the impact on student learning are often limited to one aspect of DI, e.g. ability grouping, tiering, heterogenous grouping, individualized instruction, mastery learning or another specific operationalization of DI (e.g. Bade & Bult, 1981 ; Tomlinson, 1999 ; Vanderhoeven, 2004 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Often studies on DI are also fragmented in studies on ability grouping, tiering, heterogenous grouping, individualized instruction, mastery learning or another specific operationalization of DI (Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Although effectiveness can be found for most of these operationalisations, overall the evidence is limited and sometimes even inconclusive (e.g. evidence of the benefits on ability grouping). Indeed research indicates that DI has the power to benefit students’ learning. However, this might not always be the case for all students. For example Reis and colleagues demonstrated that at-risk students are most likely to benefit from DI (e.g. Reis et al., 2011 ). By contrast, experimental research on DI by Valiandes ( 2015 ) showed that although the socioeconomic status of students correlated with their initial performance, it had no effect on their progress. This confirmed that DI can maximize learning outcomes for all students regardless of their socioeconomic background. It also depends on how DI is implemented, for example the effects of ability grouping may differ for subgroups of students (Coubergs et al., 2013 ). A recent review on DI concluded that studies of effectiveness of DI overall report small to medium-sized positive effects of DI on student achievement. However, the authors of this study plead for more empirical studies towards the effectiveness of DI on both academic achievement and affective students’ outcomes, such as attitudes and motivation (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ).

4 Implementation of Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is often presented in a fragmented fashion in studies. For example, it can be defined as a specific set of strategies (Bade & Bult, 1981 ; Woolfolk, 2010 ) or studies with regard to the effectiveness of DI often focus on specific differentiated classroom actions, rather than on DI as a whole-classroom approach (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Moreover, DI is not only in studies fragmented defined and investigated, DI is also perceived by teachers in a fragmented way (Gheyssens, 2020 ). For example, using mixed methods, this study explored to what degree differentiated practices are implemented by primary school teachers in Flanders (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ). Data were gathered by means of three different methods, which are compared: teachers’ self-reported questionnaires (N = 513), observed classroom practices and recall interviews (N = 14 teachers). The results reveal that there is not always congruence between the observed and self-reported practices. Moreover, the study seeks to understand what encourages or discourages teachers to implement DI practices. It turns out that concerns about the impact on students and school policy are referred to by teachers as impediments when it comes to adopting differentiated practices in classrooms. On teacher level, some teachers expressed a feeling of powerlessness towards their teaching and have doubts if their efforts are good enough. On school level, a development plan was often missing which gave teachers the feeling that they are standing alone (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ). Other studies confirm that when beliefs about teaching and learning are different among various actors involved in a school, this can limit DI implementation (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008 ). However, we know form the DI-Quest model how important a teachers’ mindset is when it comes to implementing DI. In this specific study teachers were asked about both hindrances and encouragements to implement DI. Teachers only responded with hindrances. In addition, flexible grouping, which in theory is an ideal teaching format when it comes to differentiation, occurs often randomly in the classroom without the intention to differentiate. The researchers of this study concluded that teachers do not succeed in implementing DI to the fullest because their mindset about DI is not as advanced as their abilities to implement differentiated practices. These practices, such as flexible grouping for example, are often part of the curriculum. Moreover, also in teacher education programmes pre-service teachers are trained to use differentiated strategies. However, teacher education programmes approach DI mostly again as a set of teaching practices. Teaching a mindset is much more difficult and complicated. This focus on DI as only a practice and as a pedagogical model, like the DI-Quest model demonstrates, leads to partial implementation of DI. DI is then perceived as something teachers can do “sometimes” in their classrooms, rather than a pedagogical model that is embedded in the daily teaching and learning process (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ).

In other words, one aspect of DI is often implemented, one specific teaching format is applied, or one strategy is adopted to deal with one specific difference between learning. As a consequence, some aspects will be improved or some students will benefit from this approach, but the desired positive effects on the total learning process of all the students that theories about DI promise, will remain unforthcoming. Below some recommendations are listed to implement DI more as a pedagogical model and less fragmented.

4.1 Importance of the Teachers’ Philosophy

Review studies which investigated the effectiveness and implementation of specific operationalizations of DI (for example grouping) report small to medium effects on student achievement (Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Although theories recommend approaching DI as a holistic concept, the effectiveness of such a holistic approach on student learning has, to our knowledge, not yet been investigated. We emphasize the importance of presenting and perceiving DI as a pedagogical model that is regarded as a philosophy of teaching and a collection of teaching practices (Tomlinson, 2017 ). Thus, DI is considered a pedagogical model that is influenced by teachers’ mindset and one which encourages teachers to be proactive, involves modifying curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and student products in anticipation of, and response to, student differences in readiness, interests and learning profiles, in order to maximize learning opportunities for every student in the classroom (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Tomlinson, 2017 ). In this regard we would also like to emphasize that these modifications do not necessary involve new teaching strategies and extra workload for teachers, but require that teachers shift their mindset and start acting more pro-actively, planned better and be more positive. In a study that investigated the effectiveness of a professional development programme about inclusive education on teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction, teachers stated that after participating in the programme they did not necessarily adopt more differentiated practices, but they did the ones they used more thoroughly (Gheyssens et al., 2020b ). As demonstrated in the DI-Quest model, in order to implement DI as a pedagogical model, it is essential to start with the teachers’ philosophy. However, changing a philosophy does not come about overnight, but rather demands time and patience (Gheyssens, 2020 ).

