“Really, to me, differentiation is the common sense of saying, if we take on the responsibility of teaching, we accept the responsibility of making sure that every kid learns as well as he or she possibly can.” – Carol Tomlinson (Bell, 2011)
As we seek to address the needs of the gifted learner in the classroom, differentiation is frequently touted as the most accessible approach to reaching all ability levels in a classroom. However, in my own experience and as shared in the research (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005; Wise, 2023), teachers feel frustration when it comes to the demands of effectively meeting every learner where they are.
As an area for future research, there seems to be a lack of evidence-based studies on tracking improvements across skill levels in the context of specific differentiation strategies. I will focus on one mixed methods study that relied on an amalgam of three common pedagogical approaches for gifted students because of both the size of the study and its efforts to measure the fidelity of the application of the instructional method.
In this study, researchers combined the criteria of three major models, Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), Kaplan’s Depth and Complexity model, and Tomlinson’s differentiated instructional model, to develop CLEAR: “Continual Formative Assessment, Clear Learning Goals, Data-Driven Learning Experiences, Authentic Products, and Rich Curriculum” (Callahan et al., 2015).
Findings indicated that this focus on “rich curriculum and responsive instruction” (Callahan et al., 2015) had a positive impact on both high- and varied-ability learners in the third grade Language Arts classrooms featured in this research. Researchers also maintain that this structure is flexible enough to be applied across content areas and grade levels, increasing its potential to enhance learning.
Limitations of this study are significant, however, in that the classrooms studied had students identified as gifted. This allows for a consideration of how CLEAR impacts gifted learners, but not how the approach impacts the range of abilities in a typical heterogeneous classroom including students who require academic accomodations, midrange ability performers, and students operating two or three grade levels beyond their current age.
To continue this line of thinking, Differentiation: Part Three will look at strategies which can be used in any classroom, with a concentration on tactics and tips rather than larger curricular changes which require approval from central office.
References:
Bell, Lynn. Faculty Conversation: Carol Tomlinson on Differentiation
April 1, 2011 https://education.virginia.edu/news-stories/faculty-conversation-carol-tomlinson-differentiation
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P., & Hailey, E. P. (2015). What Works in Gifted Education: Documenting the Effects of an Integrated Curricular/Instructional Model for Gifted Students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality Curriculum and Instruction for Highly Able Students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_10
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into practice, 44(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
Photo by João Jesus: https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photo-of-a-red-tulip-flower-2480072/
Gifted Weekly 