differentiated instruction ministry of education

• The LD@school Team
• Collaborate with Us
• Terms Of Use
• Mathematics
• Mental Health
• Executive Functions
• Social-Emotional Development
• What are Non-verbal Learning Disabilities?
• Accommodations, Modifications & Alternative Skill Areas
• Glossary of Terms
• Resources |
• Learning Modules |
• Educators’ Institute |
• Document Library |

Differentiated Instruction

Print Resource

Summarized by Cindy Perras, M.Ed., OCT Educational Consultant, LDAO

What is Differentiated Instruction?

Differentiated instruction is a flexible approach to teaching in which a teacher plans and carries out 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 (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011).

According to Tomlinson (2004), differentiated instruction (DI) is based on the idea that because students differ significantly in their strengths, interests, learning styles, and readiness to learn, it is necessary to adapt instruction to suit these differing characteristics. One or a number of the following elements can be differentiated in any classroom-learning situation (Tomlinson, 2004):

• The content of learning (what students are going to learn, and when);
• The process of learning (the types of tasks and activities);
• The products of learning (the ways in which students demonstrate learning);
• The affect/environment of learning (the context and environment in which students learn and demonstrate learning).

Teachers can differentiate content, process and product, according to the student’s readiness, interests and learning profile, to increase growth, motivation and efficiency:

The Ontario Ministry of Education (2004b, p.1) outlines what differentiation is and is not:

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

How is Differentiated Instruction used in the Classroom?

Tomlinson’s article, “What is Differentiated Instruction?” ( Click here to access the article. ) provides specific examples of how elementary teachers can differentiate at least four classroom elements based on student readiness, interest, or learning profile:

Differentiating Content:

• Using reading materials at varying readability levels;
• Putting text materials on tape;
• Using spelling or vocabulary lists at readiness levels of students;
• Presenting ideas through both auditory and visual means;
• Using reading buddies; and
• Meeting with small groups to re-teach an idea or skill for struggling learners, or to extend the thinking or skills of advanced learners.

Differentiating Process:

• Using tiered activities through which all learners work with the same important understandings and skills, but proceed with different levels of support, challenge, or complexity;
• Providing interest centers that encourage students to explore subsets of the class topic of particular interest to them;
• Developing personal agendas (task lists written by the teacher and containing both in-common work for the whole class and work that addresses individual needs of learners) to be completed either during specified agenda time or as students complete other work early;
• Offering manipulatives or other hands-on supports for students who need them; and
• Varying the length of time a student may take to complete a task in order to provide additional support for a struggling learner or to encourage an advanced learner to pursue a topic in greater depth.

Differentiating Products:

• Giving students options of how to express required learning (e.g., create a puppet show, write a letter, or develop a mural with labels);
• Using rubrics that match and extend students' varied skills levels;
• Allowing students to work alone or in small groups on their products; and
• Encouraging students to create their own product assignments as long as the assignments contain required elements.

Differentiating Learning Environments:

• Making sure there are places in the room to work quietly and without distraction, as well as places that invite student collaboration;
• Providing materials that reflect a variety of cultures and home settings;
• Setting out clear guidelines for independent work that matches individual needs;
• Developing routines that allow students to get help when teachers are busy with other students and cannot help them immediately; and
• Helping students understand that some learners need to move around to learn, while others do better sitting quietly

Click here for the full article by Carol Tomlinson, on the Reading Rockets website: What is Differentiated Instruction?

Click here to watch a video by Carol Tomlinson on differentiation:  Differentiation: Proactive Instruction

British Columbia. Ministry of Education. (2011). Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities: A Guide for Teachers. British Columbia: Author.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2004b). TIPS (Targetted Implementation and Planning Supports): Developing mathematical literacy. Toronto: Author.

Tomlinson, C. (2004). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. What is Differentiated Instruction? Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/263 .

Differentiated Instruction Professional Learning Strategy Website – EduGains, Ontario Ministry of Education

Reach Every Student Through Differentiated Instruction – Ontario Ministry of Education

Learning for All: A Guide to Effective Assessment and Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12 – Ontario Ministry of Education

Differentiated Instruction Teacher's Guide: Getting to the core of teaching and learning - Ontario Ministry of Education

Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities: A Guide for Teachers – British Columbia Ministry of Education

Professional Learning Guide: Differentiated Instruction – Connecting Practice and Research in Mathematics, Ontario Ministry of Education

Differentiated Instruction for Reading

Differentiated Instruction for Writing

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related articles.

Signup for our Newsletter

Get notified when new resources are posted on the website!

Sign up to receive our electronic newsletter!

Recent Posts

• Instructional Technology vs. Assistive Technology: Understanding Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities
• FREE Upcoming Webinar: The Road to Written Fluency in Young Writers
• FREE Upcoming Webinar: Supporting Teachers During Unprecedented Times – Evidence-Based Ways to Build Resiliency

Government agencies communicate via .gov.sg websites (e.g. go.gov.sg/open) . Trusted website s

Look for a lock ( ) or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Differentiated Instruction

Microlearning Units (MLUs)

Videos on Teaching & Learning

The Place of Subject Content Knowledge (SCK) in English Language Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Supporting Inquiry—Based Learning in the English Language Classroom: What, Why and How

ELIS Masterclass: Diagnosing Students’ Learning Needs

ELIS Masterclass: When Teaching Strategies Talk with SCK – Stories of 96 Hour PLP Alumni

Differentiating Instruction: Planning, Enacting, Reviewing

Selecting and Designing English Language Lessons for Differentiated Instruction

How does Differentiated Instruction Work in a Large English Language Class?

Differentiating by Process through Flexible Grouping

Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness for a Literature Lesson

CLLIPS and ACoLADE

Text Selection and Adaptation

Quality Questions & Question Sequences

Collaborative Professional Learning

Inquiry into Classroom Practice: Lesson Study

Inquiry into Classroom Practice: Action Research

What is Co—Teaching?

What is a Special Interest Group?

ELIS Monographs

ELIS e–Digest

EL Classroom Inquiry Digest

Subject Literacy Inquiry Digest

ELIS Research Digest

ELIS Research Fund Reports

Research Summaries

Differentiated Instruction is a philosophy of education that regards diversity in the classroom as normal and valuable to both learners and learning.

Watch this video to find out:

how to differentiate instruction

the hallmarks of Differentiated Instruction

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

• Curriculum Theory

Differentiated instruction for students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in mainstream classrooms: contextual features and types of curriculum modifications

• October 2021
• Asia Pacific Journal of Education 43(3)
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

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

• Nanyang Technological University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Jumjuma Jumjuma
• Agus Mariani Saragih
• Enda Surbakti
• Fivi Rahmatus Sofiyah
• J Res Spec Educ Needs

• Rebecca Jane Ward

• Miriam Loivotoki Laiser
• Mohamed Salum Msoka

• Mark Carter

• Delon Ching
• Yunfei Chen

• J Educ Change
• ASIA PAC J EDUC

• Renee Ostergren

• 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

• 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

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is defined as the planning and delivery of classroom instruction that considers the varied levels of readiness, learning needs, and interests of each learner in the class. Instructors practice this approach by using a range of routines and tools to engage learners at varying levels of readiness in multiple ways and by offering them options for demonstrating their understanding and mastery of the material.

Figure 8 presents some of the analogies TEAL teachers contributed to a wiki called “In Your Own Words” in the DI online course. It captures various ways to think about what DI mght mean.

Differentiating instruction encompasses an instructor's response to learner differences by adapting curriculum and instruction on six dimensions:

Teacher-Dependent

• Content (the what of the lesson)
• Process (the how of the lesson)
• Product (the learner-produced results)

Learner-Dependent

• Profile (strengths, weaknesses, gaps)

Getting Started

Take it one dimension at a time. Look at your teaching—try to vary the content, process, or product for a particular lesson or across a unit. Look at your learners—get to know something more about their interests, profiles, or readiness. Consider incorporating the following ideas into your classroom management, instruction, and approach:

Ideas to consider for adapting the content , or the what :

• Vary the complexity along the lines of concrete, symbolic, or abstract explorations.
• Vary the resources, involving narrative, informational, multimedia, experts, and guests.
• Vary the context from classrooms, programs, communities, and virtual environments.

Ideas to consider for adapting the process , or the how :

• Work variously with the whole group, small groups, and individuals.
• Reconsider how material is framed; try breaking up a lesson or unit in new ways to chunk and compress material.
• Arrange flexible, changeable groupings and peer activities.
• Provide roles and clear expectations for group members.
• Use problem-based learning, service learning, and performance-based experiences.

Ideas to consider for adapting the product , or the result :

• Consider all eight intelligences in your planning: verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist.
• Collect and use portfolio, rubrics, peer reviews, and performance-based learning.
• Get quick feedback through paperless routines such as thumbs up/down, ranking with fingers 1–5, etc.

Become a Student of Your Students

What are your students’ interests ? Take time to find out through methods such as the following:

• If you had your GED or college degree tomorrow, what would you want to be doing?
• What is one job you would want to have and why?
• Informal conversations and ice breakers
• Sharing opportunities with the whole class
• Community events
• Program support staff and transition specialists

Ideas to consider for accommodating learner profiles :

• Disability screening results—know how to accommodate learning and attention difficulties
• Cultural and linguistic factors
• Health and wellness factors
• Age and years out of school setting
• Past educational and academic experiences

Beyond test scores, think about what you know about your learners’ readiness as evidenced by:

• Past educational achievement
• Background knowledge
• Self-efficacy (How do they attribute success and effort?)

Put It Into Practice

Thanks to a TEAL teacher from Texas, for asking the following “get-real” questions about DI in adult education contexts:

Q: How does DI help teach to the multilevel class with variations in age, ability, goals and motivation, educational background—you name it?

A: Embrace diversity, don’t fight it! Here are some ideas to treat diversity as a resource:

• Create intergenerational peer projects.
• Assign roles in cooperative groupings so that everyone has a task (e.g., timekeeper, note taker, reporter, researcher).
• Encourage students to work on projects of personal interest.
• Provide multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement for lessons and across units.

Q: How does DI work when teachers don’t get timely or useful reports from students’ test scores?

A: Here are some ways to determine students’ readiness and learning profile in the classroom:

• Design short quizzes to determine knowledge on the lesson topic; do these the day before you begin the topic, so you have a sense of what the students know.
• Establish paperless routines that can give you a sense of the class in a quick scan.
• Up or Down: Have students give a thumbs up or down on whether they feel confident with a particular skill (e.g., where to put commas, how to identify the main idea, how to calculate diameter).
• Rating 1–5: Have students rate their self-assessment of a particular skill on a 1–5 scale by holding up one to five fingers.
• Ask students to rank their own abilities with class materials. Before you begin a unit or at the start of the semester, put out your materials and give students time to browse through them. Have the students indicate which materials they could work with by categorizing them as On My Own, With Some Help, or Need Instruction .

Q: How can teachers implement the flexible grouping required in DI? Adult students don’t always work well in groups.

A: Classroom management is everyone’s responsibility! Train yourself not to answer off-topic questions and train students to:

• Try three strategies before asking the teacher (post some strategies in the classroom).
• Rely on others in the group.
• Jot down a question for later.

Q: How can teachers work with multiple levels of classroom materials? The leveled workbooks are not aligned by week or topic!

A: Adapting the content is critical—here’s how:

• Create an index to find lessons in various workbooks that are on the same topic. (This is a good volunteer task!)
• Begin with a common, shared text and have different activities to assign based on it.
• Find various ways to categorize your materials into thematic units, so that you can do some focused whole-group instruction and then assign varying groups to dig deeper. Your materials may not all be exactly alike, but what do they have in common? Think in general terms—do you have enough variety to designate a biography theme? A space exploration theme? A how-to or do-it-yourself theme?

How Are Teachers Incorporating DI?

Here are some goal statements TEAL teachers shared:

In my teaching, I plan to incorporate the DI principles of readiness and variable content. I will do this by establishing an intake process that has assessment processes that allow the instructor to meet the student where they are and gear the instruction to the student’s goal. Content will be determined by grade-level classes but will be adjusted to meet the wide variety of learning styles and academic levels within that class. I will monitor my progress on this goal by student assessment, student grouping, and student exit surveys. —Jami Anderson, Wyoming TEAL Team

In my teaching, I have already changed my plans and incorporated the DI principles of content and process. I did this by slowing down the amount of new material that I taught at once. I monitored my progress on this goal by the immediate response of the learners. I asked my students about their feelings on the new material and immediately decided to hold off on the other two new concepts for that day. Instead of discussing it all at once, I spread the lesson out over three days with lots of practice and discussion, which seems to be very successful for this group of learners. —Kelsee Miller, Wyoming TEAL Team

For more information, see the TEAL Center Fact Sheet on Differentiated Instruction at the end of this section.

Advertisement

Planning for Differentiated Instruction: Empowering Teacher Candidates in STEM Education

• Published: 08 May 2023
• Volume 23 , pages 5–26, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Mohammed Estaiteyeh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-3108 1 &
• Isha DeCoito   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8315-9150 2  

3584 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an inclusive method of instruction by which teachers provide multiple possibilities for learning based on students’ backgrounds, readiness, interests, and profiles. Acknowledging student diversity in Canadian classrooms, this study explores STEM teacher candidates’ (TCs’) preparation to implement DI in a STEM curriculum and pedagogy course in a teacher education program. The course is enriched with DI resources and training focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). The course efficacy in enhancing TCs’ implementation of DI is explored through the following research questions: (1) What is the impact of the course on TCs’ implementation of DI, (2) How do TCs develop curricula to be inclusive of DI strategies, and (3) What successes and challenges do TCs encounter when developing DI-focused curricula? The study adopts a mixed-method approach, in which data sources include pre-post questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Participants are 19 TCs enrolled in the second year of the teacher education program at a Canadian university. Findings suggest that the course empowered TCs to integrate DI principles and strategies in their coursework. This success reiterates the importance of opportunities aimed at enhancing teachers’ preparation to incorporate DI in their practices. The findings call for adopting similar approaches in pre-service and in-service teachers’ training to ensure that DI principles and strategies are deeply rooted in teachers’ practices. The study informs teacher educators about integrating EDI in teacher education programs’ curriculum and overall planning.

La différenciation pédagogique (DP) est une méthode d’enseignement inclusive selon laquelle les enseignants offrent plusieurs possibilités d’apprentissage en fonction du milieu dont sont issus les élèves, de leur réceptivité, leurs champs d’intérêts et de leurs profils. S’appuyant sur le fait qu’il existe une diversité d’élèves dans les salles de classe canadiennes, cette étude explore la préparation des aspirants enseignants (AE) des STIM à la mise en application de la DP dans un cours du curriculum et de la pédagogie des STIM au programme de formation des enseignants. Le cours est rehaussé par le biais de ressources en DP et d’une formation axée sur l’équité, la diversité et l’inclusion (EDI). On explore comment l’efficacité du cours peut servir à améliorer la mise en pratique de la DP par les AE à l’aide des questions de recherche suivantes: 1) Quel est l’impact du cours sur la mise en œuvre de la DP par les AE, 2) Comment les AE élaborent-ils des programmes qui intègrent les stratégies de DP, et 3) À quelles réussites et difficultés les AE font-ils face lorsqu’ils élaborent des programmes axés sur la DP ? L’étude adopte une approche méthodologique mixte, dans laquelle les sources de données comprennent des questionnaires « avant-après» et des entrevues semi-structurées. 19 AE inscrits en deuxième année du programme de formation des enseignants d’une université canadienne participent à l’étude. Les résultats indiquent que le cours a doté les AE de moyens d’intégrer les principes et les stratégies de la DP dans leurs travaux de cours. Cette réussite réitère l’importance d’avoir des occasions qui contribuent à améliorer la préparation des enseignants pour intégrer la DP dans leurs pratiques. Les résultats appellent à l’adoption d’approches similaires dans la formation initiale des enseignants et celle des enseignants sur place afin de s’assurer que les principes et les stratégies de la DP sont profondément enracinés dans les pratiques des enseignants. L’étude renseigne les formateurs d’enseignants sur l’intégration de l’EDI dans les programmes d’éducation des enseignants et dans la planification générale.

Similar content being viewed by others

Full-Service Schools and Inclusion in South Africa

Does Professional Development Effectively Support the Implementation of Inclusive Education? A Meta-Analysis

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

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Schools in Canada are well known for student diversity. One of the main reasons behind this diversity is the increase in the number of immigrants. For instance, the number of new immigrants who arrived in Canada between 2016 and 2021 was 1,328,240, with more than 450 ethnic or cultural origins existing in 2021 (Statistics Canada, 2022 ). According to Statistics Canada ( 2017 ), two in five Canadian children had an immigrant background in 2016, meaning they are foreign-born or had at least one foreign-born parent. By 2031, nearly half (46%) of Canadians aged 15 and older could have an immigrant background. These demographic factors also reflect diversity in socio-economic status (SES), cultural differences, and linguistic abilities.

Together, these societal changes directly affect the student composition of classrooms, rendering them very heterogenous spaces, especially when considering additional differences among students in their interests, individual needs, unique learning profiles, and academic achievement levels (Campbell, 2021 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Accordingly, curricula in Canadian classrooms are moving toward inclusive design, an approach that considers diversity with respect to students’ ability, language, culture, race, sexual orientation, creed, gender, and lived experiences (Malloy, 2019 ). Novel plans have been established across provinces to incorporate inclusive practices such as Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan ( 2017 ) that supports school boards to develop equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) education policies and effectively implement classroom practices that “reflect the needs and diverse realities of all students” (p. 16). The plan hints at incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995 , 2014 ) and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010 ). Moreover, the plan aims to strengthen inclusive teaching, assessment, and resources, and provide professional development (PD) and support focused on equity and inclusion for teachers.