4.2 Importance and Complexity of Professional Development

When DI becomes a pedagogical model that consists of both philosophy and practice components, and furthermore demands that teachers have a positive mindset towards DI in order to implement DI effectively, professional development for some teachers is necessary to strengthen their competences and to support them in embedding DI in their classrooms. Depending on the current mindset of the teacher, some will need more support, while for other teachers differentiating comes naturally. However, if we want teachers to implement DI as a pedagogical model and not just as fragmented practices, teachers need to be prepared and supported. Professional development is essential for teachers to respond adequately to the changing needs of students during their careers (Keay & Lloyd, 2011 ; EADSNE, 2012 ). However, professional development is also complex. The final study in the dissertation of Gheyssens ( 2020 ) investigated the effectiveness of a professional development programme (PDP) aimed at strengthening the DI competences of teachers. A quasi-experimental design consisting of a pre-test, post-test, and control group was used to study the impact of the programme on teachers’ self-reported differentiated philosophies and practices. Questionnaires were collected from the experimental group (n = 284) and control group (n = 80) and pre- and post-test results were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA. Additionally, interviews with a purposive sample of teachers (n = 8) were conducted to explore teachers’ experiences of the PDP. The results show that the PDP was not effective in changing teachers’ DI competences. Multiple explanations are presented for the lack of improvement such as treatment fidelity, the limitations of instruments, and the necessary time investment (Gheyssens et al., 2020b ).

We found similar information in other studies. For example Brighton et al. ( 2005 ) stated that the biggest challenge for most teachers is that DI questions their previous beliefs. This ties in with our emphasis on teachers’ mindset. To participate in professional development, teachers need to have/keep an open mind in order to respond to new forms of diversity and new opportunities for collaborating with colleagues. Although continued professional development is necessary and important for teachers, it is a complex process. We refer to the work of Merchie et al. ( 2016 ) who identified nine characteristics of effective professional development, with one of them being that the supervisor is of high quality and is competent when it comes to giving and receiving constructive feedback and imparting other coaching skills (Merchie et al., 2016 ). Literature states that professional development is only successful if teachers are active participants, if they have a voice in what and how they learn things, and if the PDP is tailored to the specific context (Merchie et al., 2016 ). However, PDP often works towards a specific goal which is not always very flexible. A suitable coach is able to find a balance between these two extremes. Or, specifically within inquiry-based learning as an example, the coach needs to find the fragile balance between telling the teachers what to do, and letting them find their own answers. Finding such a balance and guiding teachers towards looking for and finding the answers they need is important if we wish to establish the desired improvement we want to see in teachers’ professional development. In this regard, Willegems et al. ( 2016 ) plead for the role of a broker as a bridge-maker in professional development trajectories, in addition to the role of coach (Willegems et al., 2016 ).

4.3 Importance of Collaboration

In addition, collaboration is indeed essential for effective professionalisation (Merchie et al., 2016 ) and beneficial for DI implementation (De Neve et al., 2015 ; Latz & Adams, 2011 ). In a professional development study where inquiry-based learning was applied to teams of teachers at schools, teachers reported positive experiences in discussing their individual learning activities, and during the programme became aware of the need to work together on the collective development of knowledge in the school. They all agreed that to implement DI they needed to collaborate more. A common school vision and policy is necessary for the implementation of specific differentiated measures, as these currently differ between teachers and grades, and can be confusing for students. This is consistent with previous research that states that collaboration is crucial for creating inclusive classrooms (Hunt et al., 2002 ; Mortier et al., 2010 ; EADSNE, 2012 ; Claasen et al., 2009 ; Mitchel, 2014 ). A first step in this process is realising that collaboration is beneficial for both teachers and students (EADSNE, 2012 ).

5 Conclusion

The chapter summarizes a doctoral dissertation that started with the assumption from theory that differentiated instruction can be adopted to create more inclusive classrooms. Theories describe DI as both a teaching practice and a philosophy, but the concept is rarely measured as such. Empirical evidence about the effectiveness and operationalisation of differentiating is limited. The general aim of this research was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the concept of DI. This main aim was subdivided into two objectives. The first objective focused on how DI is perceived by teachers and resulted in the DI-Quest model. The second objective focused on how DI is implemented. Four empirical studies were conducted to address these objectives. Two different samples spread over three years were adopted (1302 teachers in study 1 and 1522 teachers in studies 2, 3 and 4) and mixed methods were applied to investigate these research goals. In this chapter the results of these studies were put next to other studies and literature about differentiation. The conclusions highlight the importance of teachers’ philosophy when it comes to implementing DI, the importance of perceiving and implementing DI as a pedagogical model and the importance and complexity of professional development with regard to DI. Overall, the authors of this dissertation conclude that DI can be as promising as theories say when it comes to creating inclusive classrooms, but at the same time their research illustrated that the reality of DI in classrooms, is far more complex than the theories suggest.

Bade, J., & Bult, H. (1981). De praktijk van interne differentiatie. Handboek voor de leraar . Uitgeverij Intro Nijkerk.

Google Scholar  

Bearne, E. (2006). Differentiation and diversity in the primary school . Routledge.

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academica, 19 (3), 502–530.

Article   Google Scholar  

Claasen, W., de Bruïne, E., Schuman, H., Siemons, H. & van Velthooven, B. (2009). Inclusief bekwaam. Generiek competentieprofiel inclusief onderwijs - LEOZ Deelproject 4 . Garant.

Brighton, C. M., Hertberg, H. L., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school . National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Engels, N., Cools, W., & De Martelaer, K. (2013). Binnenklasdifferentiatie. Leerkansen voor alle leerlingen . Acco.

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2017). Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53 , 41–54.

De Neve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47 , 30–41.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success . Random House.

EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education). (2012). Lerarenopleiding en inclusie. Profiel van inclusieve leraren . European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Endal, G., Padmadewi, N., & Ratminingsih, M. (2013). The effect of differentiated instruction and achievement motivation on students’ writing competency. Journal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris , 1 .

Gheyssens, E. (2020). Adopting differentiated instruction to create inclusive classrooms . Crazy Copy Center Productions.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Vanslambrouck, S., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020a). Differentiated instruction in practice: Do teachers walk the talk? Pedagogische Studieën, 97 , 163–186.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020b). Good things come to those who wait: The importance of professional development for the implementation of differentiated instruction. Frontiers in Education, 5 , 96.

Gheyssens, E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet, J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020c). Differentiated instruction: The diversity of teachers’ philosophy and practice to adapt teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 , 1383.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2021). Creating inclusive classrooms in primary and secondary schools: From noticing to differentiated practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100 , 103210.

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75 (1), 27–61.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Müller, E., & Goetz, L. (2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18 (1), 20–35.

Keay, J. K., & Lloyd, C. M. (2011). Developing inclusive approaches to learning and teaching. In J. K. Keay & C. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Linking children’s learning with professional learning. Impact, evidence and inclusive practice (pp. 31–44). Sense Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Latz, A. O., & Adams, C. M. (2011). Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed: Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34 (5), 773–789.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40 (3), 130–137.

Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Evaluating teachers’ professional development initiatives: Towards an extended evaluative framework. Research Papers in Education, 33 , 1–26.

Mitchel, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education. Using evidence-based teaching strategies (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mortier, K., Van Hove, G., & De Schauwer, E. (2010). Supports for children with disabilities in regular education classrooms: An account of different perspectives in Flanders. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14 (6), 543–561.

Op ‘t Eynde. (2004). Leren doe je nooit alleen: differentiatie als een sociaal gebeuren. Impuls, 35 (1), 4–13.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (2), 462–501.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68.

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 2366.

Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner – Friendly classroom . Solution Tree Press.

Tobin, R. (2006). Five ways to facilitate the teacher assistant’s work in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2 (6), n6.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory Into Practice, 44 (3), 262–269.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms . ASCD.

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

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & 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 (2/3), 119–145.

Valiandes, S. (2015). Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45 , 17–26.

van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education, 83 (6), 390–394.

Vanderhoeven, J. L. (2004). Positief omgaan met verschillen in de leeromgeving. Een visie op differentiatie en gelijke kansen in authentieke middenscholen . Uitgeverij Antwerpen.

Whitburn, J. (2001). Effective classroom organisation in primary schools: Mathematics. Oxford Review of Education, 27 (3), 411–428.

Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K., & Engels, N. (2016). How to become a broker: The role of teacher educators in developing collaborative teacher research teams. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22 (3–4), 173–193.

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology . The Ohio State University: Pearson Education International.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Esther Gheyssens

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Aalst, Belgium

Esther Gheyssens, Júlia Griful-Freixenet & Katrien Struyven

Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Júlia Griful-Freixenet

Universiteit Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium

Katrien Struyven

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esther Gheyssens .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

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

Ridwan Maulana

Michelle Helms-Lorenz

Department of Education, University of York, York, UK

Robert M. Klassen

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Gheyssens, E., Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K. (2023). Differentiated Instruction as an Approach to Establish Effective Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms. In: Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Klassen, R.M. (eds) Effective Teaching Around the World . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_30

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_30

Published : 28 June 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-31677-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-31678-4

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9494-0.ch001
• Corpus ID: 246346425

Differentiated Instruction

• Pam L. Epler
• Published in New Considerations and Best… 2022
• New Considerations and Best Practices for Training Special Education Teachers

14 References

Self-reflections on differentiation: understanding how we teach in higher education., structuring teacher candidate learning about differentiated instruction through coursework, the effects of differentiated approach in higher education: an experimental investigation, renewing teaching practices: differentiated instruction in the college classroom, the design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: instructors' views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning, learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction, differentiating science instruction: secondary science teachers' practices, the application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: benefits, challenges, and future directions, differentiated instruction: are hong kong in-service teachers ready, on the road to differentiated practice., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

The Implementation of the Differentiated Instruction in Higher Education: A Research Review

• September 2019
• International Journal of Education 11(3):151

• University of the Aegean
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Shwu-Ru Liou

• Tsui-Ping Chu
• Hsiu-Chen Liu
• Nandang Hidayat
• Henny Suharyati
• Restu Sanubari

• Thomas Y H Chan

• Jing-Hua Chen
• Yi-Chou Chen

• Donald R. Woods
• Irwin A. Feuerstein

• Diane Yendol-Hoppey
• C.A. Tomlinson

• Holly Hertberg
• Timothy Reynolds
• Tanya Santangelo
• Carol Tieso
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Sign In / Sign Out

• News/Events
• Arts and Sciences
• Design and the Arts
• Engineering
• Future of Innovation in Society
• Health Solutions
• Nursing and Health Innovation
• Public Service and Community Solutions
• Sustainability
• University College
• Thunderbird School of Global Management
• Polytechnic
• Downtown Phoenix
• Online and Extended
• Lake Havasu
• Research Park
• Washington D.C.