Despite these plans and policies, there remains much work to be done. Rezai-Rashti et al. ( 2015 , 2017 ) highlight the invisibility of race and antiracism in Ontario’s policies and call for addressing the underlying structural and systemic imbalances. This outcome can be achieved through mechanisms that hold educational institutions accountable and provide the required resources to ensure the implementation of said policies. In harmony, the Ontario Ministry of Education reports that the recommended improvements did not fully provide equitable outcomes for all students, and further actions are required to overcome persistent systematic barriers, biases, and inequalities (Campbell, 2021 ). With respect to science education, Mujawamariya et al. ( 2014 ) critically analyze the content of Ontario’s science curricula for Grades 1 to 10 and maintain that small recent progress has been made to support multicultural science education. The authors highlight how antiracist content remains poorly integrated into Ontario science curricula, how minority students are excluded, and how the text is still dominated by a Western rather than an inclusive paradigm. In harmony, Madkins and Morton ( 2021 ) argue that teacher candidates (TCs) must be prepared to disrupt anti-blackness in science and mathematics education by developing their political clarity. Madkins and Morton define political clarity as the understanding of structural and school inequalities and engaging in equity-focused science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teaching.

At the classroom level, the written organizational plans must identify the role of teachers and their responsibility in attending to the needs of their students. The literature recommends that teachers be more involved in the processes of improving inclusive curricula, materials, and their support for students (Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Thus, it is fundamental to target the knowledge base of pre-service teachers as they embark on teaching careers in classrooms that reflect heterogeneous student populations. This measure will enable them to utilize transformative inclusive teaching strategies, such as differentiated instruction (DI) (Egbo, 2012 ). This research attempts to walk the EDI talk in schools by promoting TCs’ views, understandings, and implementation of DI as an equitable and inclusive teaching philosophy.

Research Rationale

Differentiated instruction is an adaptive method of instruction by which teachers provide multiple possibilities for learning based on students’ backgrounds, readiness, interests, and profiles (De Jesus, 2012 ; Tomlinson, 2001 ; Valiandes & Tarman, 2011 ). According to Tomlinson et al. ( 2003 ), the role of educators needs to focus on how to differentiate rather than if they should differentiate . Yet, the literature on DI shows lack of regular implementation by teachers in their classrooms (DiPirro, 2017 ; Robinson, 2017 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ), thus providing additional rationale for the need to enhance teacher preparation in this regard. Additionally, research on DI implementation and teacher preparation in Canadian classrooms specifically is scarce despite the aforementioned context and policies (Whitley et al., 2019 ). Manavathu and Zhou ( 2012 ) maintain that the implementation of DI in Canadian classrooms faces many barriers. For example, they highlight how teachers feel unprepared to accommodate English language learners (ELLs) and how ELLs are less likely to enroll in senior biology courses due to the language complexity. Accordingly, Manavathu and Zhou call for the development of linguistically appropriate science course materials and consideration of students’ individual sociopsychological influences to enhance their science learning. Additionally, D’Intino and Wang ( 2021 ) emphasize that Canadian teachers need more support to be able to differentiate their instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Specht et al. ( 2016 ) indicate the specific need for secondary school level TCs’ training on inclusive teaching strategies, since they show lower self-efficacy in relation to inclusive teaching compared to their elementary school counterparts. Finally, DI applications in STEM education at the secondary school level are limited, since most of the research has been conducted on DI in languages and mathematics for primary and middle school (Kamarulzaman et al., 2018 ; Maeng, 2017 ). Thus, the current research is warranted as it addresses teacher education in Ontario, specifically how to differentiate instruction by engaging TCs in developing DI-focused STEM curricula.

Research Objectives and Questions

This research focuses on intermediate-senior STEM TCs’ teacher preparation, with an emphasis on their implementation of DI. The study highlights the impact of integrating DI-focused strategies in a STEM curriculum and pedagogy course in teacher education at a Canadian university by addressing the following questions:

What is the impact of the course on TCs’ implementation of DI?

How do TCs develop curricula to be inclusive of DI strategies?

What successes and challenges do TCs encounter when developing DI-focused curricula?

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Methods to differentiate instruction: cpp-rip framework.

Differentiated instruction is not a single strategy but rather an approach that affords many strategies (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012 ). Establishing a systematic approach to differentiation is important to make it more attainable for teachers to implement (Levy, 2008 ). In practice, DI can happen through modifying the content (what is taught), process (how learning is structured), and product (how learning is assessed), in addition to the physical learning environment (Tomlinson, 2001 ). These modifications are achieved through adaptation of the existing curriculum, development of lessons and resources, and implementation of teaching and assessment strategies (Beasley & Beck, 2017 ; Mitchell & Hobson, 2005 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Willis & Mann, 2000 ).

The content—knowledge, understanding, and skills—is what students are expected to learn. The process describes the methods designed throughout the lesson to reinforce students’ understanding of the content. The product refers to how students demonstrate their learning by means of assessment tools. It is how students show what they have come to know, understand, and are able to do after an extended period of learning (Tomlinson, 1999 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). It is important to mention that these dimensions of DI are highly interconnected rather than independent (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012 ). Although there are core principles that guide the use of DI, its implementation depends on the individual needs of students in a particular classroom (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010 ). Tomlinson et al. ( 2003 ) indicate that when teachers differentiate the content, process, and product of teaching, three main factors must be considered as the basis of this differentiation: (1) students’ readiness which mainly reflects academic achievement levels, (2) students’ interest or choices, and (3) students’ learning profiles including their cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. This DI implementation framework, the content, process, product – readiness, interests, profiles (CPP-RIP) is utilized in this paper to analyze TCs’ implementation of DI.

Despite the fact that there is no single formula or method to apply DI (Valiandes & Tarman, 2011 ), specific teaching strategies include varying the learning pace for different students, curriculum compacting and chunking, varying the difficulty levels of tasks for different students, flexible grouping and learning centers based on student interests and/or learning needs, cooperative learning strategies, tiering activities, providing various levels of support and scaffolding to different students based on their readiness, using different modalities of teaching, and utilizing formative and diagnostic assessments to keep track of students’ progress (Birnie, 2017 ; Blackburn, 2018 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). In conclusion, the hallmark of differentiating instruction is that it allows students to feel accepted by viewing their differences as assets that will strengthen the whole educational setting (George, 2005 ).

Teachers’ Implementation of DI

The literature on teachers’ implementation of DI reports that most teachers are aware of the practice, but many do not regularly implement it in their classrooms (DiPirro, 2017 ; Niccum-Johnson, 2018 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). Niccum-Johnson ( 2018 ), for example, evaluated the consistency of 175 elementary teachers in Illinois in implementing DI. The results showed that only 60% of the teachers consistently used the elements of DI. Moreover, the study noted that teachers with a bachelor’s degree implemented DI more consistently than those with a master’s degree, while the years of experience had no effect. Robinson ( 2017 ) contradicted this inference and concluded that new teachers practiced the operational definition of DI more closely than veteran teachers who integrated DI into their daily activities more often. Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2012 ) demonstrated that teacher educators did not implement a comprehensive model of differentiation. In line with this finding, Kendrick-Weikle ( 2015 ) stated that teachers differentiated the process component of their instruction, but they did not differentiate the contents and the products to the same extent. The study also noted that female teachers and teachers in larger schools were more familiar with DI and used accompanying strategies more often than male teachers, and teachers at smaller schools, respectively.

On the other hand, the implementation of DI in Canadian classrooms, especially in Ontario, is insufficiently researched. Limited studies exist, with most of the research conducted in Quebec and published in French (e.g., Moldoveanu et al., 2016 ; Paré & Prud’homme, 2014 ; Prud’Homme, 2007 ). Research has also been conducted with French language teachers (Guay et al., 2017 ; Roy et al., 2013 ) to support inclusion practices in Quebec, and in music classes (Kizas, 2016 ) and language arts in elementary schools in British Colombia (Tobin, 2007 ). Finally, a study conducted in elementary classrooms in Ontario showed that the instructional practices in public schools appeared to be cumulative rather than differentiated and that academically at-risk students received less DI than others (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007 ).

Wan ( 2016 ) highlights that differentiating instruction is more complex in reality than it appears. Teachers could not cater to learners’ diversity as seamlessly due to the lack of practice utilizing differentiation strategies. Teachers in the study were afraid that differentiating, particularly assessment, was not fair to students in an exam-oriented environment. These findings reiterate the importance of teachers’ readiness and preparation to practice DI frequently and proficiently.

Challenges to Implementing DI

Several challenges that hinder teachers’ implementation of DI are documented, including (1) curricular requirements; (2) extensive teacher workload and lack of time; (3) limited curriculum resources; (4) lack of administrative support; (5) perceived complexity and difficulty; (6) class size and individual needs of students; and (7) insufficient number and quality of PD programs (de Jager, 2017 ; Park & Datnow, 2017 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ; Wan, 2017 ). To capture the complexity of differentiating instruction, van Geel et al. ( 2019 ) use the cognitive task analysis to show what kind of knowledge and constituent skills are needed to be able to adapt instruction to the needs of the students. The results of the research identify six categories of teacher skills: (1) mastering the curriculum; (2) identifying instructional needs; (3) setting challenging goals; (4) monitoring and diagnosing student progress; (5) adapting instruction accordingly; and (6) general teaching dimension. This model serves as the basis for designing curricula and teacher PD initiatives. Moreover, research has shown the necessity and importance of PD initiatives for pre-service (Dack, 2018 ; Goodnough, 2010 ) and in-service teachers (Dixon et al., 2014 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Pincince, 2016 ) to enhance their self-efficacy, understanding, and implementation of DI (e.g., Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Maeng, 2017 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Paone, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Taylor, 2018 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ).

Correspondingly, research on exemplary differentiated STEM resources is scarce especially at the secondary school level. Thus, the aforementioned challenges of available curriculum resources, required time, and perceived difficulty are justified. This study addresses those challenges and the lack of PD related to DI. In this study, TCs engaged in designing and developing differentiated curriculum materials in STEM subjects. Successes and challenges of similar teacher preparation initiatives to enhance TCs’ familiarity and implementation of DI are highlighted. Additionally, specific strategies to differentiate instruction in secondary STEM classes are showcased.

Reflective Practice

Pollard and Tann ( 1997 ) describe reflective teaching as how teachers investigate their practice. Farrell ( 2015 ) defines reflective practice as “a cognitive process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which teachers systematically collect data about their practice, and while engaging in dialogue with others, use the data to make informed decisions about their practice” (p. 123). Hubball et al. ( 2005 ) maintain that when teachers engage in reflective practice, they question what they do, what works and what does not, and what rationales underlie their teaching and that of others. In harmony, Brantley-Dias et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize the crucial role of reflection in professional growth. By reflecting, teachers or TCs would engage in a cognitive process in which they understand an experience and make informed decisions for new actions. In this study, TCs engaged in reflective practice by reflecting on their actions consistently throughout the course. TCs reflected on various concepts throughout their learning as well as on each assignment they developed. Combined with feedback provided by their peers and the instructor, the study highlights how these forms of reflective practice contributed to their views, conceptions, and implementation of DI.

Methodology

Research design.

The study adopted a mixed-method approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ), specifically a case study (Yin, 2014 ). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Data sources include (1) pre- and post-course surveys exploring TCs’ views, understandings, and implementation of DI; and (2) semi-structured interviews detailing TCs’ implementation of DI in the course and in their practicum. Figure  1 summarizes the timeline of the course, and data sources and collection.

Course components and data collection timeline

Participants

A total of 19 TCs (9 males; 10 females) participated in the study. Participants were enrolled in a STEM Curriculum and Pedagogy course in the second year of the teacher education program at a university in Ontario, Canada. All TCs teach STEM subjects in the intermediate-senior divisions (Grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12), including general sciences, biology, math, physics, chemistry, health and physical education, and computer studies. In terms of educational background, three TCs have a master’s degree while 16 TCs hold a bachelor’s degree.

Overview of the Course Design

Differentiated instruction principles and strategies were integrated through seminars, assignments, and resources using an explicit and reflective approach (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000 ). In the first session of the course, TCs’ prior understandings and views of DI were gauged through an online survey and a few diagnostic activities, including prompts using interactive presentation tools. Afterwards, in the first 2 weeks of the course, the course instructor collaborated with the researcher to provide a seminar on DI and EDI. Throughout the 12-week course, the instructor provided the TCs with resources to integrate DI and included tailored tasks requiring the application of DI principles and strategies, without changing the nature of the tasks that had been already planned for this course (DeCoito, in press ). As such, TCs completed three major curriculum development projects: (1) creating case studies around socio-scientific issues (SSI) (DeCoito & Fazio, 2017 ), (2) developing digital video games (DVGs) (DeCoito & Briona, 2020 ; Estaiteyeh & DeCoito, 2023 ), and (3) creating digital curriculum resources websites (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022 ).

TCs were requested to explicitly address DI in their coursework. Assignment rubrics included effective integration of DI as one of the success criteria. The instructor and researcher provided feedback on TCs’ work on a regular basis by recommending how to improve or maintain certain aspects of their assignments. TCs were also engaged in constant reflections on their progress and hence advancing their knowledge and skills in DI implementation throughout the course. Moreover, TCs presented their work to their peers, and provided and received peer feedback.

Data Sources

The pre-survey, composed of five open-ended questions, was administered online on the first day of the course. This survey explored TCs’ views and prior preparation with respect to DI. The post-survey, administered online on the last day of the course, included 43 5-point Likert scale items (1 = strong disagreement to 5 = strong agreement) and four open-ended questions. It explored TCs’ understanding and implementation of DI in the course, and their evaluation of the effectiveness of the course with respect to DI.

The Likert scale items were adopted from surveys (Roy et al., 2013 ; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012 ) that were tested for content validity and reliability. Santangelo and Tomlinson’s ( 2012 ) survey addressed teacher educators’ perceptions and use of DI practices, whereas Roy et al.’s ( 2013 ) DI scale included items related to instructional adaptations and assessment strategies in DI. On the other hand, the open-ended questions in both the pre- and post-surveys were developed by the researcher based on the research questions, the course tasks, and the literature. In total, 19 consenting TCs completed the pre-survey and 17 of them completed the post-survey.

Semi-structured Interview

Two months after the course ended, TCs were invited to participate in a 1-hour semi-structured online interview to follow-up on their responses in the pre/post-surveys and their course work. The interview explored in greater depth certain elements of the survey and course work, such as details of how TCs understood and implemented DI, and/or how they would implement it in their future practices. This interview was used to clarify, detail, and increase the trustworthiness of the other data sources. In total, six TCs participated in the interview.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the surveys were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics were performed including calculating counts, averages, standard deviations, percentages, and differences between pre- and post-results. Additionally, inferential statistical tests were performed using SPSS. The Spearman correlation test was performed to explore the relationship between different ordinal variables, i.e., different 5-point Likert items (Connolly, 2007 ). On the other hand, qualitative data from open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using an inductive process for some questions and a deductive process for others (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). The inductive analysis builds patterns, categories, and themes by organizing the data into more abstract units of information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). Participants’ responses were inputted into NVivo 12 where initial codes were developed using word clouds based on the frequency of words in TCs’ responses. Subsequently, the codes were grouped into themes, finalized, and interpreted to draw conclusions (Gall et al., 2005 ). Thematic coding (Stake, 2020 ) was performed to provide an in-depth analysis of the responses of all participants, which was used later to calculate the frequency of responses in relation to each theme. This inductive process was used to analyze responses related to TCs’ prior preparation and challenges encountered. On the other hand, responses related to how TCs implemented DI were analyzed deductively according to the CPP-RIP framework explained earlier.

Results and Discussion

Tcs’ prior preparation.

Participants were asked about two specific documents to understand TCs’ prior exposure to important policy publications about EDI and DI issued by the Ministry of Education in Ontario. One out of 19 TCs indicated that they had read the Education Equity Plan ( 2017 ), while three out of 19 TCs indicated reading the Differentiated Instruction handbook (EduGains, 2010 ) and/or its accompanying online resources.

Furthermore, to explore TCs’ readiness and prior preparation, they were asked in the pre-survey to reflect on any PD they have had that would assist them to teach through an EDI lens in their classes and to evaluate the effectiveness of these PD opportunities. Out of 15 respondents, eight TCs stated specific coursework that included EDI-related topics such as Indigenous education, special and inclusive education, or/and STEM methods course in year 1 of the program. Five TCs noted that their year-1 practicum experience helped them explore EDI principles and applications. On the other hand, three TCs mentioned specific PD workshops related to the topic. Concerning the effectiveness of the above opportunities in helping them teach through an EDI lens in the future, ten TCs responded, with six of them agreeing that these opportunities were effective and four stating they were not. Out of the six TCs who indicated their experiences were effective, four mentioned the practicum to be specifically helpful. This finding highlights that TCs’ exploration of the concepts of EDI and DI mostly happens in a practical way in their practicum rather than in their courses or through additional PD. On the other hand, the four TCs who said that their experiences were not effective in helping them teach through an EDI lens pointed out that what they learned was irrelevant to their specific classes:

The strategies I learned for differentiated instruction were largely inapplicable to my most recent practicum, or at least I was ill-prepared for translating them to an online environment. (Gabe, Pre-survey) It would be more effective to see them (the strategies) in action in real life. (Jan, Pre-survey) The reasons for this (ineffectiveness) were the “busy work” associated with the special education course and the emphasis on elementary education. I am a high school teacher candidate. (Roy, Pre-survey)

Teacher candidates' responses on the interview at the end of the study corroborated these pre-survey findings. All six interviewees stated that they had experienced a form of DI in their coursework and/or teaching prior to the STEM curriculum and pedagogy course. Five of them mentioned taking courses related to DI (two of which mentioned special education courses), while four TCs said they had experienced DI in their practicum. Yet, five of the interviewees indicated that this exposure to DI was not quite effective. For instance, Roy said:

Before, I had the first practicum experience. And I did not add actually as much differentiated instruction. I had some that I implemented being like, just introductions of like videos for English language learner students, in addition to other course content but that was mainly guided by my associate teacher rather than it was my own. Some of the courses touched on it. We had a course on special education, touch on differentiation... We also had an Indigenous education course which touched on it briefly, although like in all of them it’s not super super in depth I believe in the ways you do it, it’s more just, we learned like what it is, to look at how we could apply it… (Roy, Interview)

These findings illustrate that TCs had varying levels of exposure to DI principles in some of their courses and their practicum experiences. Yet, the effectiveness of these opportunities is debatable. As argued by some TCs, the previous courses did not provide STEM-specific and high school–specific skills. Moreover, the emphasis on DI in mostly special education courses reinforces teachers’ misconception that implementing inclusive practices such as DI is only for students with exceptionalities (DiPirro, 2017 ; Whitley et al., 2019 ). This notion defeats the goal of integrating DI under all circumstances. On the other hand, practicum experiences, referred to by the majority of TCs, are related to the environment of specific schools and the efforts of specific mentoring teachers, and hence are not consistent among all TCs. Finally, most TCs have not read the Ministry published documents which suggests that programs need to work on this aspect as the documents are designed for the context of Ontario schools. The lack of engagement of TCs with the documents also reflects a gap between policy and practice. Overall, the preparation of TCs for DI requires improvement so that they consistently acquire specific knowledge and skills that enable them to utilize DI principles and strategies in teaching STEM subjects in Ontario classrooms.