Differentiated Instruction for Equity in Higher Education

Session overview.

This video was part of the July 2021 REMOTE: The Connected Faculty Summit

Differentiated instruction is a viable asset-based approach that serves as an engine for learners who face systematic barriers in higher education. It is vital to ensure an equitable digital environment where each student receives relevant experiences that are aligned with their academic goals. This presentation provides an overview of strategies that engage students’ prior knowledge and supports their performance by differentiating the content, process, environment, and assessments using learning analytics provided by adaptive courseware.

Ruanda Garth-McCullough

Director of Program Development | Achieving the Dream

Dr. Garth-McCullough, the Director of Programs, leads the Every Learner Everywhere initiative at Achieving the Dream. Her expertise in CRT guides her equity-minded teaching and learning coaching.

Sarah Kinnison

Program Development Consultant | Achieving the Dream

Sarah Kinnison is a consultant for program development at Achieving the Dream, supporting the Every Learner Everywhere digital learning initiative to serve low-income, racially minoritized, and first-generation students in gateway courses by developing faculty development services for student success and equity-focused initiatives. Previously, Sarah served as researcher, writer and curriculum consultant for various educational organizations working to break down systemic barriers and expand the reach of educational excellence to all students. Her expertise in philosophy of education and pedagogy guides her work in developing and designing teaching and learning initiatives. Sarah views equity as a critical aspect of education that benefits learners of all backgrounds and society as a whole. Her work invites education professionals to bring greater awareness to students’ cultural identities as assets to leverage full learning capacity and self efficacy. Sarah earned her Masters in Education from University of Illinois, Chicago and her BA in Fundamentals/Philosophy of Education from The University of Chicago.

Design, development and delivery resources for teaching online

Subscribe to our email list.

• Copyright & Trademark
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Contact ASU

International Journal of Education

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Announcements
• Recruitment
• Submissions
• Editorial Board
• Ethical Guidelines

The PDF file you selected should load here if your Web browser has a PDF reader plug-in installed (for example, a recent version of Adobe Acrobat Reader ).

If you would like more information about how to print, save, and work with PDFs, Highwire Press provides a helpful Frequently Asked Questions about PDFs .

Alternatively, you can download the PDF file directly to your computer, from where it can be opened using a PDF reader. To download the PDF, click the Download link above.

Fullscreen Fullscreen Off

International Journal of Education  ISSN 1948-5476

Email: [email protected]

Copyright © Macrothink Institute 

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'macrothink.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

• Exit Module x

Planning for and Responding to Learning needs with Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction

Learning module: planning for and responding to learning needs with universal design for learning and differentiated instruction exit module.

Print Resource

• What is Differentiated Instruction?

Differentiated instruction is a flexible approach to teaching in which a teacher uses varied approaches to address content, learning processes, learning style, practical procedures, presentation strategies, and assessment tools. It results in a more personal, proactive learning environment, inclusive of a wide variety of learners [1].

Differentiated instruction includes:

• Providing alternative instructional and assessment activities;
• Challenging students at an appropriate level;
• Using a variety of groupings to meet student needs.

Differentiated instruction does not include:

• Doing something different for every student in the class;
• Disorderly or undisciplined student activity;
• Using groups that never change or isolating struggling students within the class;
• Never engaging in whole-class activities with all students participating in the same endeavour [2]

Watch the following video for a brief introduction to the concept of Differentiated Instruction (DI).

Click here to view the transcript for this video.

[1] (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011)

[2] (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2004)

• Pre-Learning Self-Assessment
• What is Universal Design for Learning?
• Equity in lesson planning
• Using Assistive Technology
• More CAST Resources:

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Eligibility, Ranking etc.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University is one of Russia’s most significant institutions. The Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University , commonly known colloquially as NovSU was created in 1993 by the merger of Veliky Novgorod’s two oldest higher education institutions, the Pedagogical and Polytechnic Institutes. Later, the Novgorod University was included in the University’s framework. If you want to study MBBS in Russia , then Yaroslav-the-wise Novgorod State University is one of Russia’s top medical Universities.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University consists of seven scientific and educational institutions: the Institute of Medical Education, the Humanities Institute, the Institute of Electronic Information Systems, the Institute of Continuous Pedagogical Education, the Institute of Digital Economics, Management and Service, the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Polytechnic Institute.

College Summary

Let us look at the important elements of Yaroslav, the Wise Novgorod State University, before we finish the Novgorod University Summary.

Affiliation and Recognition

• National Medical Commission (NMC)
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• General Medical Council of European countries and other boards
• United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)
• WFME World Federation of Medical Education
• The American Medical Association of the United States of America

Why Study MBBS at Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University

• Introduction of post-graduate courses for “Candidate of Science” and “Doctor of Science” degrees in Medicine, Engineering, Mathematics, and Law.
• Yaroslav, the Wise Novgorod State University staff, is well-trained and disciplined, and the degrees offered are internationally renowned.
• The University consists of 78 departments and 22 research units that, in total, employ a total of 575 doctors.
• Studying medicine at Yaroslav, the Wise Novgorod State University, is a fantastic choice for Indian students because most universities educate in English.
• Novgorod University is one of the major institutions in Siberia and Russia.

Advantages of MBBS at Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University

• Quality Education: Renowned for solid medical education.
• Global Recognition: Degree recognized internationally.
• Affordability: Low fees and living expenses.
• English Instruction: Programs taught in English.
• Clinical Knowledge: Hands-on training in affiliated hospitals.
• International Community: Interaction with diverse peers.

Courses Offered by Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Courses provide high-quality medical programmes with highly trained professors and cutting-edge technology. The undergraduate medical programmes (MBBS) of the Novgorod University are well-known.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Admission Procedure

To apply to Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University, you must pass the National Eligibility Entrance Exam (NEET).

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Eligibility Criteria

Russia has been one of the top preferred destinations for international students to pursue their Medical Degree Courses. If you want to study MBBS at Novgorod University, check the Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University eligibility below.

Documents Required at Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University

Please do not bring all these documents when you apply to Yaroslav, the Wise Novgorod State University.

• Passport (Minimum 18 months validity).
• 10th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• 12th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• Birth Certificate.
• 10 passport-size Photographs
• Official Invitation letter from the Medical University of Russia.
• Authorization of all documents from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
• Legalization of all documents from the Russian Embassy.
• Bank receipt of 1st Year of Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University fees (required for some Universities).
• HIV test documents.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Hostel & Accommodation

The hostel is an integral part of every university. The hostel experience is full of surprises and amusements.

• Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University administers four hostels to accommodate International students with native students.
• Life in the Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Hostel, makes a student self-dependent. It makes a person smart, active and disciplined.
• A warden is in charge of the hostels. The wardens direct the students. They inspect the hostel’s rules and regulations.
• Each hostel has a reading hall where the students study. In addition, all Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University hostels have everything necessary.
• Develop his mind and body.
• Each hostel level has a kitchen where students may cook food for themselves.
• The markets and banks are nearby.
• The hostel rooms are well furnished with beds, cupboards and many more.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Fee Structure 2024-25

The Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University fees structure & Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University MBBS fees are given in this section. Low fees for MBBS Colleges in Russia.

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Ranking 2024-25

According to UniRank, the Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Ranking in Russia and world ranking:

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University MBBS Syllabus

Please review the MBBS Syllabus of some of Russia’s top-ranked, NMC-approved medical colleges before applying to Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University. In Russia, the structure and pattern of MBBS are as follows.

Benefits of Study MBBS in Russia

• A contribution or capitation fee is not required for admission to a Russian university.
• Low education fees and low-cost living expenditures.
• There is no other entrance test for entry to the university.
• The medium of teaching is English and Russian language.
• Russian academies provide first-rate facilities and cutting-edge technology.
• Education is provided by trained and qualified staff.

Contact Details

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Russia Address:  Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis, 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003 Website:  https://portal.novsu.ru/

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Where is yaroslav-the-wise novgorod state university located.

Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis, 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003

What scholarships and grants are available to students?

Various scholarships and service grants are available to deserving students. The Study Now, Pay Later Plan is also available case-to-case basis.

Does Novgorod University accept transferees?

Yaroslav University accepts transferees on a case-to-case basis.

Related Posts

• Akaki Tsereteli State University 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Ranking etc.
• Caucasus International University Georgia 2024-25: Admission, Course, Fees, Ranking etc.
• Tbilisi State Medical University 2024-25: Admission, Course, Fees, Ranking etc.
• Kutaisi Medical University Georgia 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Ranking etc.

About Rahul

Hi, I'm Rahul Kumar, with a year of expertise in MBBS and Ayush courses. I have detailed knowledge of various colleges' fee structures, cutoffs, and intake procedures. If you're looking for insights or assistance in pursuing MBBS or BAMS courses, feel free to comment below—I'm here to help!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Notify me via e-mail if anyone answers my comment.