These results also reiterate to a certain extent D’Intino and Wang’s ( 2021 ) findings from the theoretical analysis of the coursework offered in Canadian universities, indicating that the current coursework is not sufficient to prepare TCs for DI. Findings also corroborate Massouti’s ( 2019 , 2021 ), Rezai-Rashti and Solomon’s ( 2008 ), and Specht et al.’s ( 2016 ) conclusions related to the need for enhancing TCs’ preparation focusing on EDI practices in teacher education programs in Canada. Moreover, the fact that the majority of TCs were referring to DI based on their practicum experience highlights the importance of practical fieldwork and calls for further coherence between coursework and the practicum (Dack, 2019 ; Massouti, 2019 ).

TCs’ Reflection on their DI Implementation

In the post-survey, TCs reflected on their implementation of DI in the course tasks. Figure  2 shows the percentages of TCs who agreed or disagreed with various statements regarding their DI implementation. Most TCs agreed that their DI implementation was extensive (13 out of 17 TCs). The vast majority of the TCs indicated that they (1) differentiated the content (15 out of 17 TCs) by offering choices, extending the knowledge of advanced learners, providing support to students with difficulty, presenting the content at varying levels of complexity, reflecting students’ interests, eliminating curricular material for some students, and adjusting the pacing of instruction; (2) differentiated the process (15 out of 17 TCs) by offering multiple modes of learning, varying the instructional strategies, using flexible grouping, using independent study, and using interest centers; and (3) differentiated the product (16 out of 17 TCs) by varying the types of assessments, providing students with choices to express their understanding, providing tiered assignments, and utilizing rubrics that match varied ability levels.

TCs’ post-survey responses on DI implementation in the course ( n  = 17)

Most TCs agreed that they allow students to play a role in designing/selecting their learning activities (14 out of 17 TCs) and assessing their own learning (13 out of 17 TCs). The majority of TCs agreed that they use diagnostic assessment (14 out of 17 TCs), formative assessment (16 out of 17 TCs), and summative assessment (16 out of 17 TCs); and that these assessments inform subsequent teaching (all 17 TCs). Fifteen out of 17 TCs stated that they evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching adjustments, while 14 of them stated that they evaluate students based on their improvement and growth during the semester with respect to their initial academic levels. Finally, on the use of technology, 16 out of 17 TCs stated that they use technology as a tool for DI, and 14 out of 17 TCs stated that they use technology for assessment in DI specifically. Overall, the results show high levels of TCs’ implementation of DI in all aspects. This finding highlights the positive impact of the course on TCs' pedagogical skills related to DI, and hence an adequate preparation of teachers to implement EDI principles in their future classes. These findings parallel the literature on the importance and positive impact of teacher training on DI understanding and implementation for both pre-service and in-service teachers (Dixon et al., 2014 ; Goodnough, 2010 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Pincince, 2016 ).

To investigate further, results of the Spearman correlation test indicate the relationship between TCs’ level of DI understanding and their implementation in the course work. For example, the post-survey results indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the content and their implementation of at least three methods of content differentiation in their course work (rs = 0.62, p  = 0.009). Additionally, results of the Spearman correlation indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the process and their implementation of at least three methods to differentiate the process in their course work (rs = 0.69, p  = 0.002). Similarly, results of the Spearman correlation indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the product and their implementation of at least three methods to differentiate the product in their course work (rs = 0.72, p  = 0.001). These findings reiterate the positive correlation between TCs’ understanding of DI and its implementation (DiPirro, 2017 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Whitley et al., 2019 ).

TCs’ Incorporation of DI Strategies in Their Coursework

Teacher candidates described in the interview how they differentiated instruction in their course work. TCs elaborated on how they differentiated the content, the process, and the product. TCs also discussed how they attended to EDI aspects especially respecting diverse cultural backgrounds, genders, and non-Western views. Furthermore, in the post-survey TCs indicated which assignment(s) in the course was/were the most relevant for differentiating instruction—nine out of 13 TCs selected the curriculum resources websites, four TCs stated the case studies, and two specified the DVGs. One TC, Erin, said it was all three assignments:

Every lesson and assignment created is relevant to differentiate instruction. I achieved through offering choices, extending knowledge of advanced learners, providing supplemental support, reflecting student’s interests, etc. (Interview)

Teacher candidates described their ability to develop resources that are inclusive of DI strategies and reflected positively on the various tasks:

Case Studies

In the first assignment, TCs developed curriculum by creating case studies of SSI (Fig.  3 ). TCs demonstrated proficient integration of DI principles, with TCs differentiating the process most, followed by the product of learning yet showing a need for more training in content differentiation in order to attend to students’ needs, backgrounds, and academic levels.

Sample cover page of a case study about hydroelectricity

In the interview, TCs explained how they developed case studies, taking different perspectives on the SSI into consideration, how they prepared materials with varied difficulty and readability levels, and how their lesson plans included multimodal teaching strategies. TCs said:

I made sure to incorporate lots of different levels of readings for my students so if I was assigning an article, I made sure that I checked out what reading level that article was and gave different levels and different options. And I also included a lot of different perspectives. And, like, we looked at issues on different scales so not just local, but also on a global scale. So, that was good! (Erin, Interview) We tried to do it (the case study) through different modes of learning and assessment. We used like a forum, kind of setting for our assessment where students would talk to each other, and they’d like exchange ideas. Specifically, always tried to use different methods of teaching, not just like direct instruction but also a collaborative group work, think pair share, stuff just different ways for students to augment their understanding. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of case studies for differentiating instruction, TCs said:

The case study was the most relevant to me for differentiated instruction. The various ways to conduct research (KWL, Cornell framework, consequence map, etc.) are all useful tools that can benefit different learners and providing students with these resources can assist them in conducting research in ways that work for them. (Gabe, Post-survey) I believe the case study assignment was the most relevant to differentiate instruction. We did this through offering multiple ways for students to engage with the content and complete their assignments. (Roy, Post-survey)

Digital Video Games (DVGs)

TCs developed DVGs with a simultaneous focus on DI and technology-enriched resources (Fig. 4 ). In differentiating the content, DVGs included increasing levels of difficulty highlighting scaffolding and varied pacing based on students’ readiness levels. In terms of process differentiation, the DVGs included multimodal representations; yet they are to be combined with other teaching strategies to ensure adequate differentiation. In terms of product differentiation, DVGs offered the room for diagnostic assessment before the game commences through guided questions as well as formative assessments and feedback throughout the levels. Additionally, the DVG offered space to represent various students’ backgrounds, genders, and physical abilities through avatars incorporated in the game.

Sample DVG focusing on physics concepts—projectile movement

In the interviews, TCs explained how their DVGs were culturally relevant, and how their avatars were inclusive in nature. Moreover, they explained how the levels included in the game were suitable for addressing students’ varying academic achievement levels. TCs said:

I had concepts outlined in different ways and had students use the visual stimulus from the pictures on the periodic table. But not just differentiated instruction, I also had diversity and equity through descriptions of elements in the periodic table. I had the related cultural backgrounds in there. (Roy, Interview) I incorporated like a more universal approach by giving students the options to like to choose their avatars, and the gender of their avatar. (Erin, Interview) There are different settings for video game for different capabilities of students depending on where their levels were. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of DVGs, Robert said:

DVG (was the most relevant to DI due to its) differing levels of difficulty. (Post-survey)

Curriculum Resources Websites

In the curriculum resources’ websites (Fig.  5 ), TCs showed adequate to high inclusion of DI principles and strategies utilizing a wide array of creative tools. TCs’ work demonstrate that they were able to prepare lessons and compile numerous resources while integrating a DI framework. TCs addressed common student misconceptions, acknowledged students’ prior knowledge, utilized a wide variety of multimodal teaching strategies, and included various forms of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment methods. TCs addressed student differences in academic achievement levels, interests, cultural backgrounds, SES, linguistic abilities, and special needs. TCs were also capable of linking their science topics to equity matters and social justice issues by highlighting real-life-related scenarios. In agreement with the analysis of their course work, the majority of TCs stated in the post-survey that the curriculum resources’ website assignment was the most relevant to differentiate instruction when compared to other assignments.

Sample of a STEM curriculum website content page

TCs explained in the interviews how they created new digital resources and amalgamated available materials, while taking DI into consideration. Their resources are multimodal, reflect students’ cultural diversity, cater for different academic and linguistic levels, and integrate technology effectively. TCs said:

I just included research from different countries, so we’re not just focusing on North America, but we also talked about research focusing on Asia and also focusing on Europe. I also included resources where females are talking about their experiences in STEM or their experience in the field. For the lesson plans, students research about different cultures and countries in term of medicine, technology… I tried to reflect just not just the North American view. (Pam, Interview) For those resources, I just made sure like I had good lots of options to my students like I incorporated something called a RAFT project so students could choose the role and the audience, and the format, that kind of thing for all their assignments that they were submitting, And I also made sure that I was delivering the content in different ways. So, like I said before I was making sure I just had a PowerPoint but, in this case, I had different ways to show the learning through like live demos or incorporating technology like Ozobot. So, they had multiple ways to join the classroom learning. (Erin, Interview) I did like a whole bunch of assessments that were differentiated, not just tests but also interesting assignments so fairly open ended that allowed students to showcase how they learned in a way that was comfortable for them, and also teaching in ways that weren’t just the direct instruction with using videos and demonstrations and group activities. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of the STEM curriculum websites, TCs said:

The curriculum resource assignment was the most relevant. I made sure to include a variety of instructional modalities, teaching strategies, and active learning strategies in my lesson plans. I made sure to incorporate EDI into my lessons, accommodate for different learning styles, as well as providing visual support in lesson materials. (Holly, Post-survey) For me, it is the curriculum resource website. Because it integrates all the DI through the whole package, that is, initiatives, motivations, lesson plans, activities and assessments. (Nellie, Post-survey) Curriculum resource website- developing resources and lessons lends itself to differentiated instruction more easily than specific tasks. (Jim, Post-survey) Curriculum resources website- accumulating a variety of resources that can be used to achieve different goals and support UDL/DI in the classroom. (Elizabeth, Post-survey) Curriculum resources website- because we could create our own lesson plans incorporating differentiated instruction, there was more freedom than the other two projects. (Karen, Post-survey)

Challenges Faced by TCs: the Noted Progress

In the pre-survey, several themes emerged from TCs’ responses on perceived challenges that may hinder their DI implementation. Out of 17 TCs, eight mentioned time needed for preparation; seven mentioned challenges related to resources; seven mentioned admin-related reasons such as support, funding, class size, and PD; five mentioned student factors such as engagement and interest or special needs; four TCs stated teacher knowledge or skills; three mentioned online teaching during the pandemic; and one mentioned curriculum mandates.

In the post-survey, TCs reflected on the challenges they faced while trying to implement DI in their course assignments. Two main themes emerged as challenges from eight TCs’ responses: (1) specific content knowledge or skills related to an assignment (mentioned by five TCs) and (2) unknown students in the case of course assignments or having too many differences to account for in one classroom (mentioned by four TCs). With respect to the specific content knowledge and specific task skills, TCs said:

Some topics lend themselves better to EDI principles whereas others are heavily rooted in science and minute processes (e.g., metabolic processes). (Meredith, Post-survey) It was very difficult to differentiate instruction within the DVG assignment, as it required a lot of external knowledge on how to do this effectively. (Roy, Post-survey) It was difficult in the DVG because we wanted to keep the game simple and still incorporate DI and EDI. (Karen, Post-survey)

Four TCs mentioned the challenge related to having too many differences to account for or in their case creating a course assignment for a hypothetical classroom where students are unknown. TCs said:

The challenge is to cater to everyone’s individual needs. Yes, there are things we can do to differentiate learning that benefits all students, but there will always be some students left unaccounted for, no matter what. (Erin, Post-survey) Difficult when you are not making it for a known group of students. You are unsure what to highlight and focus on for EDI. (Angela, Post-survey)

While the latter responses were written as a challenge, they actually represent a positive note. These statements reflect that TCs have shown appreciation and awareness of student differences, which is the core of DI principles. Finally, it is worth mentioning that in general the reported challenges are very specific in nature and are in contrast to those reported in the literature such as the lack of teachers’ knowledge or skills in DI, low teacher motivation, and lack of resources. The reported challenges are not profound so as to impact TCs’ implementation of DI.

Thus, when comparing TCs’ pre-course survey reflections about the expected challenges to those in the post-course survey, the previously emerging themes related to resource availability and TCs’ knowledge and skills implementing EDI strategies were not significant. The stated challenges at the end of the course revealed that resources and strategies provided in the course helped TCs surpass the perceived obstacle of preparing resources that reflect DI principles. This benefit is possibly due to the fact that TCs had gained practical experience creating such resources and advancing their pedagogical knowledge integrating DI strategies, which reiterates the effectiveness of the course in enhancing TCs’ DI conceptions and self-efficacy toward DI.

This research focuses on intermediate-senior STEM TCs’ teacher preparation emphasizing their implementation of DI in teacher education courses. TCs reflected on their improved ability to integrate DI practices in their STEM curriculum and pedagogy course assignments. This result highlights the positive impact of the course on their professional knowledge related to DI, and hence adequate preparation of teachers to implement DI in their future practices.

While some research studies show that novice teachers express less willingness to implement DI due to various challenges (Garrett, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ), the STEM course with DI-focused elements highlights the importance of PD opportunities aimed at enhancing TCs’ implementation of DI. The STEM curriculum and pedagogy course adopted an intensive and explicit reflective approach in teaching about several elements, as well as DI through rounds of discussion, feedback on TCs’ course work, and scaffolded course tasks to ensure advancement in TCs’ understanding and skill mastery. The adopted strategies were rooted in socio-cultural learning theories and based on communities of practice through resource and expertise sharing. These results call for adopting similar training approaches in other courses in teacher education programs to ensure that DI principles and strategies are deeply understood and proficiently practiced by TCs. This finding is in accordance with research highlighting the importance of DI-focused training in teacher education programs on TCs’ understanding (Dack, 2018 ; Goodnough, 2010 ) and implementation of DI (Adlam, 2007 ; Wan, 2017 ).

Teacher candidates' coursework showed that they were able to design lesson plans and curriculum resources that are differentiated in content, process, and product, with higher proficiency in differentiating the process specifically. These results are reflected in the literature indicating that the content and product differentiation are less understood by teachers compared to the process (Rollins, 2010 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ). It is important to note that the three assignments were helpful in different ways, which is also a scaffolding approach used by the TCs. TCs were trying different DI approaches in each assignment and choosing what was of particular relevance. For instance, the case studies enabled TCs to take diversity and different perspectives into consideration. DVGs are were of specific significance in differentiating the difficulty levels, scaffolding, and considering diversity and inclusion in race, gender, etc. On the other hand, the websites enabled TCs to apply all their acquired knowledge and skills about DI to create teaching and assessment resources. Both the wide variety and required depth of DI implementation in various course tasks ensured an adequate exposure of TCs to various forms of DI.

Finally, challenges encountered and anticipated by TCs are worth noting. When comparing TCs’ pre-course survey reflections about the expected challenges to those in the post-course survey, the previously identified themes related to resource availability and TCs’ knowledge and skills in implementing EDI strategies were not significant. In contrast to those reported in the literature such as the lack of teachers’ knowledge or skills in DI (Adlam, 2007 ), low teacher motivation (Garrett, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ), and lack of resources (de Jager, 2017 ; Park & Datnow, 2017 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ; Wan, 2017 ), the reported challenges do not reflect deep or profound obstacles that would impact TCs’ implementation of DI in the future. The stated challenges at the end of the course revealed that resources and strategies provided by the course helped TCs surpass the perceived obstacle of preparing resources that reflect DI principles.

Limitations

This study provides rich description of TCs’ DI implementation in the course from several data sources, thus ensuring data triangulation. Yet, the major limitation pertains to TCs’ implementation of DI in their practicum and future practices. Future research can further explore this aspect by observing TCs in their practicum to provide them with feedback and attain a more comprehensive understanding of their practices and DI implementation. Moreover, one of the major challenges encountered in this study was the COVID-19 pandemic which led to the 12-week course being offered online. This shift required all course activities to be conducted online, which may have affected TCs in terms of face-to-face collaborations and social engagement as they researched and developed assignments. Additionally, in general, the pandemic added a huge burden on TCs and can thus be perceived as a stressor that may have affected the quality of work that TCs produced. Finally, the unique nature of the STEM curriculum and pedagogy course, offered to specific TCs who are enrolled in the STEM specialty, may affect the extent to which one can generalize from the findings presented in this study.