• Resource Collection
• State Resources

Access Resources for State Adult Education Staff

• Topic Areas
• About the Collection
• Review Process
• Reviewer Biographies
• Federal Initiatives
• COVID-19 Support
• ADVANCE Integrated Education and Training (IET)
• IET Train-the Trainer Resources
• IET Resource Repository
• Program Design
• Collaboration and Industry Engagement
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Policy and Funding
• Program Management - Staffing -Organization Support
• Student Experience and Progress
• Adult Numeracy Instruction 2.0
• Advancing Innovation in Adult Education
• Bridge Practices
• Holistic Approach to Adult Ed
• Integrated Education and Training (IET) Practices
• Secondary Credentialing Practices
• Business-Adult Education Partnerships Toolkit
• Partnerships: Business Leaders
• Partnerships: Adult Education Providers
• Success Stories
• Digital Literacy Initiatives
• Digital Resilience in the American Workforce
• Landscape Scan
• Publications and Resources
• DRAW Professional Development Resources
• Employability Skills Framework
• Enhancing Access for Refugees and New Americans
• English Language Acquisition
• Internationally-Trained Professionals
• Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship and Civic Participation
• Workforce Preparation Activities
• Workforce Training
• Integrated Education and Training in Corrections
• LINCS ESL PRO
• Integrating Digital Literacy into English Language Instruction
• Meeting the Language Needs of Today's English Language Learner
• Open Educational Resources (OER) for English Language Instruction
• Preparing English Learners for Work and Career Pathways
• Recommendations for Applying These Resources Successfully
• Moving Pathways Forward
• Career Pathways Exchange
• Power in Numbers
• Adult Learner Stories
• Meet Our Experts
• Newsletters
• Reentry Education Tool Kit
• Education Services
• Strategic Partnerships
• Sustainability
• Transition Processes
• Program Infrastructure
• SIA Resources and Professional Development
• Fulfilling the Instructional Shifts
• Observing in Classrooms
• SIA ELA/Literacy Videos
• SIA Math Videos
• SIA ELA Videos
• Conducting Curriculum Reviews
• Boosting English Learner Instruction
• Student Achievement in Reading
• TEAL Just Write! Guide
• Introduction
• Fact Sheet: Research-Based Writing Instruction
• Increase the Amount of Student Writing
• Fact Sheet: Adult Learning Theories
• Fact Sheet: Student-Centered Learning
• Set and Monitor Goals
• Fact Sheet: Self-Regulated Learning
• Fact Sheet: Metacognitive Processes
• Combine Sentences
• Teach Self-Regulated Strategy Development
• Fact Sheet: Self-Regulated Strategy Development
• Teach Summarization
• Make Use of Frames
• Provide Constructive Feedback
• Apply Universal Design for Learning
• Fact Sheet: Universal Design for Learning
• Check for Understanding
• Fact Sheet: Formative Assessment
• Differentiated Instruction
• Fact Sheet: Differentiated Instruction
• Gradual Release of Responsibility
• Join a Professional Learning Community
• Look at Student Work Regularly
• Fact Sheet: Effective Lesson Planning
• Use Technology Effectively
• Fact Sheet: Technology-Supported Writing Instruction
• Project Resources
• Summer Institute
• Teacher Effectiveness in Adult Education
• Adult Education Teacher Induction Toolkit
• Adult Education Teacher Competencies
• Teacher Effectiveness Online Courses
• Teaching Skills that Matter
• Teaching Skills that Matter Toolkit Overview
• Teaching Skills that Matter Civics Education
• Teaching Skills that Matter Digital Literacy
• Teaching Skills that Matter Financial Literacy
• Teaching Skills that Matter Health Literacy
• Teaching Skills that Matter Workforce Preparation
• Teaching Skills that Matter Other Tools and Resources
• Technology-Based Coaching in Adult Education
• Technical Assistance and Professional Development
• About LINCS
• History of LINCS
• LINCS Guide
• Style Guide

TEAL Center Fact Sheet No. 5: Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is an approach that enables instructors to plan strategically to meet the needs of every learner. The approach encompasses planning and delivery of instruction, classroom management techniques, and expectations of learners’ performance that take into consideration the diversity and varied levels of readiness, interests, and learning profiles of learners.

About Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is an approach that enables instructors to plan strategically to meet the needs of every learner. It is rooted in the belief that there is variability among any group of learners and that instructors should adjust instruction accordingly (Tomlinson, 1999, 2001, 2003). The approach encompasses the planning and delivery of instruction, classroom management techniques, and expectations of learners’ performance that take into consideration the diversity and varied levels of readiness, interests, and learning profiles of the learners.

Differentiated instruction can be looked at as an instructor’s response to learner differences by adapting curriculum and instruction on six dimensions, including how the instructor approaches the (1) content (the what of the lesson), (2) process (the how of the lesson), and (3) expected product (the learner-produced result), and takes into consideration the learner’s (4) interest , (5) profile (learning strengths, weaknesses, and gaps), and (6) readiness . These adaptations can be planned to happen simultaneously, in sequence, or as needed depending on the circumstance and goals of instruction. Teaching small groups of learners, grouped based on instructional approach and learner profile, is a cornerstone of differentiated instruction.

How Does It Work in Adult Education?

Here is an example. An instructor who is teaching writing (the content ) in an adult basic education (ABE) class needs to understand the various learners’ readiness to write independently or collaboratively, the supports they might need to engage in the process based on their learning profiles , the quality and quantity of the learner product to be expected, and the learners’ interests . Some of this understanding will come from professional observation of the learners over time; some of it will come from informal assessments gathered from previous writing assignments.

Planning is critical. For instance, knowing that some learners need templates, prompts, or advance organizers to prepare them to write, or software to assist them with spelling, means that the necessary supports, such as use of the computer lab with concept-mapping software and word processors, need to be planned for in advance. Perhaps a colleague who has more experience with a particular level or type of learner can collaborate or team teach a small group to better meet their needs. Perhaps a more advanced peer learner can run a small group or provide technology assistance.

An instructor teaching persuasive essays (the content ) may begin with a study of various models such as op-ed pieces from the local newspaper to identify the elements of such an essay. The class may spend time brainstorming to elicit learners’ interests in various “hot topics” of the day, while creating lists of vocabulary words to support composition. Deciding on a couple of key topics, learners may be grouped to continue to generate possible argument points. A scribe in the group can generate a web or advance organizer that captures the discussion. Learners can then be regrouped according to the level of support they need (their profile and readiness ) for composition (the process ).

Those who can compose on their own can work independently or in dyads to conduct further research on the Internet to provide evidence for their argument; those who need technical support can work in the computer lab with the instructor and an advanced peer, possibly with a precreated outline or template; those who cannot compose on their own can work in a smaller group with a tutor or the instructor to generate a group essay that learners can each then work on for editing and revising. Conferencing with each learner can be another opportunity for accommodating learners’ readiness by focusing only on the mechanics, grammar, or organizational elements that the writer is able to master. Final products can be shared in various ways: published by the learners to a blog or submitted to a newspaper, posted in the classroom, read to the class, etc. The essays, the products , which result from the group will be varied in their complexity and sophistication, yet all learners will have engaged in the process and basic key elements of a persuasive essay (brainstorming, planning, outlining, composing, editing, revising, and sharing).

How Can Technology Help?

Technology tools can help make this coordination more efficient by providing productivity support for instructors, providing supports for learners at varying levels of readiness, and offering learners options for demonstrating their understanding and mastery of the material. To see how technology can help, see TEAL Center Fact Sheet No. 7 on Technology-Supported Writing Instruction .

Managing Differentiated Instruction

Classroom management to coordinate flexible groupings and projects is a key component of applying differentiated instruction. Following are some ideas for creating and coordinating groups in a multi-level, differentiated class:

• Encourage peer-to-peer learning and mentoring and help learners learn to be tutors.
• Ask volunteers to lead small-group instruction stations.
• Use WebQuests ( http://webquest.org/index.php ) as PBL for teams of learners; these inquiry-based projects are pre-arranged, and many have teaching supports (lesson plans, tips, handouts, and additional materials) linked to them.
• Share reflections with other instructors leading problem-based learning at www.Edutopia.org .
• Find texts on a single, encompassing topic (for example, climate change) in various levels of complexity and readability.
• Encourage learners to find audio books and digital text at their interest level rather than their independent reading level.
• Find ways to give credit for independent study and advancement if a learner is particularly motivated or interested in a topic.
• Help learners supplement class instruction with online classes or learning opportunities such as webinars, online chats, blogs, social networks, or daily content blasts (e-mails such as a Word of the day , or This day in history , can be a boost to vocabulary and content knowledge).
• Have learners make personalized lists of tasks to complete the chunks in a specified but flexible timeframe.
• Encourage self-study, especially when learners have to “stop out” of regular attendance.
• Use portfolios as a means for reflecting on learner growth over time, and encourage learners to critique their growth.
• Keep scores and observations in a spreadsheet that can be sorted flexibly to reveal natural groups.

What’s the Research?

This TEAL Center fact sheet draws on two NCSALL Focus on the Basics articles (Corley, 2005; Silver-Pacuilla, 2007) and resources created by the Center for Implementing Technology in Education

For adult education, the principles of differentiating instruction are not new: engaging learners based on their interests, creating activities based on learners’ needs and roles, and recognizing and honoring the diversity in any classroom. Applying these principles informed by the analysis of formal and informal assessment data may require a new way of working, however, as well as enhanced coordination among instructors within a program, lesson planning, and instructional delivery. See related TEAL Center Fact Sheets on Student-Centered Learning (No. 6), Effective Lesson Planning (No. 8), and Adult Learning Theories (No. 11).

Corley, M. (2005). Differentiated instruction: Adjusting to the needs of all learners. Focus on the Basics , Vol. 7, Issue C: March. Available at: http://www.ncsall.net/?id=736

Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2007). Getting started with assistive technology. Focus on the Basics , Vol. 8, Issue D: November. Available at: http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/fob/2007/fob_8d.pdf

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Authors: TEAL Center staff

Adapted from two NCSALL Focus on the Basics articles, Vol. 7, Issue C, and Vol. 8, Issue D.

About the TEAL Center: The Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy (TEAL) Center is a project of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), designed to improve the quality of teaching in adult education in the content areas.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Eligibility, Ranking etc.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia is one of the best universities in Russia. It is also known informally as NovSU, and was founded in 1993 by merging the two oldest higher education institutions of Veliky Novgorod: the Pedagogical and Polytechnic Institutes. Later, Novgorod Agricultural Academy was included in the structure of the University. Yaroslav University is one of the best medical universities for MBBS in Russia.

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia comprises 7 scientific and educational institutions: Institute of Medical Education, Humanities Institute, Institute of Electronic Information Systems, Institute of Continuous Pedagogical Education, Institute of Digital Economics, Management and Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Polytechnic Institute. The university also includes 4 vocational colleges: Polytechnic, Humanities, Medical and Economic.

[Page Index]

College summary.

Before we complete the college Summary, let us look at the essential details of Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia.

Wants to Study MBBS Abroad from a top Country with low tution Fees? Subscribe Now!

Affiliation and Recognition

These are the renowned bodies who’ve given reputation to the Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia.

• National Medical Commission of India (NMC).
• World Health Organization (WHO).
• The Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of the Republic of Russia

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia faculties differ from one department to another, encompassing various disciplines and specialities.

• General Medicine Faculty
• Pediatric Faculty
• Pharmacy Faculty
• Stomatology Faculty
• Preparatory Faculty
• Faculty of Post-Diploma Professional Education
• Faculty of Additional Professional Education

Courses Offered

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia Courses offer quality medical programs under highly qualified faculty and state-of-the-art infrastructure. The College is famous for its undergraduate medical programs (MBBS).

Admission Procedure

To get admission to Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University in Russia, Indian students must qualify for the National Eligibility Entrance Exam (NEET).

Eligibility Criteria

Russia is a top choice for international students to study medicine. If you want to pursue an MBBS at Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University in Russia, check the Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia eligibility requirements below.