Implications

This research addresses the most pressing challenges that hinder DI implementation as reported by teachers, such as availability of resources (Adlam, 2007 ; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Paone, 2017 ), required time for lesson planning (Adlam, 2007 ; Brevik et al., 2018 ; Paone, 2017 ), and ability to plan for DI (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Kendrick-Weikle, 2015 ; Rollins, 2010 ). Thus, the course has addressed an important need for training TCs to enhance their understanding and implementation of DI (Casey & Gable, 2012 ; Rollins, 2010 ). One major challenge that warrants further research is training in-service teachers and TCs on differentiating instruction in online environments, given online teaching is gaining traction post-COVID-19 pandemic.

This research informs teacher educators and curriculum designers about practical measures to include DI practices in teacher education courses. This implication is timely as most teacher education programs are currently striving to integrate equitable and inclusive pedagogies in their curriculum and overall planning. The study shows that EDI practices such as DI must and can be woven into all requirements of teacher education programs, rather than restricting those principles to inclusive education or special education courses only. The study also informs heads of departments, policy makers, and school administrators about the successes and challenges of similar PD initiatives, in the hopes that more of these PD programs are implemented with in-service teachers to revitalize their teaching practices.

Data Availability

Raw data is available for transparency purposes.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (10), 1057–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C

Adlam, E. (2007). Differentiated instruction in the elementary school: Investigating the knowledge elementary teachers posses when implementing differentiated instruction in their classrooms [PhD Thesis]. University of Windsor.

Beasley, J. G., & Beck, D. E. (2017). Defining differentiation in cyber schools: What online teachers say. TechTrends , 61 (6), 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0189-x

Article   Google Scholar  

Birnie, B. F. (2017). A teacher’s guide to successful classroom management and differentiated instruction . Rowman & Littlefield.

Google Scholar  

Blackburn, B. R. (2018). Rigor and differentiation in the classroom: Tools and strategies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351185912

Brantley-Dias, L., Puvirajah, A., & Dias, M. (2021). Supporting teacher candidates’ multidimensional reflection: A model and a protocol. Reflective Practice , 22 (2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1865904

Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education , 71 , 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003

Campbell, C. (2021). Educational equity in Canada: The case of Ontario’s strategies and actions to advance excellence and equity for students. School Leadership & Management , 41 (4–5), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1709165

Casey, M. K., & Gable, R. K. (2012). Perceived efficacy of beginning teachers to differentiate instruction. 44th Annual Meeting of the New England Educational Research Association . http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/teacher_ed/7

Chamberlin, M., & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications , 29 (3), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006

Connolly, P. (2007). Quantitative data analysis in education: A critical introduction using SPSS . Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dack, H. (2018). Structuring teacher candidate learning about differentiated instruction through coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education , 69 , 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.017

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 Jager, T. (2017). Perspectives of teachers on differentiated teaching in multi-cultural South African secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 53 , 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.004

De Jesus, O. N. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Can differentiated instruction provide success for all learners? National Teacher Education Journal , 5 (3).

DeCoito, I. (in press). STEMifying teacher education – A Canadian context. In A. M. Al-Balushi, L. Martin-Hansen, & Y. Song (Eds.), Reforming science teacher education programs in the STEM era: International practices . Springer.

DeCoito, I., & Briona, L. K. (2020). Navigating theory and practice: Digital video games (DVGs) in STEM education. In V. L. Akerson & G. A. Buck (Eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education (pp. 85–104). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022, May). Addressing STEM teachers’ challenges in online teaching by enhancing their TPACK and creating digital resources . Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Conference, Virtual.

DeCoito, I., & Fazio, X. (2017). Developing case studies in teacher education: Spotlighting socio-scientific issues. Innovations in Science Teacher Education , 2 (1).

D’Intino, J. S., & Wang, L. (2021). Differentiated instruction: A review of teacher education practices for Canadian pre-service elementary school teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1951603

DiPirro, J. (2017). Implementation of differentiated instruction: An analysis [PhD Thesis]. Rivier University.

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 37 (2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042

EduGains. (2010). Student success: Differentiated instruction educator’s package . http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesDI/EducatorsPackages/DIEducatorsPackage2010/2010EducatorsGuide.pdf

Egbo, B. (2012). What should preservice teachers know about race and diversity? Exploring a critical knowledge-base for teaching in 21st century Canadian classrooms. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education , 6 (2). https://doi.org/10.20355/C5C30R

Estaiteyeh, M., & DeCoito, I. (2023). Differentiated instruction in digital video games: STEM teacher candidates using technology to meet learners’ needs. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2190360

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second-language education: A framework for TESOL professionals . Routledge.

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide (5th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Garrett, S. (2017). A comparative study between teachers’ self-efficacy of differentiated instruction and frequency differentiated instruction is implemented [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice , 44 (3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_2

Goodnough, K. (2010). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ developing professional knowledge through the lens of differentiated instruction. Research in Science Education , 40 (2), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9120-6

Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., & Vantieghem, W. (2021). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices about two inclusive frameworks: Universal design for learning and differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education , 107 , 103503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103503

Guay, F., Roy, A., & Valois, P. (2017). Teacher structure as a predictor of students’ perceived competence and autonomous motivation: The moderating role of differentiated instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 87 (2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12146

Hubball, H., Collins, J., & Pratt, D. (2005). Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 35 (3), 57–81.

Kamarulzaman, M. H., Azman, H., & Zahidi, A. M. (2018). Research trend in the practice of differentiated instruction. The Journal of Social Sciences Research , 4 (12), 648–668.

Kendrick-Weikle, K. (2015). Illinois high school teachers’ understanding and use of differentiated instruction . Western Illinois University.

Kizas, A. (2016). Differentiated instruction and student engagement: Effective strategies for teaching combined-grade classes at the secondary level. Canadian Music Educator , 57 (2), 33–37.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal , 32 (3), 465–491.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review , 84 (1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House , 81 (4), 161–164.  https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164

Madkins, T. C., & Morton, K. (2021). Disrupting anti-blackness with young learners in STEM: Strategies for elementary science and mathematics teacher education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education , 21 (2), 239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00159-1

Maeng, J. (2017). Using technology to facilitate differentiated high school science instruction. Research in Science Education , 47 (5), 1075–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9546-6

Malloy, J. (2019). Gaps are not closing. We need to make a bold move. School Administrator , 76 (1), 40–42.

Manavathu, M., & Zhou, G. (2012). The impact of differentiated instructional materials on English language learner (ELL) students’ comprehension of science laboratory tasks. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education , 12 (4), 334–349.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.732255

Massouti, A. (2019). Inclusion and policy enactment in teacher education: A focus on pre-service teacher preparation for the inclusive classroom [PhD Thesis]. The University of Western Ontario.

Massouti, A. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on their preparation for inclusive teaching: Implications for organizational change in teacher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 12 (1), n1.

McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada , 17 (1), 27–52.

Mitchell, L., & Hobson, B. (2005). One size does not fit all: Differentiation in the elementary grades . Beaverton School District Summer Institute, Beaverton, OR.

Moldoveanu, M., Grenier, N., & Marca-Vadan, L. (2016). Professional profile of primary teachers in disadvantaged and Indigenous communities who use differentiated practices . 7302–7302. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0593

Mujawamariya, D., Hujaleh, F., & Lima-Kerckhoff, A. (2014). A reexamination of Ontario’s science curriculum: Toward a more inclusive multicultural science education? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education , 14 (3), 269–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2014.874618

Niccum-Johnson, M. A. (2018). An investigation of the consistency of use of differentiated instruction in upper elementary classrooms [PhD Thesis]. McKendree University.

Nicolae, M. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs as the differentiated instruction starting point: Research basis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 128 , 426–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.182

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Ontario’s education equity action plan . https://files.ontario.ca/edu-1_0/edu-Ontario-Education-Equity-Action-Plan-en-2021-08-04.pdf

Paone, N. A. (2017). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction: A case study [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.

Paré, M., & Prud’homme, L. (Eds.). (2014). La différenciation dans une perspective inclusive: Intégrer les connaissances issues de la recherche pour favoriser la progression des élèves dans un groupe hétérogène. Revue suisse de pédagogie spécialisée . https://edudoc.ch/record/113215?ln=de

Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education , 123 (2), 281–306.

Pincince, D. L. (2016). Participation in professional development and its role in the implementation of differentiated instruction in the middle school . Northeastern University.

Pollard, A., & Tann, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom . Cassell London.

Prud’Homme, L. (2007). La différenciation pédagogique: Analyse du sens construit par des enseignantes et un chercheur-formateur dans un contexte de recherche-action-formation . Université du Québec à Montréal.

Rezai-Rashti, G., Segeren, A., & Martino, W. (2015). Race and racial justice in Ontario education: Neoliberalism and strategies of racial invisibility. In Building democracy through education on diversity (pp. 141–158). Brill Sense.

Rezai-Rashti, G., Segeren, A., & Martino, W. (2017). The new articulation of equity education in neoliberal times: The changing conception of social justice in Ontario. Globalisation, Societies and Education , 15 (2), 160–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2016.1169514

Rezai-Rashti, G., & Solomon, P. (2008). Teacher candidates’ racial identity formation and the possibilities of antiracism in teacher education. In Comparative and global pedagogies: Equity, access and democracy in education (Vol. 2, pp. 167–188). Springer.

Robinson, Q. E. (2017). Perceptions and adoption of differentiated instruction by elementary teachers [PhD Thesis]. Capella University.

Rollins, R. (2010). Assessing the understanding and use of differentiated instruction: A comparison of novice and experienced technology education teachers . North Carolina State University.

Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 17 (11), 1186–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.743604

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education , 34 (4), 309–327.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.717032

Specht, J., McGhie-Richmond, D., Loreman, T., Mirenda, P., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T., Young, G., Metsala, J., Aylward, L., Katz, J., Lyons, W., Thompson, S., & Cloutier, S. (2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 20 (1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

Stake, R. (2020). Case studies. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Sage.

Statistics Canada. (2017). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025b-eng.pdf?st=qmWvzclz

Statistics Canada. (2022). Immigrants make up the largest share of the population in over 150 years and continue to shape who we are as Canadians . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education , 67 , 291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

Taylor, S. L. (2018). Educating 21st century learners: A phenomenological study of middle school teachers’ understanding and use of differentiated instruction [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.

Tobin, R. (2007). Differentiating in the language arts: Flexible options to support all students. Canadian Children , 32 (2).

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (1st ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). 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 literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 27 (2–3), 119–145.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203

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

Turner, W. D., & Solis, O. J. (2017). The misnomers of differentiating instruction in large classes. Journal of Effective Teaching , 17 (3), 64–76.

Valiandes, S., & Tarman, B. (2011). Differentiated teaching and constructive learning approach by the implementation of ICT in mixed ability classrooms. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education Faculty (KEFAD) , 12 , 169–184.

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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

Wan, S. W.-Y. (2016). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching , 22 (2), 148–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

Wan, S. W.-Y. (2017). Differentiated instruction: Are Hong Kong in-service teachers ready? Teachers and Teaching , 23 (3), 284–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1204289

Watts-Taffe, S., (Barbara) Laster, B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading Teacher , 66 (4), 303–314.  https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01126

Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research , 96 (1), 54–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598791

Whitley, J., Gooderham, S., Duquette, C., Orders, S., & Cousins, J. B. (2019). Implementing differentiated instruction: A mixed-methods exploration of teacher beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching , 25 (8), 1043–1061.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1699782

Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000). Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet individual needs. Curriculum Update , 4 , 1–3.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St., L2S 3A1, Catharines, ON, Canada

Mohammed Estaiteyeh

Faculty of Education, Western University, 1137 Western Road, N6G 1G7, London, ON, Canada

Isha DeCoito

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Estaiteyeh .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This research has acquired ethical approval from Western University Non-Medical Research Ethics Board (Project ID: 114831).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Estaiteyeh, M., DeCoito, I. Planning for Differentiated Instruction: Empowering Teacher Candidates in STEM Education. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 23 , 5–26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00270-5

Download citation

Accepted : 21 March 2023

Published : 08 May 2023

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-023-00270-5

Share this article

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

• Differentiated instruction
• Equity, diversity, and inclusion
• STEM education
• Science teacher education
• Curriculum development
• Reflective practice
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10166050

Language: English | French

Planning for Differentiated Instruction: Empowering Teacher Candidates in STEM Education

Mohammed estaiteyeh.

1 Faculty of Education, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St., L2S 3A1 Catharines, ON Canada

Isha DeCoito

2 Faculty of Education, Western University, 1137 Western Road, N6G 1G7 London, ON Canada

Associated Data

Raw data is available for transparency purposes.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an inclusive method of instruction by which teachers provide multiple possibilities for learning based on students’ backgrounds, readiness, interests, and profiles. Acknowledging student diversity in Canadian classrooms, this study explores STEM teacher candidates’ (TCs’) preparation to implement DI in a STEM curriculum and pedagogy course in a teacher education program. The course is enriched with DI resources and training focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). The course efficacy in enhancing TCs’ implementation of DI is explored through the following research questions: (1) What is the impact of the course on TCs’ implementation of DI, (2) How do TCs develop curricula to be inclusive of DI strategies, and (3) What successes and challenges do TCs encounter when developing DI-focused curricula? The study adopts a mixed-method approach, in which data sources include pre-post questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Participants are 19 TCs enrolled in the second year of the teacher education program at a Canadian university. Findings suggest that the course empowered TCs to integrate DI principles and strategies in their coursework. This success reiterates the importance of opportunities aimed at enhancing teachers’ preparation to incorporate DI in their practices. The findings call for adopting similar approaches in pre-service and in-service teachers’ training to ensure that DI principles and strategies are deeply rooted in teachers’ practices. The study informs teacher educators about integrating EDI in teacher education programs’ curriculum and overall planning.

Résumé

La différenciation pédagogique (DP) est une méthode d’enseignement inclusive selon laquelle les enseignants offrent plusieurs possibilités d’apprentissage en fonction du milieu dont sont issus les élèves, de leur réceptivité, leurs champs d’intérêts et de leurs profils. S’appuyant sur le fait qu’il existe une diversité d’élèves dans les salles de classe canadiennes, cette étude explore la préparation des aspirants enseignants (AE) des STIM à la mise en application de la DP dans un cours du curriculum et de la pédagogie des STIM au programme de formation des enseignants. Le cours est rehaussé par le biais de ressources en DP et d’une formation axée sur l’équité, la diversité et l’inclusion (EDI). On explore comment l’efficacité du cours peut servir à améliorer la mise en pratique de la DP par les AE à l’aide des questions de recherche suivantes: 1) Quel est l’impact du cours sur la mise en œuvre de la DP par les AE, 2) Comment les AE élaborent-ils des programmes qui intègrent les stratégies de DP, et 3) À quelles réussites et difficultés les AE font-ils face lorsqu’ils élaborent des programmes axés sur la DP ? L’étude adopte une approche méthodologique mixte, dans laquelle les sources de données comprennent des questionnaires « avant-après» et des entrevues semi-structurées. 19 AE inscrits en deuxième année du programme de formation des enseignants d’une université canadienne participent à l’étude. Les résultats indiquent que le cours a doté les AE de moyens d’intégrer les principes et les stratégies de la DP dans leurs travaux de cours. Cette réussite réitère l’importance d’avoir des occasions qui contribuent à améliorer la préparation des enseignants pour intégrer la DP dans leurs pratiques. Les résultats appellent à l’adoption d’approches similaires dans la formation initiale des enseignants et celle des enseignants sur place afin de s’assurer que les principes et les stratégies de la DP sont profondément enracinés dans les pratiques des enseignants. L’étude renseigne les formateurs d’enseignants sur l’intégration de l’EDI dans les programmes d’éducation des enseignants et dans la planification générale.

Introduction

Schools in Canada are well known for student diversity. One of the main reasons behind this diversity is the increase in the number of immigrants. For instance, the number of new immigrants who arrived in Canada between 2016 and 2021 was 1,328,240, with more than 450 ethnic or cultural origins existing in 2021 (Statistics Canada, 2022 ). According to Statistics Canada ( 2017 ), two in five Canadian children had an immigrant background in 2016, meaning they are foreign-born or had at least one foreign-born parent. By 2031, nearly half (46%) of Canadians aged 15 and older could have an immigrant background. These demographic factors also reflect diversity in socio-economic status (SES), cultural differences, and linguistic abilities.

Together, these societal changes directly affect the student composition of classrooms, rendering them very heterogenous spaces, especially when considering additional differences among students in their interests, individual needs, unique learning profiles, and academic achievement levels (Campbell, 2021 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Accordingly, curricula in Canadian classrooms are moving toward inclusive design, an approach that considers diversity with respect to students’ ability, language, culture, race, sexual orientation, creed, gender, and lived experiences (Malloy, 2019 ). Novel plans have been established across provinces to incorporate inclusive practices such as Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan ( 2017 ) that supports school boards to develop equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) education policies and effectively implement classroom practices that “reflect the needs and diverse realities of all students” (p. 16). The plan hints at incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995 , 2014 ) and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010 ). Moreover, the plan aims to strengthen inclusive teaching, assessment, and resources, and provide professional development (PD) and support focused on equity and inclusion for teachers.

Despite these plans and policies, there remains much work to be done. Rezai-Rashti et al. ( 2015 , 2017 ) highlight the invisibility of race and antiracism in Ontario’s policies and call for addressing the underlying structural and systemic imbalances. This outcome can be achieved through mechanisms that hold educational institutions accountable and provide the required resources to ensure the implementation of said policies. In harmony, the Ontario Ministry of Education reports that the recommended improvements did not fully provide equitable outcomes for all students, and further actions are required to overcome persistent systematic barriers, biases, and inequalities (Campbell, 2021 ). With respect to science education, Mujawamariya et al. ( 2014 ) critically analyze the content of Ontario’s science curricula for Grades 1 to 10 and maintain that small recent progress has been made to support multicultural science education. The authors highlight how antiracist content remains poorly integrated into Ontario science curricula, how minority students are excluded, and how the text is still dominated by a Western rather than an inclusive paradigm. In harmony, Madkins and Morton ( 2021 ) argue that teacher candidates (TCs) must be prepared to disrupt anti-blackness in science and mathematics education by developing their political clarity. Madkins and Morton define political clarity as the understanding of structural and school inequalities and engaging in equity-focused science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teaching.

At the classroom level, the written organizational plans must identify the role of teachers and their responsibility in attending to the needs of their students. The literature recommends that teachers be more involved in the processes of improving inclusive curricula, materials, and their support for students (Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Thus, it is fundamental to target the knowledge base of pre-service teachers as they embark on teaching careers in classrooms that reflect heterogeneous student populations. This measure will enable them to utilize transformative inclusive teaching strategies, such as differentiated instruction (DI) (Egbo, 2012 ). This research attempts to walk the EDI talk in schools by promoting TCs’ views, understandings, and implementation of DI as an equitable and inclusive teaching philosophy.

Research Rationale

Differentiated instruction is an adaptive method of instruction by which teachers provide multiple possibilities for learning based on students’ backgrounds, readiness, interests, and profiles (De Jesus, 2012 ; Tomlinson, 2001 ; Valiandes & Tarman, 2011 ). According to Tomlinson et al. ( 2003 ), the role of educators needs to focus on how to differentiate rather than if they should differentiate . Yet, the literature on DI shows lack of regular implementation by teachers in their classrooms (DiPirro, 2017 ; Robinson, 2017 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ), thus providing additional rationale for the need to enhance teacher preparation in this regard. Additionally, research on DI implementation and teacher preparation in Canadian classrooms specifically is scarce despite the aforementioned context and policies (Whitley et al., 2019 ). Manavathu and Zhou ( 2012 ) maintain that the implementation of DI in Canadian classrooms faces many barriers. For example, they highlight how teachers feel unprepared to accommodate English language learners (ELLs) and how ELLs are less likely to enroll in senior biology courses due to the language complexity. Accordingly, Manavathu and Zhou call for the development of linguistically appropriate science course materials and consideration of students’ individual sociopsychological influences to enhance their science learning. Additionally, D’Intino and Wang ( 2021 ) emphasize that Canadian teachers need more support to be able to differentiate their instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Specht et al. ( 2016 ) indicate the specific need for secondary school level TCs’ training on inclusive teaching strategies, since they show lower self-efficacy in relation to inclusive teaching compared to their elementary school counterparts. Finally, DI applications in STEM education at the secondary school level are limited, since most of the research has been conducted on DI in languages and mathematics for primary and middle school (Kamarulzaman et al., 2018 ; Maeng, 2017 ). Thus, the current research is warranted as it addresses teacher education in Ontario, specifically how to differentiate instruction by engaging TCs in developing DI-focused STEM curricula.

Research Objectives and Questions

This research focuses on intermediate-senior STEM TCs’ teacher preparation, with an emphasis on their implementation of DI. The study highlights the impact of integrating DI-focused strategies in a STEM curriculum and pedagogy course in teacher education at a Canadian university by addressing the following questions:

• What is the impact of the course on TCs’ implementation of DI?
• How do TCs develop curricula to be inclusive of DI strategies?
• What successes and challenges do TCs encounter when developing DI-focused curricula?

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Methods to differentiate instruction: cpp-rip framework.

Differentiated instruction is not a single strategy but rather an approach that affords many strategies (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012 ). Establishing a systematic approach to differentiation is important to make it more attainable for teachers to implement (Levy, 2008 ). In practice, DI can happen through modifying the content (what is taught), process (how learning is structured), and product (how learning is assessed), in addition to the physical learning environment (Tomlinson, 2001 ). These modifications are achieved through adaptation of the existing curriculum, development of lessons and resources, and implementation of teaching and assessment strategies (Beasley & Beck, 2017 ; Mitchell & Hobson, 2005 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Willis & Mann, 2000 ).

The content—knowledge, understanding, and skills—is what students are expected to learn. The process describes the methods designed throughout the lesson to reinforce students’ understanding of the content. The product refers to how students demonstrate their learning by means of assessment tools. It is how students show what they have come to know, understand, and are able to do after an extended period of learning (Tomlinson, 1999 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). It is important to mention that these dimensions of DI are highly interconnected rather than independent (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012 ). Although there are core principles that guide the use of DI, its implementation depends on the individual needs of students in a particular classroom (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010 ). Tomlinson et al. ( 2003 ) indicate that when teachers differentiate the content, process, and product of teaching, three main factors must be considered as the basis of this differentiation: (1) students’ readiness which mainly reflects academic achievement levels, (2) students’ interest or choices, and (3) students’ learning profiles including their cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. This DI implementation framework, the content, process, product – readiness, interests, profiles (CPP-RIP) is utilized in this paper to analyze TCs’ implementation of DI.

Despite the fact that there is no single formula or method to apply DI (Valiandes & Tarman, 2011 ), specific teaching strategies include varying the learning pace for different students, curriculum compacting and chunking, varying the difficulty levels of tasks for different students, flexible grouping and learning centers based on student interests and/or learning needs, cooperative learning strategies, tiering activities, providing various levels of support and scaffolding to different students based on their readiness, using different modalities of teaching, and utilizing formative and diagnostic assessments to keep track of students’ progress (Birnie, 2017 ; Blackburn, 2018 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). In conclusion, the hallmark of differentiating instruction is that it allows students to feel accepted by viewing their differences as assets that will strengthen the whole educational setting (George, 2005 ).

Teachers’ Implementation of DI

The literature on teachers’ implementation of DI reports that most teachers are aware of the practice, but many do not regularly implement it in their classrooms (DiPirro, 2017 ; Niccum-Johnson, 2018 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). Niccum-Johnson ( 2018 ), for example, evaluated the consistency of 175 elementary teachers in Illinois in implementing DI. The results showed that only 60% of the teachers consistently used the elements of DI. Moreover, the study noted that teachers with a bachelor’s degree implemented DI more consistently than those with a master’s degree, while the years of experience had no effect. Robinson ( 2017 ) contradicted this inference and concluded that new teachers practiced the operational definition of DI more closely than veteran teachers who integrated DI into their daily activities more often. Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2012 ) demonstrated that teacher educators did not implement a comprehensive model of differentiation. In line with this finding, Kendrick-Weikle ( 2015 ) stated that teachers differentiated the process component of their instruction, but they did not differentiate the contents and the products to the same extent. The study also noted that female teachers and teachers in larger schools were more familiar with DI and used accompanying strategies more often than male teachers, and teachers at smaller schools, respectively.

On the other hand, the implementation of DI in Canadian classrooms, especially in Ontario, is insufficiently researched. Limited studies exist, with most of the research conducted in Quebec and published in French (e.g., Moldoveanu et al., 2016 ; Paré & Prud’homme, 2014 ; Prud’Homme, 2007 ). Research has also been conducted with French language teachers (Guay et al., 2017 ; Roy et al., 2013 ) to support inclusion practices in Quebec, and in music classes (Kizas, 2016 ) and language arts in elementary schools in British Colombia (Tobin, 2007 ). Finally, a study conducted in elementary classrooms in Ontario showed that the instructional practices in public schools appeared to be cumulative rather than differentiated and that academically at-risk students received less DI than others (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007 ).

Wan ( 2016 ) highlights that differentiating instruction is more complex in reality than it appears. Teachers could not cater to learners’ diversity as seamlessly due to the lack of practice utilizing differentiation strategies. Teachers in the study were afraid that differentiating, particularly assessment, was not fair to students in an exam-oriented environment. These findings reiterate the importance of teachers’ readiness and preparation to practice DI frequently and proficiently.

Challenges to Implementing DI

Several challenges that hinder teachers’ implementation of DI are documented, including (1) curricular requirements; (2) extensive teacher workload and lack of time; (3) limited curriculum resources; (4) lack of administrative support; (5) perceived complexity and difficulty; (6) class size and individual needs of students; and (7) insufficient number and quality of PD programs (de Jager, 2017 ; Park & Datnow, 2017 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ; Wan, 2017 ). To capture the complexity of differentiating instruction, van Geel et al. ( 2019 ) use the cognitive task analysis to show what kind of knowledge and constituent skills are needed to be able to adapt instruction to the needs of the students. The results of the research identify six categories of teacher skills: (1) mastering the curriculum; (2) identifying instructional needs; (3) setting challenging goals; (4) monitoring and diagnosing student progress; (5) adapting instruction accordingly; and (6) general teaching dimension. This model serves as the basis for designing curricula and teacher PD initiatives. Moreover, research has shown the necessity and importance of PD initiatives for pre-service (Dack, 2018 ; Goodnough, 2010 ) and in-service teachers (Dixon et al., 2014 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Pincince, 2016 ) to enhance their self-efficacy, understanding, and implementation of DI (e.g., Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Maeng, 2017 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Paone, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Taylor, 2018 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ).

Correspondingly, research on exemplary differentiated STEM resources is scarce especially at the secondary school level. Thus, the aforementioned challenges of available curriculum resources, required time, and perceived difficulty are justified. This study addresses those challenges and the lack of PD related to DI. In this study, TCs engaged in designing and developing differentiated curriculum materials in STEM subjects. Successes and challenges of similar teacher preparation initiatives to enhance TCs’ familiarity and implementation of DI are highlighted. Additionally, specific strategies to differentiate instruction in secondary STEM classes are showcased.

Reflective Practice

Pollard and Tann ( 1997 ) describe reflective teaching as how teachers investigate their practice. Farrell ( 2015 ) defines reflective practice as “a cognitive process accompanied by a set of attitudes in which teachers systematically collect data about their practice, and while engaging in dialogue with others, use the data to make informed decisions about their practice” (p. 123). Hubball et al. ( 2005 ) maintain that when teachers engage in reflective practice, they question what they do, what works and what does not, and what rationales underlie their teaching and that of others. In harmony, Brantley-Dias et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize the crucial role of reflection in professional growth. By reflecting, teachers or TCs would engage in a cognitive process in which they understand an experience and make informed decisions for new actions. In this study, TCs engaged in reflective practice by reflecting on their actions consistently throughout the course. TCs reflected on various concepts throughout their learning as well as on each assignment they developed. Combined with feedback provided by their peers and the instructor, the study highlights how these forms of reflective practice contributed to their views, conceptions, and implementation of DI.

Methodology

Research design.

The study adopted a mixed-method approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ), specifically a case study (Yin, 2014 ). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Data sources include (1) pre- and post-course surveys exploring TCs’ views, understandings, and implementation of DI; and (2) semi-structured interviews detailing TCs’ implementation of DI in the course and in their practicum. Figure  1 summarizes the timeline of the course, and data sources and collection.

Course components and data collection timeline

Participants

A total of 19 TCs (9 males; 10 females) participated in the study. Participants were enrolled in a STEM Curriculum and Pedagogy course in the second year of the teacher education program at a university in Ontario, Canada. All TCs teach STEM subjects in the intermediate-senior divisions (Grades 9, 10, 11, and/or 12), including general sciences, biology, math, physics, chemistry, health and physical education, and computer studies. In terms of educational background, three TCs have a master’s degree while 16 TCs hold a bachelor’s degree.

Overview of the Course Design

Differentiated instruction principles and strategies were integrated through seminars, assignments, and resources using an explicit and reflective approach (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000 ). In the first session of the course, TCs’ prior understandings and views of DI were gauged through an online survey and a few diagnostic activities, including prompts using interactive presentation tools. Afterwards, in the first 2 weeks of the course, the course instructor collaborated with the researcher to provide a seminar on DI and EDI. Throughout the 12-week course, the instructor provided the TCs with resources to integrate DI and included tailored tasks requiring the application of DI principles and strategies, without changing the nature of the tasks that had been already planned for this course (DeCoito, in press ). As such, TCs completed three major curriculum development projects: (1) creating case studies around socio-scientific issues (SSI) (DeCoito & Fazio, 2017 ), (2) developing digital video games (DVGs) (DeCoito & Briona, 2020 ; Estaiteyeh & DeCoito, 2023 ), and (3) creating digital curriculum resources websites (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022 ).

TCs were requested to explicitly address DI in their coursework. Assignment rubrics included effective integration of DI as one of the success criteria. The instructor and researcher provided feedback on TCs’ work on a regular basis by recommending how to improve or maintain certain aspects of their assignments. TCs were also engaged in constant reflections on their progress and hence advancing their knowledge and skills in DI implementation throughout the course. Moreover, TCs presented their work to their peers, and provided and received peer feedback.

Data Sources

The pre-survey, composed of five open-ended questions, was administered online on the first day of the course. This survey explored TCs’ views and prior preparation with respect to DI. The post-survey, administered online on the last day of the course, included 43 5-point Likert scale items (1 = strong disagreement to 5 = strong agreement) and four open-ended questions. It explored TCs’ understanding and implementation of DI in the course, and their evaluation of the effectiveness of the course with respect to DI.

The Likert scale items were adopted from surveys (Roy et al., 2013 ; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012 ) that were tested for content validity and reliability. Santangelo and Tomlinson’s ( 2012 ) survey addressed teacher educators’ perceptions and use of DI practices, whereas Roy et al.’s ( 2013 ) DI scale included items related to instructional adaptations and assessment strategies in DI. On the other hand, the open-ended questions in both the pre- and post-surveys were developed by the researcher based on the research questions, the course tasks, and the literature. In total, 19 consenting TCs completed the pre-survey and 17 of them completed the post-survey.

Semi-structured Interview

Two months after the course ended, TCs were invited to participate in a 1-hour semi-structured online interview to follow-up on their responses in the pre/post-surveys and their course work. The interview explored in greater depth certain elements of the survey and course work, such as details of how TCs understood and implemented DI, and/or how they would implement it in their future practices. This interview was used to clarify, detail, and increase the trustworthiness of the other data sources. In total, six TCs participated in the interview.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the surveys were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics were performed including calculating counts, averages, standard deviations, percentages, and differences between pre- and post-results. Additionally, inferential statistical tests were performed using SPSS. The Spearman correlation test was performed to explore the relationship between different ordinal variables, i.e., different 5-point Likert items (Connolly, 2007 ). On the other hand, qualitative data from open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using an inductive process for some questions and a deductive process for others (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). The inductive analysis builds patterns, categories, and themes by organizing the data into more abstract units of information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). Participants’ responses were inputted into NVivo 12 where initial codes were developed using word clouds based on the frequency of words in TCs’ responses. Subsequently, the codes were grouped into themes, finalized, and interpreted to draw conclusions (Gall et al., 2005 ). Thematic coding (Stake, 2020 ) was performed to provide an in-depth analysis of the responses of all participants, which was used later to calculate the frequency of responses in relation to each theme. This inductive process was used to analyze responses related to TCs’ prior preparation and challenges encountered. On the other hand, responses related to how TCs implemented DI were analyzed deductively according to the CPP-RIP framework explained earlier.

Results and Discussion

Tcs’ prior preparation.

Participants were asked about two specific documents to understand TCs’ prior exposure to important policy publications about EDI and DI issued by the Ministry of Education in Ontario. One out of 19 TCs indicated that they had read the Education Equity Plan ( 2017 ), while three out of 19 TCs indicated reading the Differentiated Instruction handbook (EduGains, 2010 ) and/or its accompanying online resources.

Furthermore, to explore TCs’ readiness and prior preparation, they were asked in the pre-survey to reflect on any PD they have had that would assist them to teach through an EDI lens in their classes and to evaluate the effectiveness of these PD opportunities. Out of 15 respondents, eight TCs stated specific coursework that included EDI-related topics such as Indigenous education, special and inclusive education, or/and STEM methods course in year 1 of the program. Five TCs noted that their year-1 practicum experience helped them explore EDI principles and applications. On the other hand, three TCs mentioned specific PD workshops related to the topic. Concerning the effectiveness of the above opportunities in helping them teach through an EDI lens in the future, ten TCs responded, with six of them agreeing that these opportunities were effective and four stating they were not. Out of the six TCs who indicated their experiences were effective, four mentioned the practicum to be specifically helpful. This finding highlights that TCs’ exploration of the concepts of EDI and DI mostly happens in a practical way in their practicum rather than in their courses or through additional PD. On the other hand, the four TCs who said that their experiences were not effective in helping them teach through an EDI lens pointed out that what they learned was irrelevant to their specific classes:

The strategies I learned for differentiated instruction were largely inapplicable to my most recent practicum, or at least I was ill-prepared for translating them to an online environment. (Gabe, Pre-survey) It would be more effective to see them (the strategies) in action in real life. (Jan, Pre-survey) The reasons for this (ineffectiveness) were the “busy work” associated with the special education course and the emphasis on elementary education. I am a high school teacher candidate. (Roy, Pre-survey)

Teacher candidates' responses on the interview at the end of the study corroborated these pre-survey findings. All six interviewees stated that they had experienced a form of DI in their coursework and/or teaching prior to the STEM curriculum and pedagogy course. Five of them mentioned taking courses related to DI (two of which mentioned special education courses), while four TCs said they had experienced DI in their practicum. Yet, five of the interviewees indicated that this exposure to DI was not quite effective. For instance, Roy said:

Before, I had the first practicum experience. And I did not add actually as much differentiated instruction. I had some that I implemented being like, just introductions of like videos for English language learner students, in addition to other course content but that was mainly guided by my associate teacher rather than it was my own. Some of the courses touched on it. We had a course on special education, touch on differentiation... We also had an Indigenous education course which touched on it briefly, although like in all of them it’s not super super in depth I believe in the ways you do it, it’s more just, we learned like what it is, to look at how we could apply it… (Roy, Interview)

These findings illustrate that TCs had varying levels of exposure to DI principles in some of their courses and their practicum experiences. Yet, the effectiveness of these opportunities is debatable. As argued by some TCs, the previous courses did not provide STEM-specific and high school–specific skills. Moreover, the emphasis on DI in mostly special education courses reinforces teachers’ misconception that implementing inclusive practices such as DI is only for students with exceptionalities (DiPirro, 2017 ; Whitley et al., 2019 ). This notion defeats the goal of integrating DI under all circumstances. On the other hand, practicum experiences, referred to by the majority of TCs, are related to the environment of specific schools and the efforts of specific mentoring teachers, and hence are not consistent among all TCs. Finally, most TCs have not read the Ministry published documents which suggests that programs need to work on this aspect as the documents are designed for the context of Ontario schools. The lack of engagement of TCs with the documents also reflects a gap between policy and practice. Overall, the preparation of TCs for DI requires improvement so that they consistently acquire specific knowledge and skills that enable them to utilize DI principles and strategies in teaching STEM subjects in Ontario classrooms.