Graphical Representation of Eligibility Criteria

Documents Required

Before taking admission at Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia, please carry all these related documents.

• Passport (Minimum 18 months validity).
• 10th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• 12th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• Birth Certificate.
• 10 passport-size Photographs
• Official Invitation letter from the Medical University of Russia.
• Authorization of all documents from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
• Legalization of all documents from the Russian Embassy.
• Bank receipt of 1st Year of Novgorod University fees (required for some Universities).
• HIV test documents.

Fee Structure 2024-25

The Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia Fee Structure for MBBS is mentioned in this section.

Ranking 2024-25

According to UniRank, the Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Ranking in Russia and world ranking:

Advantages of MBBS in Russia

About Novgorod Oblast City

• Novgorod Oblast is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast).
• Its administrative centre is the city of Veliky Novgorod. Some of the oldest Russian cities, including Veliky Novgorod and Staraya Russa, are located in the oblast.
• The historical monuments of Veliky Novgorod and its surroundings have been declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Contact Details

Yaroslav the Wise Novgorod State University Russia Address: Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis, 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003 Website: https://portal.novsu.ru/

Yaroslav University Photos

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Where is yaroslav the wise novgorod state university russia located.

Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis, 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003

What scholarships and grants are available to students?

Various scholarships and service grants are available to deserving students. The Study Now, Pay Later Plan is also available case-to-case basis.

Does Novgorod University accept transferees?

Yaroslav University accepts transferees on a case-to-case basis.

• Admission Updates,
• Top Collages

You may like to read

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Studying MBBS in Georgia
• Direct Admission in MBBS in Georgia 2024-25: Process, Top Colleges, Fees etc.
• Altai State Medical University Russia 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Eligibility, Ranking etc.
• Petrozavodsk State University 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Ranking, Eligibility etc.

About Manish Verma

Hello, I'm Manish Verma, with a year of expertise in MBBS and Ayush courses. I have detailed knowledge of various colleges' fee structures, cutoffs, and intake procedures. If you're looking for insights or assistance in pursuing MBBS or BAMS courses, feel free to comment below—I'm here to help!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Notify me via e-mail if anyone answers my comment.

Abroad MBBS Update 2024 : Admission Dates, Top College, Fees, Location, Scholarship etc.

Get admission to Top Overseas Universities with Affordable Fees.

• Veliky Novgorod Tourism
• Veliky Novgorod Hotels
• Veliky Novgorod Bed and Breakfast
• Flights to Veliky Novgorod
• Veliky Novgorod Restaurants
• Things to Do in Veliky Novgorod
• Veliky Novgorod Travel Forum
• Veliky Novgorod Photos
• Veliky Novgorod Map
• All Veliky Novgorod Hotels
• Veliky Novgorod Hotel Deals

train - Veliky Novgorod Forum

• Europe    
• Russia    
• Northwestern District    
• Novgorod Oblast    
• Veliky Novgorod    
• United States Forums
• Europe Forums
• Canada Forums
• Asia Forums
• Central America Forums
• Africa Forums
• Caribbean Forums
• Mexico Forums
• South Pacific Forums
• South America Forums
• Middle East Forums
• Honeymoons and Romance
• Business Travel
• Train Travel
• Traveling With Disabilities
• Tripadvisor Support
• Solo Travel
• Bargain Travel
• Timeshares / Vacation Rentals
• Novgorod Oblast forums
• Veliky Novgorod forum

hi are there any international destinations by train from novgorod?

Very easy to answer: no

how about st petersburg? how long and how much?

I can by tickets to helsinki from novgorod at the station?

There is no direct train from Novgorod to any destination abroad - i.e. you need to change a train (and, most likely, train station - in St.Petersburg or Moscow).

so how much would it cost to get from novgorod to st petersburg?

ticket for Novgorod - St.Petersburg train costs about 700 rubles - a $21.

This topic has been closed to new posts due to inactivity.

• Arriving early V Novgorod, where to get breakfast? Dec 28, 2019
• tranportation Feb 15, 2019
• Transportation Veliky Novgorod Aug 16, 2018
• Getting to Rurikov Ancient Town from Veliky Novogorod centre Aug 16, 2018
• Veliky Novgorod from St.Petersburg by bus/train Apr 08, 2018
• St Petersburg to Veliky Novgorod - options Apr 05, 2018
• St Pete - Veliky Novogorod - Moscow - Day Trip Mar 06, 2018
• Moscow overnight train...sleeper? Kids? Jan 03, 2018
• Liturgy and Vespers at St. Sophia Sep 05, 2017
• Getting to Veliky Novgorod Sep 01, 2017
• Transportation between Veliky Novgorod and Moscow Jun 12, 2017
• Train form Moscow to Veliky Novogorod Apr 07, 2017
• Direct train from Veliky Novgorod to Vologda Jan 07, 2016
• Moscow to Veliky Novgorod Train Jul 05, 2015
• One day trip to Novgorod 13 replies
• Saint Petersburg to Novgorod by bus 6 replies
• Riga to Veliky Novgorod - by bus? 8 replies
• St. Petersburg-Novgorod-Moscow 10 replies
• Spb to vn 4 replies
• Trains to Novgorod (Again, yet different) 6 replies
• Novgorod to St. P by train in Sep 2010 - none running?! 7 replies
• apartment rental/accommodation in Novgorod 3 replies
• Novgorod vs Pskov 4 replies
• GreenLeaders