These results also reiterate to a certain extent D’Intino and Wang’s ( 2021 ) findings from the theoretical analysis of the coursework offered in Canadian universities, indicating that the current coursework is not sufficient to prepare TCs for DI. Findings also corroborate Massouti’s ( 2019 , 2021 ), Rezai-Rashti and Solomon’s ( 2008 ), and Specht et al.’s ( 2016 ) conclusions related to the need for enhancing TCs’ preparation focusing on EDI practices in teacher education programs in Canada. Moreover, the fact that the majority of TCs were referring to DI based on their practicum experience highlights the importance of practical fieldwork and calls for further coherence between coursework and the practicum (Dack, 2019 ; Massouti, 2019 ).

TCs’ Reflection on their DI Implementation

In the post-survey, TCs reflected on their implementation of DI in the course tasks. Figure  2 shows the percentages of TCs who agreed or disagreed with various statements regarding their DI implementation. Most TCs agreed that their DI implementation was extensive (13 out of 17 TCs). The vast majority of the TCs indicated that they (1) differentiated the content (15 out of 17 TCs) by offering choices, extending the knowledge of advanced learners, providing support to students with difficulty, presenting the content at varying levels of complexity, reflecting students’ interests, eliminating curricular material for some students, and adjusting the pacing of instruction; (2) differentiated the process (15 out of 17 TCs) by offering multiple modes of learning, varying the instructional strategies, using flexible grouping, using independent study, and using interest centers; and (3) differentiated the product (16 out of 17 TCs) by varying the types of assessments, providing students with choices to express their understanding, providing tiered assignments, and utilizing rubrics that match varied ability levels.

TCs’ post-survey responses on DI implementation in the course ( n  = 17)

Most TCs agreed that they allow students to play a role in designing/selecting their learning activities (14 out of 17 TCs) and assessing their own learning (13 out of 17 TCs). The majority of TCs agreed that they use diagnostic assessment (14 out of 17 TCs), formative assessment (16 out of 17 TCs), and summative assessment (16 out of 17 TCs); and that these assessments inform subsequent teaching (all 17 TCs). Fifteen out of 17 TCs stated that they evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching adjustments, while 14 of them stated that they evaluate students based on their improvement and growth during the semester with respect to their initial academic levels. Finally, on the use of technology, 16 out of 17 TCs stated that they use technology as a tool for DI, and 14 out of 17 TCs stated that they use technology for assessment in DI specifically. Overall, the results show high levels of TCs’ implementation of DI in all aspects. This finding highlights the positive impact of the course on TCs' pedagogical skills related to DI, and hence an adequate preparation of teachers to implement EDI principles in their future classes. These findings parallel the literature on the importance and positive impact of teacher training on DI understanding and implementation for both pre-service and in-service teachers (Dixon et al., 2014 ; Goodnough, 2010 ; Nicolae, 2014 ; Pincince, 2016 ).

To investigate further, results of the Spearman correlation test indicate the relationship between TCs’ level of DI understanding and their implementation in the course work. For example, the post-survey results indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the content and their implementation of at least three methods of content differentiation in their course work (rs = 0.62, p  = 0.009). Additionally, results of the Spearman correlation indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the process and their implementation of at least three methods to differentiate the process in their course work (rs = 0.69, p  = 0.002). Similarly, results of the Spearman correlation indicate a significant positive correlation between TCs’ familiarity with at least three methods to differentiate the product and their implementation of at least three methods to differentiate the product in their course work (rs = 0.72, p  = 0.001). These findings reiterate the positive correlation between TCs’ understanding of DI and its implementation (DiPirro, 2017 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Whitley et al., 2019 ).

TCs’ Incorporation of DI Strategies in Their Coursework

Teacher candidates described in the interview how they differentiated instruction in their course work. TCs elaborated on how they differentiated the content, the process, and the product. TCs also discussed how they attended to EDI aspects especially respecting diverse cultural backgrounds, genders, and non-Western views. Furthermore, in the post-survey TCs indicated which assignment(s) in the course was/were the most relevant for differentiating instruction—nine out of 13 TCs selected the curriculum resources websites, four TCs stated the case studies, and two specified the DVGs. One TC, Erin, said it was all three assignments:

Every lesson and assignment created is relevant to differentiate instruction. I achieved through offering choices, extending knowledge of advanced learners, providing supplemental support, reflecting student’s interests, etc. (Interview)

Teacher candidates described their ability to develop resources that are inclusive of DI strategies and reflected positively on the various tasks:

Case Studies

In the first assignment, TCs developed curriculum by creating case studies of SSI (Fig.  3 ). TCs demonstrated proficient integration of DI principles, with TCs differentiating the process most, followed by the product of learning yet showing a need for more training in content differentiation in order to attend to students’ needs, backgrounds, and academic levels.

Sample cover page of a case study about hydroelectricity

In the interview, TCs explained how they developed case studies, taking different perspectives on the SSI into consideration, how they prepared materials with varied difficulty and readability levels, and how their lesson plans included multimodal teaching strategies. TCs said:

I made sure to incorporate lots of different levels of readings for my students so if I was assigning an article, I made sure that I checked out what reading level that article was and gave different levels and different options. And I also included a lot of different perspectives. And, like, we looked at issues on different scales so not just local, but also on a global scale. So, that was good! (Erin, Interview) We tried to do it (the case study) through different modes of learning and assessment. We used like a forum, kind of setting for our assessment where students would talk to each other, and they’d like exchange ideas. Specifically, always tried to use different methods of teaching, not just like direct instruction but also a collaborative group work, think pair share, stuff just different ways for students to augment their understanding. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of case studies for differentiating instruction, TCs said:

The case study was the most relevant to me for differentiated instruction. The various ways to conduct research (KWL, Cornell framework, consequence map, etc.) are all useful tools that can benefit different learners and providing students with these resources can assist them in conducting research in ways that work for them. (Gabe, Post-survey) I believe the case study assignment was the most relevant to differentiate instruction. We did this through offering multiple ways for students to engage with the content and complete their assignments. (Roy, Post-survey)

Digital Video Games (DVGs)

TCs developed DVGs with a simultaneous focus on DI and technology-enriched resources (Fig. 4 ). In differentiating the content, DVGs included increasing levels of difficulty highlighting scaffolding and varied pacing based on students’ readiness levels. In terms of process differentiation, the DVGs included multimodal representations; yet they are to be combined with other teaching strategies to ensure adequate differentiation. In terms of product differentiation, DVGs offered the room for diagnostic assessment before the game commences through guided questions as well as formative assessments and feedback throughout the levels. Additionally, the DVG offered space to represent various students’ backgrounds, genders, and physical abilities through avatars incorporated in the game.

Sample DVG focusing on physics concepts—projectile movement

In the interviews, TCs explained how their DVGs were culturally relevant, and how their avatars were inclusive in nature. Moreover, they explained how the levels included in the game were suitable for addressing students’ varying academic achievement levels. TCs said:

I had concepts outlined in different ways and had students use the visual stimulus from the pictures on the periodic table. But not just differentiated instruction, I also had diversity and equity through descriptions of elements in the periodic table. I had the related cultural backgrounds in there. (Roy, Interview) I incorporated like a more universal approach by giving students the options to like to choose their avatars, and the gender of their avatar. (Erin, Interview) There are different settings for video game for different capabilities of students depending on where their levels were. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of DVGs, Robert said:

DVG (was the most relevant to DI due to its) differing levels of difficulty. (Post-survey)

Curriculum Resources Websites

In the curriculum resources’ websites (Fig.  5 ), TCs showed adequate to high inclusion of DI principles and strategies utilizing a wide array of creative tools. TCs’ work demonstrate that they were able to prepare lessons and compile numerous resources while integrating a DI framework. TCs addressed common student misconceptions, acknowledged students’ prior knowledge, utilized a wide variety of multimodal teaching strategies, and included various forms of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment methods. TCs addressed student differences in academic achievement levels, interests, cultural backgrounds, SES, linguistic abilities, and special needs. TCs were also capable of linking their science topics to equity matters and social justice issues by highlighting real-life-related scenarios. In agreement with the analysis of their course work, the majority of TCs stated in the post-survey that the curriculum resources’ website assignment was the most relevant to differentiate instruction when compared to other assignments.

Sample of a STEM curriculum website content page

TCs explained in the interviews how they created new digital resources and amalgamated available materials, while taking DI into consideration. Their resources are multimodal, reflect students’ cultural diversity, cater for different academic and linguistic levels, and integrate technology effectively. TCs said:

I just included research from different countries, so we’re not just focusing on North America, but we also talked about research focusing on Asia and also focusing on Europe. I also included resources where females are talking about their experiences in STEM or their experience in the field. For the lesson plans, students research about different cultures and countries in term of medicine, technology… I tried to reflect just not just the North American view. (Pam, Interview) For those resources, I just made sure like I had good lots of options to my students like I incorporated something called a RAFT project so students could choose the role and the audience, and the format, that kind of thing for all their assignments that they were submitting, And I also made sure that I was delivering the content in different ways. So, like I said before I was making sure I just had a PowerPoint but, in this case, I had different ways to show the learning through like live demos or incorporating technology like Ozobot. So, they had multiple ways to join the classroom learning. (Erin, Interview) I did like a whole bunch of assessments that were differentiated, not just tests but also interesting assignments so fairly open ended that allowed students to showcase how they learned in a way that was comfortable for them, and also teaching in ways that weren’t just the direct instruction with using videos and demonstrations and group activities. (Michael, Interview)

On the relevance of the STEM curriculum websites, TCs said:

The curriculum resource assignment was the most relevant. I made sure to include a variety of instructional modalities, teaching strategies, and active learning strategies in my lesson plans. I made sure to incorporate EDI into my lessons, accommodate for different learning styles, as well as providing visual support in lesson materials. (Holly, Post-survey) For me, it is the curriculum resource website. Because it integrates all the DI through the whole package, that is, initiatives, motivations, lesson plans, activities and assessments. (Nellie, Post-survey) Curriculum resource website- developing resources and lessons lends itself to differentiated instruction more easily than specific tasks. (Jim, Post-survey) Curriculum resources website- accumulating a variety of resources that can be used to achieve different goals and support UDL/DI in the classroom. (Elizabeth, Post-survey) Curriculum resources website- because we could create our own lesson plans incorporating differentiated instruction, there was more freedom than the other two projects. (Karen, Post-survey)

Challenges Faced by TCs: the Noted Progress

In the pre-survey, several themes emerged from TCs’ responses on perceived challenges that may hinder their DI implementation. Out of 17 TCs, eight mentioned time needed for preparation; seven mentioned challenges related to resources; seven mentioned admin-related reasons such as support, funding, class size, and PD; five mentioned student factors such as engagement and interest or special needs; four TCs stated teacher knowledge or skills; three mentioned online teaching during the pandemic; and one mentioned curriculum mandates.

In the post-survey, TCs reflected on the challenges they faced while trying to implement DI in their course assignments. Two main themes emerged as challenges from eight TCs’ responses: (1) specific content knowledge or skills related to an assignment (mentioned by five TCs) and (2) unknown students in the case of course assignments or having too many differences to account for in one classroom (mentioned by four TCs). With respect to the specific content knowledge and specific task skills, TCs said:

Some topics lend themselves better to EDI principles whereas others are heavily rooted in science and minute processes (e.g., metabolic processes). (Meredith, Post-survey) It was very difficult to differentiate instruction within the DVG assignment, as it required a lot of external knowledge on how to do this effectively. (Roy, Post-survey) It was difficult in the DVG because we wanted to keep the game simple and still incorporate DI and EDI. (Karen, Post-survey)

Four TCs mentioned the challenge related to having too many differences to account for or in their case creating a course assignment for a hypothetical classroom where students are unknown. TCs said:

The challenge is to cater to everyone’s individual needs. Yes, there are things we can do to differentiate learning that benefits all students, but there will always be some students left unaccounted for, no matter what. (Erin, Post-survey) Difficult when you are not making it for a known group of students. You are unsure what to highlight and focus on for EDI. (Angela, Post-survey)

While the latter responses were written as a challenge, they actually represent a positive note. These statements reflect that TCs have shown appreciation and awareness of student differences, which is the core of DI principles. Finally, it is worth mentioning that in general the reported challenges are very specific in nature and are in contrast to those reported in the literature such as the lack of teachers’ knowledge or skills in DI, low teacher motivation, and lack of resources. The reported challenges are not profound so as to impact TCs’ implementation of DI.

Thus, when comparing TCs’ pre-course survey reflections about the expected challenges to those in the post-course survey, the previously emerging themes related to resource availability and TCs’ knowledge and skills implementing EDI strategies were not significant. The stated challenges at the end of the course revealed that resources and strategies provided in the course helped TCs surpass the perceived obstacle of preparing resources that reflect DI principles. This benefit is possibly due to the fact that TCs had gained practical experience creating such resources and advancing their pedagogical knowledge integrating DI strategies, which reiterates the effectiveness of the course in enhancing TCs’ DI conceptions and self-efficacy toward DI.

This research focuses on intermediate-senior STEM TCs’ teacher preparation emphasizing their implementation of DI in teacher education courses. TCs reflected on their improved ability to integrate DI practices in their STEM curriculum and pedagogy course assignments. This result highlights the positive impact of the course on their professional knowledge related to DI, and hence adequate preparation of teachers to implement DI in their future practices.

While some research studies show that novice teachers express less willingness to implement DI due to various challenges (Garrett, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ), the STEM course with DI-focused elements highlights the importance of PD opportunities aimed at enhancing TCs’ implementation of DI. The STEM curriculum and pedagogy course adopted an intensive and explicit reflective approach in teaching about several elements, as well as DI through rounds of discussion, feedback on TCs’ course work, and scaffolded course tasks to ensure advancement in TCs’ understanding and skill mastery. The adopted strategies were rooted in socio-cultural learning theories and based on communities of practice through resource and expertise sharing. These results call for adopting similar training approaches in other courses in teacher education programs to ensure that DI principles and strategies are deeply understood and proficiently practiced by TCs. This finding is in accordance with research highlighting the importance of DI-focused training in teacher education programs on TCs’ understanding (Dack, 2018 ; Goodnough, 2010 ) and implementation of DI (Adlam, 2007 ; Wan, 2017 ).

Teacher candidates' coursework showed that they were able to design lesson plans and curriculum resources that are differentiated in content, process, and product, with higher proficiency in differentiating the process specifically. These results are reflected in the literature indicating that the content and product differentiation are less understood by teachers compared to the process (Rollins, 2010 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ). It is important to note that the three assignments were helpful in different ways, which is also a scaffolding approach used by the TCs. TCs were trying different DI approaches in each assignment and choosing what was of particular relevance. For instance, the case studies enabled TCs to take diversity and different perspectives into consideration. DVGs are were of specific significance in differentiating the difficulty levels, scaffolding, and considering diversity and inclusion in race, gender, etc. On the other hand, the websites enabled TCs to apply all their acquired knowledge and skills about DI to create teaching and assessment resources. Both the wide variety and required depth of DI implementation in various course tasks ensured an adequate exposure of TCs to various forms of DI.

Finally, challenges encountered and anticipated by TCs are worth noting. When comparing TCs’ pre-course survey reflections about the expected challenges to those in the post-course survey, the previously identified themes related to resource availability and TCs’ knowledge and skills in implementing EDI strategies were not significant. In contrast to those reported in the literature such as the lack of teachers’ knowledge or skills in DI (Adlam, 2007 ), low teacher motivation (Garrett, 2017 ; Rollins, 2010 ; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ), and lack of resources (de Jager, 2017 ; Park & Datnow, 2017 ; Turner & Solis, 2017 ; Wan, 2017 ), the reported challenges do not reflect deep or profound obstacles that would impact TCs’ implementation of DI in the future. The stated challenges at the end of the course revealed that resources and strategies provided by the course helped TCs surpass the perceived obstacle of preparing resources that reflect DI principles.

Limitations

This study provides rich description of TCs’ DI implementation in the course from several data sources, thus ensuring data triangulation. Yet, the major limitation pertains to TCs’ implementation of DI in their practicum and future practices. Future research can further explore this aspect by observing TCs in their practicum to provide them with feedback and attain a more comprehensive understanding of their practices and DI implementation. Moreover, one of the major challenges encountered in this study was the COVID-19 pandemic which led to the 12-week course being offered online. This shift required all course activities to be conducted online, which may have affected TCs in terms of face-to-face collaborations and social engagement as they researched and developed assignments. Additionally, in general, the pandemic added a huge burden on TCs and can thus be perceived as a stressor that may have affected the quality of work that TCs produced. Finally, the unique nature of the STEM curriculum and pedagogy course, offered to specific TCs who are enrolled in the STEM specialty, may affect the extent to which one can generalize from the findings presented in this study.

Implications

This research addresses the most pressing challenges that hinder DI implementation as reported by teachers, such as availability of resources (Adlam, 2007 ; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Paone, 2017 ), required time for lesson planning (Adlam, 2007 ; Brevik et al., 2018 ; Paone, 2017 ), and ability to plan for DI (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021 ; Kendrick-Weikle, 2015 ; Rollins, 2010 ). Thus, the course has addressed an important need for training TCs to enhance their understanding and implementation of DI (Casey & Gable, 2012 ; Rollins, 2010 ). One major challenge that warrants further research is training in-service teachers and TCs on differentiating instruction in online environments, given online teaching is gaining traction post-COVID-19 pandemic.

This research informs teacher educators and curriculum designers about practical measures to include DI practices in teacher education courses. This implication is timely as most teacher education programs are currently striving to integrate equitable and inclusive pedagogies in their curriculum and overall planning. The study shows that EDI practices such as DI must and can be woven into all requirements of teacher education programs, rather than restricting those principles to inclusive education or special education courses only. The study also informs heads of departments, policy makers, and school administrators about the successes and challenges of similar PD initiatives, in the hopes that more of these PD programs are implemented with in-service teachers to revitalize their teaching practices.

Data Availability

Declarations.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This research has acquired ethical approval from Western University Non-Medical Research Ethics Board (Project ID: 114831).

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (10), 1057–1095. 10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
• Adlam, E. (2007). Differentiated instruction in the elementary school: Investigating the knowledge elementary teachers posses when implementing differentiated instruction in their classrooms [PhD Thesis]. University of Windsor.
• Beasley JG, Beck DE. Defining differentiation in cyber schools: What online teachers say. TechTrends. 2017; 61 (6):550–559. doi: 10.1007/s11528-017-0189-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birnie BF. A teacher’s guide to successful classroom management and differentiated instruction. Rowman & Littlefield; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackburn, B. R. (2018). Rigor and differentiation in the classroom: Tools and strategies (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351185912
• Brantley-Dias L, Puvirajah A, Dias M. Supporting teacher candidates’ multidimensional reflection: A model and a protocol. Reflective Practice. 2021; 22 (2):187–202. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2020.1865904. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brevik LM, Gunnulfsen AE, Renzulli JS. Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 71 :34–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell C. Educational equity in Canada: The case of Ontario’s strategies and actions to advance excellence and equity for students. School Leadership & Management. 2021; 41 (4–5):409–428. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1709165. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casey, M. K., & Gable, R. K. (2012). Perceived efficacy of beginning teachers to differentiate instruction. 44th Annual Meeting of the New England Educational Research Association . http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/teacher_ed/7
• Chamberlin M, Powers R. The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications. 2010; 29 (3):113–139. doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrq006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, P. (2007). Quantitative data analysis in education: A critical introduction using SPSS . Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Dack H. Structuring teacher candidate learning about differentiated instruction through coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 69 :62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dack H. The role of teacher preparation program coherence in supporting candidate appropriation of the pedagogical tools of differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019; 78 :125–140. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Jager T. Perspectives of teachers on differentiated teaching in multi-cultural South African secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2017; 53 :115–121. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Jesus, O. N. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Can differentiated instruction provide success for all learners? National Teacher Education Journal , 5 (3).
• DeCoito, I. (in press). STEMifying teacher education – A Canadian context. In A. M. Al-Balushi, L. Martin-Hansen, & Y. Song (Eds.), Reforming science teacher education programs in the STEM era: International practices . Springer.
• DeCoito I, Briona LK. Navigating theory and practice: Digital video games (DVGs) in STEM education. In: Akerson VL, Buck GA, editors. Critical Questions in STEM Education. Springer; 2020. pp. 85–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022, May). Addressing STEM teachers’ challenges in online teaching by enhancing their TPACK and creating digital resources . Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Conference, Virtual.
• DeCoito, I., & Fazio, X. (2017). Developing case studies in teacher education: Spotlighting socio-scientific issues. Innovations in Science Teacher Education , 2 (1).
• D’Intino, J. S., & Wang, L. (2021). Differentiated instruction: A review of teacher education practices for Canadian pre-service elementary school teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching , 1–14. 10.1080/02607476.2021.1951603
• DiPirro, J. (2017). Implementation of differentiated instruction: An analysis [PhD Thesis]. Rivier University.
• Dixon FA, Yssel N, McConnell JM, Hardin T. Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 2014; 37 (2):111–127. doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• EduGains. (2010). Student success: Differentiated instruction educator’s package . http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesDI/EducatorsPackages/DIEducatorsPackage2010/2010EducatorsGuide.pdf
• Egbo, B. (2012). What should preservice teachers know about race and diversity? Exploring a critical knowledge-base for teaching in 21st century Canadian classrooms. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education , 6 (2). 10.20355/C5C30R
• Estaiteyeh, M., & DeCoito, I. (2023). Differentiated instruction in digital video games: STEM teacher candidates using technology to meet learners’ needs. Interactive Learning Environments . 10.1080/10494820.2023.2190360
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second-language education: A framework for TESOL professionals . Routledge.
• Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide (5th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
• Garrett, S. (2017). A comparative study between teachers’ self-efficacy of differentiated instruction and frequency differentiated instruction is implemented [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.
• Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
• George PS. A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice. 2005; 44 (3):185–193. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4403_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodnough K. Investigating pre-service science teachers’ developing professional knowledge through the lens of differentiated instruction. Research in Science Education. 2010; 40 (2):239–265. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9120-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., & Vantieghem, W. (2021). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices about two inclusive frameworks: Universal design for learning and differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education , 107 , 103503. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103503
• Guay F, Roy A, Valois P. Teacher structure as a predictor of students’ perceived competence and autonomous motivation: The moderating role of differentiated instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 87 (2):224–240. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12146. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubball H, Collins J, Pratt D. Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications for faculty development programs. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2005; 35 (3):57–81. doi: 10.47678/cjhe.v35i3.183514. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamarulzaman MH, Azman H, Zahidi AM. Research trend in the practice of differentiated instruction. The Journal of Social Sciences Research. 2018; 4 (12):648–668. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendrick-Weikle, K. (2015). Illinois high school teachers’ understanding and use of differentiated instruction . Western Illinois University.
• Kizas A. Differentiated instruction and student engagement: Effective strategies for teaching combined-grade classes at the secondary level. Canadian Music Educator. 2016; 57 (2):33–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladson-Billings G. Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal. 1995; 32 (3):465–491. doi: 10.2307/1163320. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review , 84 (1), 74–84. 10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
• Levy HM. Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House. 2008; 81 (4):161–164. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madkins TC, Morton K. Disrupting anti-blackness with young learners in STEM: Strategies for elementary science and mathematics teacher education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 2021; 21 (2):239–256. doi: 10.1007/s42330-021-00159-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maeng J. Using technology to facilitate differentiated high school science instruction. Research in Science Education. 2017; 47 (5):1075–1099. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9546-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malloy, J. (2019). Gaps are not closing. We need to make a bold move. School Administrator , 76 (1), 40–42.
• Manavathu M, Zhou G. The impact of differentiated instructional materials on English language learner (ELL) students’ comprehension of science laboratory tasks. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 2012; 12 (4):334–349. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2012.732255. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Massouti, A. (2019). Inclusion and policy enactment in teacher education: A focus on pre-service teacher preparation for the inclusive classroom [PhD Thesis]. The University of Western Ontario.
• Massouti A. Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on their preparation for inclusive teaching: Implications for organizational change in teacher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2021; 12 (1):n1. doi: 10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2021.1.10611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGhie-Richmond D, Underwood K, Jordan A. Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada. 2007; 17 (1):27–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell, L., & Hobson, B. (2005). One size does not fit all: Differentiation in the elementary grades . Beaverton School District Summer Institute, Beaverton, OR.
• Moldoveanu, M., Grenier, N., & Marca-Vadan, L. (2016). Professional profile of primary teachers in disadvantaged and Indigenous communities who use differentiated practices . 7302–7302. 10.21125/edulearn.2016.0593
• Mujawamariya D, Hujaleh F, Lima-Kerckhoff A. A reexamination of Ontario’s science curriculum: Toward a more inclusive multicultural science education? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. 2014; 14 (3):269–283. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2014.874618. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niccum-Johnson, M. A. (2018). An investigation of the consistency of use of differentiated instruction in upper elementary classrooms [PhD Thesis]. McKendree University.
• Nicolae M. Teachers’ beliefs as the differentiated instruction starting point: Research basis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 128 :426–431. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.182. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Ontario’s education equity action plan . https://files.ontario.ca/edu-1_0/edu-Ontario-Education-Equity-Action-Plan-en-2021-08-04.pdf
• Paone, N. A. (2017). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction: A case study [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.
• Paré, M., & Prud’homme, L. (Eds.). (2014). La différenciation dans une perspective inclusive: Intégrer les connaissances issues de la recherche pour favoriser la progression des élèves dans un groupe hétérogène. Revue suisse de pédagogie spécialisée . https://edudoc.ch/record/113215?ln=de
• Park V, Datnow A. Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education. 2017; 123 (2):281–306. doi: 10.1086/689930. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pincince, D. L. (2016). Participation in professional development and its role in the implementation of differentiated instruction in the middle school . Northeastern University.
• Pollard, A., & Tann, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the primary school: A handbook for the classroom . Cassell London.
• Prud’Homme, L. (2007). La différenciation pédagogique: Analyse du sens construit par des enseignantes et un chercheur-formateur dans un contexte de recherche-action-formation . Université du Québec à Montréal.
• Rezai-Rashti, G., Segeren, A., & Martino, W. (2015). Race and racial justice in Ontario education: Neoliberalism and strategies of racial invisibility. In Building democracy through education on diversity (pp. 141–158). Brill Sense.
• Rezai-Rashti G, Segeren A, Martino W. The new articulation of equity education in neoliberal times: The changing conception of social justice in Ontario. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2017; 15 (2):160–174. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2016.1169514. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rezai-Rashti, G., & Solomon, P. (2008). Teacher candidates’ racial identity formation and the possibilities of antiracism in teacher education. In Comparative and global pedagogies: Equity, access and democracy in education (Vol. 2, pp. 167–188). Springer.
• Robinson, Q. E. (2017). Perceptions and adoption of differentiated instruction by elementary teachers [PhD Thesis]. Capella University.
• Rollins, R. (2010). Assessing the understanding and use of differentiated instruction: A comparison of novice and experienced technology education teachers . North Carolina State University.
• Roy A, Guay F, Valois P. Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2013; 17 (11):1186–1204. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2012.743604. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santangelo T, Tomlinson CA. Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education. 2012; 34 (4):309–327. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2012.717032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Specht J, McGhie-Richmond D, Loreman T, Mirenda P, Bennett S, Gallagher T, Young G, Metsala J, Aylward L, Katz J, Lyons W, Thompson S, Cloutier S. Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2016; 20 (1):1–15. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. (2020). Case studies. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Sage.
• Statistics Canada. (2017). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025b-eng.pdf?st=qmWvzclz
• Statistics Canada. (2022). Immigrants make up the largest share of the population in over 150 years and continue to shape who we are as Canadians . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm
• Suprayogi MN, Valcke M, Godwin R. Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017; 67 :291–301. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, S. L. (2018). Educating 21st century learners: A phenomenological study of middle school teachers’ understanding and use of differentiated instruction [PhD Thesis]. Northcentral University.
• Tobin, R. (2007). Differentiating in the language arts: Flexible options to support all students. Canadian Children , 32 (2).
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (1st ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Tomlinson CA, Brighton C, Hertberg H, Callahan CM, Moon TR, Brimijoin K, Conover LA, Reynolds T. 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. 2003; 27 (2–3):119–145. doi: 10.1177/016235320302700203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom . ASCD.
• Turner WD, Solis OJ. The misnomers of differentiating instruction in large classes. Journal of Effective Teaching. 2017; 17 (3):64–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valiandes S, Tarman B. Differentiated teaching and constructive learning approach by the implementation of ICT in mixed ability classrooms. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education Faculty (KEFAD) 2011; 12 :169–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Geel M, Keuning T, Frèrejean J, Dolmans D, van Merriënboer J, Visscher AJ. Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2019; 30 (1):51–67. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wan SW-Y. Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching. 2016; 22 (2):148–176. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wan SW-Y. Differentiated instruction: Are Hong Kong in-service teachers ready? Teachers and Teaching. 2017; 23 (3):284–311. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1204289. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watts-Taffe S, (Barbara) Laster, B. P., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading Teacher. 2012; 66 (4):303–314. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01126. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wertheim C, Leyser Y. Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research. 2002; 96 (1):54–63. doi: 10.1080/00220670209598791. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley J, Gooderham S, Duquette C, Orders S, Cousins JB. Implementing differentiated instruction: A mixed-methods exploration of teacher beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching. 2019; 25 (8):1043–1061. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2019.1699782. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis S, Mann L. Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet individual needs. Curriculum Update. 2000; 4 :1–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Ontario.ca needs JavaScript to function properly and provide you with a fast, stable experience.

To have a better experience, you need to:

• Go to your browser's settings
• Enable JavaScript

Ministry of Education

Delivering early years, child care and publicly funded education from kindergarten to Grade 12.

For parents

Information about what students learn , fees, fundraising and school funding plus ways to get involved in your child’s education and resources in many languages .

For teachers

Information on professional development and teaching tools.

For school boards

Information on education funding grants , collective agreements and other resources.

Early years and child care

• Find a child care
• Child care subsidies
• Make a child care complaint
• Search for unlicensed child care violations
• Find an EarlyON child and family centre
• Information for child care providers

Elementary and secondary school

• Find a school
• School year calendar
• Kindergarten
• Student assessment and report cards
• Online learning
• Special education
• Safe and accepting schools
• Helping to create healthy schools
• French in English-Language schools
• Indigenous education
• Develop policy and programs to support child care and early years programs for children and families.
• Make sure child care settings are safe and follow the law by funding, licensing and inspecting licensed child care providers.
• Fund and provide guidelines for the delivery of core services at EarlyON child and family centres.
• Fund and oversee publicly funded elementary and secondary school education.
• Develop and publish curriculum documents and teaching resources for kindergarten to Grade 12.
• Set provincial standards and guidelines for all assessment, evaluation and reporting for all students who attend public or private schools in Ontario.
• Oversee and set policies for the Education Quality and Accountability Office ( EQAO ), which administers provincial assessments to help improve student learning in reading, writing and math.
• Set requirements for student diplomas and certificates.
• Provide funding to build new schools and expand, retrofit or repair existing schools.
• Operate schools for blind, deaf and deafblind students.
• Register and inspect private schools that offer credits toward an Ontario Secondary School Diploma ( OSSD ).
• Contact form
• Tel : 416-325-2929
• Toll-free: 1-800-387-5514
• Toll-free TTY : 1-800-268-7095

Ministry of Education 315 Front Street West, 14 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 0B8

• Employee directory

Minister, media and news

• Contact the Minister
• Media contacts
• Ministry news

Agencies, boards and commissions

The ministry is affiliated with the following independent agencies:

Advisory Council on Special Education

Education Quality and Accountability Office

Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario

Provincial and Demonstration Schools Branch

TFO (Ontario French-Language Educational Communications Authority)

TVO (Ontario Educational Communications Authority)

Legislation

The ministry administers the following legislation:

Child Care and Early Years Act

Early Childhood Educators Act

Education Act

Education Quality and Accountability Office Act

Ministry of Community and Social Services Act

Ontario College of Teachers Act

Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act

Ontario French-language Educational Communications Authority Act

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Repeal Act

Ontario School Trustees’ Council Act

Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Transferred Employees Act

Provincial Schools Authority Act

Ryan’s Law (Ensuring Asthma Friendly Schools)

Sabrina’s Law

School Boards Collective Bargaining Act

School Trust Conveyances Act

Teachers’ Pension Act

Teaching Profession Act

Because differences are our greatest strength

What is differentiated instruction?

By Geri Coleman Tucker

Expert reviewed by Kylah Torre

At a glance

Differentiated instruction is a teaching approach that tailors instruction to students’ different learning needs.

It lets students show what they know in different ways.

It doesn’t replace the goals in a child’s IEP or 504 plan.

Differentiated instruction is a teaching approach that tailors instruction to all students’ learning needs. All the students have the same learning goal. But the instruction varies based on students’ interests, preferences, strengths, and struggles.

Instead of teaching the whole group in one way (like a lecture), a teacher uses a bunch of different methods. This can include teaching students in small groups or in one-on-one sessions. 

Students have “multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn,” says Carol Ann Tomlinson, an educator who has done innovative work in this area .

According to Tomlinson, there are four areas where teachers can differentiate instruction:

Content: Figuring out what a student needs to learn and which resources will help

Process: Activities that help students make sense of what they learn

Projects: Ways for students to “show what they know”

Learning environment: How the classroom “feels” and how the class works together

This approach works well with the response to intervention (RTI) process used in some schools. The goal of RTI is to address learning struggles early. Students get extra support before they fall behind their peers.

Dive deeper

How differentiated instruction works.

Differentiated instruction can play out differently from one classroom to the next — and from one school to the next. But there are a few key features:

Small work groups: The students in each group rotate in and out. This gives them a chance to participate in many different groups. A group can include a pair of students or a larger group. In all cases, it’s an opportunity for students to learn from each other.

Reciprocal learning: Sometimes students become teachers, sharing what they’ve learned and asking classmates questions.

Continual assessment: Teachers regularly monitor students’ strengths and weaknesses (in both formal and informal ways) to make sure they’re progressing in their knowledge and mastery of schoolwork.

Educators, learn more about how to use flexible grouping with small groups.

Differentiated instruction and special education

A teacher uses differentiated instruction to give every student multiple paths to learning. That includes students with Individualized Education Programs ( IEP ) or 504 plan . 

Differentiated instruction doesn’t replace the goals in an IEP or a 504 plan. Instead, the teacher personalizes teaching to help kids meet those goals.

Learn more about setting annual IEP goals .

How it compares to other approaches

Differentiated instruction is not the same as individualized instruction. That type of teaching changes the pace of how students learn. It also requires an individual approach for each student, which isn’t the case with differentiation.

Differentiated instruction is also different from personalized learning. With personalized learning, students have their own learning profiles and paths to follow.

Find out more about personalized learning and the difference between individualized instruction and differentiated instruction .

What to watch out for

Critics say differentiated instruction doesn’t work in every classroom. If there are too many students in a class, or if the teacher isn’t experienced with the approach, the classroom can get distracting and chaotic. It can also be time-consuming for teachers.

Other critics say that differentiated instruction is a reaction to students’ needs. They say educators should use Universal Design for Learning to proactively create an environment that suits all students’ needs.

Discover more about Universal Design for Learning . 

Explore related topics

• Our Mission

Differentiated Instruction Allows Students to Succeed

One of the hardest things for a teacher to do is to treat students differently. It goes against our very nature. We are programmed to treat each child the same as we would treat any other child. No child deserves special privilege, nor does any child deserve less attention -- regardless of race, gender or academic ability.

It grates on our nerves when that know-it-all student who always sits in the front row always demands time to show off. It frustrates us to no end when the student in the back of the class makes rude noises and refuses to stay on task.

Making Decisions

Which students miss out most? It is the student in the middle who doesn't cause problems, who obeys, conforms, and never demands attention. We rarely give her the time of day in our race to take care of the extremes.

I had one of those students in my classroom. He was in my intermediate Spanish class and always sat in the middle. He never said a lot, and he did his work quietly. He wasn't the best in the classroom, and he wasn't the worst. I remember that he did struggle with rolling his rs. One day, he didn't come to class, and we got word that he had committed suicide. Not that I could have done anything to prevent this, but you always have the nagging doubt that perhaps you could have made a difference. In that moment, I vowed to never assume the quiet ones were OK.

Yet even with that, we are pressured to give the students with more needs more attention than those students who have less needs. The largest conflict about differentiated instruction boils up inside of us when we try to assign a grade to that differentiated instruction.

How can we justifiably give the students the same grade when the quality, quantity, or content of the performance is different? I have yet to read a truly compelling argument to answer that question. Most people mumble something about grades being a relative measure of student performance and designed for communication of progress only.

So, this is my attempt to make sense of this dilemma and perhaps calm a few nervous hearts in the process. In my prior post , I discussed the idea of intrinsic differentiation and the role of active learning and active teaching. Now, I want to discuss designed differentiation a bit.

Meeting Students Where They Are

Designed differentiation is the deliberate act of modifying instruction or an assignment in order to customize the effect to match the particular developmental level and skills of a student or group of students. The ideal is to provide equivalent learning activities that cater to the students' strengths but bring all of the students to the same learning objective. On one end of the spectrum is the one-size-fits-all learning activity, while on the other end is the completely individualized learning plan for each student. Although I believe it is time for the latter, realism demands that teachers deal with something that hovers around the middle of the continuum.

The best teachers throughout time have always found ways to reach individual students. Teachers today are no different. We have all sorts of designed differentiation strategies that help teachers offer variety and choice to students of different skills and needs. We can

• vary the length or quantity of the assignment.
• extend or curtail the duration of the assignment.
• change the language of the assignment.
• scaffold the learning activity from hard to medium to easy.
• compact the activity and teach only what they don't know.
• give them learning activities that let them perform the same learning objective with multiple mediums like summarizing a story they have read through narrative, drama, song, poetry, art, or design.

Allow for Do-Overs

There is also a strong movement of simply allowing students to work at their own pace through computer-aided instruction, or SRA -type curriculum. There is one more type of designed differentiation method I believe is underutilized -- the rough draft.

When a student is given a learning assignment to turn in, is it really a learning assignment if they have only one chance at meeting the mastery-level standard? Clearly identified standards of performance are necessary to make this work, but when a student submits a substandard piece of work, rather than assign a grade immediately, we can provide personalized, individual feedback to that student, which includes providing suggestions for improvement and giving it back to the student for revision.

Is there a limit to the number of times this can be done to help a student overcome a particular learning obstacle? Some students might be able to do it right the first time, while others need several revisions. This strategy is the ultimate in designed differentiation.

Typically, we see this kind of opportunity only in English and social studies classes. Why not math and science? After all, if the student eventually gets the concept, isn't that what counts? The thing I like about this approach is that no student is left out -- not even the quiet, no-problem kids.

What are your successes with designed differentiation? What are your challenges? Please share your thoughts.

Jump to navigation

•  FAQs 

Search form

Differentiated instruction.

Inclusive Education: Including all students in the regular class. Inclusive education’s foundation is based on the human right to quality education and social acceptance.

Multiple Intelligence (MI): The belief that IQ provides only a limited measure of intelligence and that a more accurate measure of the ability of children and adults needs to include a larger group of intelligences. Teaching and assessment in multiple intelligences includes linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist activities. MI is often addressed in differentiated instruction (DI).

Ontario Education Resource Bank: A password protected site for educators to find resources by grade, subject/course, strand, overall expectations, and/or keywords. Passwords are provided by school boards.

Scaffolding: New learning built on previous knowledge. This is an educational method that focuses on teacher support leading a self-sufficient student.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A term borrowed from architecture and applied to education that involves offering a variety of accommodations to all students, including those with special needs, in order to maximize on learning.

Teaching methods that focus on a variety of techniques to meet student learning needs by varying the content, process or products of the learning based on the learner’s readiness and interests.

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

100 Last-Day-of-School Activities Your Students Will Love!

Every product is independently selected by (obsessive) editors. Things you buy through our links may earn us a commission.

35+ Differentiated Instruction Strategies and Examples for K-12 Classrooms

Personalize the content, process, product, or learning environment.

As a teacher, you already know that every student in your classroom is different. They have their own personalities, their own likes and dislikes, and their own ways of learning best. Differentiated instruction strategies give every kid a chance to succeed by adapting the learning to fit their needs. Add these examples of differentiated instruction strategies to your teacher toolkit so you can use them all year long.

What is differentiated instruction?

Differentiated instruction means tailoring your teaching so all students engage with the curriculum in meaningful ways. The result is that all students learn.  Carol Ann Tomlinson  introduced the concept of differentiation in the 1990s and now it’s just part of teaching. Tomlinson identified four ways that teachers differentiate:

• Content: What is taught.
• Process: How it’s taught.
• Product: How students show what they have learned.
• Learning environment: The classroom and learning environment.

Tomlinson’s differentiation model created new ways for teachers to think about how they provide and shape opportunities for students to engage with content, from flexible seating to choice boards.

Learn more: What Is Differentiated Instruction?

Differentiated Instruction Strategies

Here are our favorite differentiation strategies to make the aspects of learning work for every student.

Strategies To Differentiate Content

Differentiating content means adjusting lessons and materials based on what students are ready for, and depending on students’ strengths and needs. This may mean providing support with vocabulary before students start writing, or helping students build background knowledge before heading into a history unit.

Give pre-assessments

Before you present a new topic, take a few minutes to find out what kids already know. Their responses might change what you decide to teach. If they already know all about area and perimeter of 2D shapes, for example, you may spend less time teaching 2D shapes and move on to 3D shapes.

Use leveled readers

Especially as students learn to read, providing students with books that have sound patterns and words they can read is an important differentiation strategy. As they get older and are reading to learn, provide students with texts that they are familiar with or that you are confident they can access with the reading skills they know. For older students who struggle with reading, using hi-lo books is a great way to give them the an engaging experience with text.

Read more: How to use leveled books with the Science of Reading .

Use vocabulary lists

When students are writing or working on projects, offer shorter or longer word lists depending on the students’ background knowledge. Vocabulary lists are a great way to build students’ vocabulary whether they’re learning English or excel in vocabulary.

Use our word lists for summer , winter , and seasonal events like Halloween and Valentine’s Day to start differentiating.

Pre-teach knowledge and vocabulary

Pre-teach the vocabulary and concepts that students need to know before they engage with a lesson. This could be math concepts (perimeter, area), history terms, or science vocabulary. This strategy is especially important for students who are learning English, and those who struggle with reading comprehension because of low vocabulary.

Get it: Vocabulary worksheets

Pre-teach a group of experts

Another way to pre-teach is to teach a small group of students. Then, rely on these students to be your “experts” during whole group learning. Use this strategy regularly, but switch up the student experts.

Use diverse content

Ensure your reading choices include diverse and multicultural characters, settings, and authors . Having diverse books allows students to connect with content, either by seeing themselves in text or by learning about others’ experience.

Learn more: What are windows, mirrors and sliding glass doors?

Strategies to differentiate process

When we differentiate process, we’re differentiating how students engage in the learning. The way we ask questions, how we teach students to collaborate, and how we organize the learning experience all impact how students learn.

Be strategic with questions

Create ways for students to answer more difficult questions as they learn more about a topic. That could mean that students engage with open-ended questions as they read more about a science event. Or, that students think through how a math concept applies to real world scenarios.

Implement a stoplight system

As students are working, it’s important to have a system to ensure they’re learning what you want them to. A stoplight system is an easy, nonverbal (read: quiet) way to check for understanding. Each student has three cups, one green, one yellow, and one red. The color of the cup corresponds with how they feel about what they’re learning. Green means they’re good to go, yellow means they’re struggling, and red means they’re stuck entirely. If you don’t have cups, try this with sticky notes, or folded desk tents.

Plan cooperative learning

Cooperative learning describes a strategy where students work together in small groups under supervision to accomplish a goal. Create groups based on student needs, and abilities. Once you know your students, you can put groups together quickly, and adjust them based on the activity and goal.

Teach color coding

Color coding can work in all sorts of classroom applications, including organization, routines, and organizing and highlighting content and notes. The idea is to help students use color coding to bring organization and focus as students are learning.

Learn more: Color-Coding in the Classroom

Assign must-dos and may-dos

Not all students need extra time; in fact, some finish everything up too quickly! That’s where the ability to provide enrichment activities comes in handy. For any lesson, be prepared with “must-do” and “may-do” activities. This helps kids prioritize the most important items and gives fast finishers meaningful work to do too.

Learn more: The Case for Must-Dos and May-Dos

Have students lead lessons

Assign students a topic or let them pick their own, then ask them each to become an expert and plan a lesson to share with the class. Encourage them to think of creative ways to share the information, planning interactive activities they themselves would like to do in the classroom. You’re bound to get a lot of new teaching strategies yourself!

Give real-life examples

Whenever possible, use real examples to show kids how a topic applies to real life. In math, money activities can be especially effective. In reading, connect assignments to topics that students are genuinely interested in. The more students see the connection to real life, the more engaged they’ll be.

Use graphic organizers

Graphic organizers are a way to organize information using a visual. There are standard graphic organizers, like a timeline or this free Venn diagram printable . Or, students can create their own graphic organizers to organize what they’re learning.

Learn more: Graphic Organizers and How To Use Them

Let students sketch

Give students the option of using sketchnotes to keep track of their thoughts and learning about a topic. Teach students the process and how to decide what to capture in their sketchnotes, then provide the option for students that love this type of note taking.

Learn more: Creative Ways To Use Sketchnotes in Your Classroom

This one is all about teacher patience. When you ask your class a question, don’t immediately call on the first person to raise their hand. Instead, wait a few more seconds, and call on someone whose hand came up a little later. This allows students who need more time to process a chance to get their ideas out too.

Listen to audiobooks

Unless reading itself is key to the topic you’re presenting, consider letting students listen to an audiobook instead. This lets them focus on the content, rather than just the words and sentences.

Learn more: Places Kids Can Listen to Free Audiobooks

Provide writing supports

If handwriting is a challenge, explore options like special pencil grips or try one of these easy hacks . When handwriting isn’t the learning goal, offer kids options like oral responses or typing instead.

Teach with manipulatives

These aren’t just for little kids! Make math manipulatives available to older students too. Having hands-on materials to work with, whether it’s counting out change or showing how many hundreds are in a thousand, manipulatives help make concepts more concrete.

Chunk and scaffold

Provide support for students by breaking down learning into manageable chunks and providing teaching opportunities that move students from one small skill to the next.

Learn more: Ways to scaffold instruction

Assign evens or odds

When giving homework assignments or practice worksheets, give students who need extra time the option to complete only the even or odd questions. This gives them effective practice but keeps them motivated.

Self-paced learning

Use computer programs to help students progress at their own pace. Of course, you’ll need to ensure students stay on task when they’re working independently. Also, remember that a computer program may only have the ability to explain things one way, so be ready to step in and give kids information in other ways when needed.

Many students learn best when their bodies are involved. Active math games, like fishing for numbers, stomping on a number line, or jumping to practice math facts, are great ways to practice learning with students’ whole bodies.

Learn more: Active math games

Think-Pair-Share

Before students share out in a whole group, have them turn to a partner and share their ideas. This way every student can share in a way that feels more comfortable. And, you know that every student has had a chance to participate whether they love sharing in the spotlight or not.

Learn more: Fun Alternatives to Think-Pair-Share to get students talking.

In a Jigsaw, students are divided into groups. Each group has a text to read and each student is assigned to become an expert on one portion of the text. This breaks a longer text into manageable chunks, and allows each student to become an expert. For students who require more support, assign the introduction or conclusion where information is typically more explicit.

Strategies To Differentiate Product

Differentiating product means letting students have voice and choice in how they present what they learned.

Choice boards

Choice boards are, well, boards, with a few different choices for showing what they know. Being allowed to pick and choose encourages kids to take responsibility for their choices. To make this work, determine what goals all students need to achieve. Then, let them come up with ways to demonstrate those goals, or give them a few options that appeal to different types of learners.

Learn more: How I Use Choice Boards To Increase Student Engagement

Book reports with choices

When all students have to read a book and need to report on what they read, differentiate the product with a multiple report options. Students can show what they learned through a skit, poster, presentation, and more .

Get it: Free Book Report Printable for Grades 3-5

Alternate assessments

Alternative assessments provide ways to differentiate in your classroom by giving students multiple ways to show what they know. For students who struggle with writing, consider a discussion instead (unless you’re specifically working on writing skills). Instead of a traditional book report, have students turn the story into their own graphic novel. Find ways to help students shine!

Learn more: Alternative Assessment Ideas

Make a game

Students in a high school business class create a game to show the role of Human Resource professionals in a company. We love this idea to turn content into a game! It challenges students to bring their creativity to explain concepts that, let’s face it, can be a bit dry.

Strategies To Differentiate the Learning Environment

A differentiated learning environment is one where every student has equal access to learning. It’s about routines and procedures, and how you set up and use the space every day.

Small groups

Small groups, either by skill level, interest, or randomly assigned, give students a way to learn together.

Learn more: Small Group Instruction Strategies and Tips for Success

Create different learning spaces

Allow students to choose how they sit (or sprawl) while they’re working. Use pillows, varied lighting, and different types of seating to create spaces for small group collaboration, quiet contemplation, reading, and project work. Provide noise canceling headphones, fidgets, or other tools to help them concentrate .

Learn more: Types of Learning Spaces to Include in Your Classroom

Hang anchor charts

Good news! Those anchor charts hanging all over your walls are a popular differentiation strategy. They give students a reference for important information, and allow them to access information after the lesson is over.

Learn more: Anchor Charts 101

Get a co-teacher

Just as students have different learning styles, teachers have different instructional styles as well. Use this to your advantage! You don’t necessarily need to co-teach full-time. Work as a team with your fellow teachers to learn what their styles are like, and consider switching things up from time to time by trading duties for certain lessons or subjects.

Learn more: Things Successful Co-Teachers Do

Start peer buddies

Pairing students of varying levels as buddies benefits all kids. Some schools pair those with disabilities with a buddy to help them as needed. Others pair older students with younger ones. Whatever you choose, plan your program carefully and monitor pairings to ensure they’re working out.

Flexible grouping

Instead of leaving students in the same-leveled reading groups at all times, mix up your groupings by interest, readiness, or learning styles.

Flexible seating

Provide different seating options for students. Wobble chairs, pillows, bean bags, and old fashioned desks and chairs allow students to choose how they work best.

Learn more: How to make a pool noodle sensory chair .

Center work allows kids to go at their own pace and work however they want, without feeling the need to keep up with others.

Check out the big list of K-2 literacy centers to get started.

Student surveys

An important way to improve your differentiation is by asking students. Surveying students in conversation or with a formal question-and-answer format, like our printable end-of-class survey, can help you reflect on which aspects of differentiation had the most impact on students and where you can add or adjust differentiation in the future.

Get it: End-of-class survey printable.

Differentiated Instruction Strategies Books

• How To Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (Tomlinson, 2017)
• Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly Classroom (Sousa/Tomlinson, 2018)
• How To Plan Differentiated Reading Instruction: Resources for Grades K-3 (Walpole/McKenna, 2017)
• Differentiation in the Elementary Grades (Doubet/Hocket, 2017)
• Differentiation in Middle and High School (Doubet/Hocket, 2015)

What are your go-to differentiated instruction strategies? Come share your ideas and ask for advice in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE group on Facebook .

Plus, read what is scaffolding in education, you might also like.

Color-Coding: The Differentiation Strategy You Never Knew You Needed

Using color can help students learn and remember information. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256