Differentiating Instruction in Response

to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning

Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms:
A Review of Literature
Carol Ann Tomlinson, Catherine Brighton, Holly
Hertberg, Carolyn M. Callahan, Tonya R. Moon,
Kay Brimijoin, Lynda A. Conover, & Timothy Reynolds

Both the current school reform and standards movements call for enhanced quality
of instruction for all learners. Recent emphases on heterogeneity, special education
inclusion, and reduction in out-of-class services for gifted learners, combined with
escalations in cultural diversity in classrooms, make the challenge of serving acad-
emically diverse learners in regular classrooms seem an inevitable part of a teacher's
role. Nonetheless, indications are that most teachers make few proactive modifica-
tions based on learner variance. This review of literature examines a need for "dif-
ferentiated" or academically responsive instruction. It provides support in theory
and research for differentiating instruction based on a model of addressing student
readiness, interest, and learning profile for a broad range of learners in mixed-ability
classroom settings.

Introduction: A Rationale for Differentiating Instruction

Today's classrooms are typified by academic diversity (Darling-

Hammond, Wise, &. Klein, 1999; Meier, 1995). Seated side by side
in classrooms that still harbor a myth of "homogeneity by virtue of
chronological age" are students with identified learning problems;

Carol Ann Tomlinson is Professor of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and

Policy at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Catherine Brighton is Assistant
Professor of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Policy at the University of
Virginia, Charlottesville. Holly Hertherg is Assistant Professor of Educational
Leadership, Foundations, and Policy at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Carolyn M. Callahan is Professor of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Policy
at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Tonya R. Moon is Associate Professor
of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Policy at the University of Virginia,
Charlottesville. Kay Brimijoin is Assistant Professor of Education at Sweet Briar
College, Sweet Briar, VA. Lynda A. Conover is Assistant Professor of Special
Education at Western Illinois University, Macomb. Timothy Reynolds is Department
of Education Chair and Assistant Professor at Roanoke College, Roanoke, VA.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol. 27, No. 2/3, 2003, pp. 119-145.
Copyright ©2003 The Association for the Gifted, Reston, VA 20191-1589.

119

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

120 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

highly advanced learners; students whose first language is not

English; students who underachieve for a complex array of reasons;
students from broadly diverse cultures, economic backgrounds, or
both; students of both genders; motivated and unmotivated stu­
dents; students who fit two or three of these categories; students
who fall closer to the template of grade-level expectations and
norms; and students of widely varying interests and preferred
modes of learning. By 2035, students of color will be a majority in
our schools, with increasing populations of children of immigrant
and migrant families expanding the presence of cultural diversity in
schools. Half of all children will live in single-parent homes at
some time during their school years (Sapon-Shevin, 2000/2001).
These demographic realities are intensified by (a) an emphasis on
detracking to promote educational equity for students who might
otherwise find themselves schooled in low-expectations environ­
ments, (b) an emphasis on mainstreaming of students with special
education needs, (c) a reduction of special programs for gifted learn­
ers (Lou et al., 1996; Sapon-Shevin, 2000/2001), and (d) intent to
reduce segregation of students with reading problems and to
enhance literacy instruction in the regular classroom for all learn­
ers (Allington, 2003). Such evolutions leave teachers with the need
to address learner variance in the regular classroom, rather than
through organizational arrangements (Jackson &. Davis, 2000;
Stradling & Saunders, 1993) that have often served to relieve the
classroom teacher of primary responsibility for attending to the
needs of students who diverge markedly from the norm. Thus,
throughout the literature of the current school reform movement is
a call for teachers to adjust curriculum, materials, and support to
ensure that each student has equity of access to high-quality learn­
ing (Darling-Hammond et al., 1999; Ducette, Sewell, &. Shapiro,
1996; Gamoran & Weinstein, 1995; Schoenfeld, 1999).
While heterogeneous instruction is attractive because it addresses
equity of opportunity for a broad range of learners, mixed-ability class­
rooms are likely to fall short of their promise unless teachers address
the learner variance such contexts imply (Gamoran &. Weinstein,
1995). In such settings, equality of opportunity becomes a reality only
when students receive instruction suited to their varied readiness lev­
els, interests, and learning preferences, thus enabling them to maxi­
mize the opportunity for growth (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993).
Even when special pull-out services, such as reading, English as
a second language, gifted education, or special education, are avail­
able for identified students, it is likely that most of these learners
will still spend the bulk of their school careers in regular class-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 121

rooms. Further, even in more "homogeneous" settings, such as spe­

cial education resource rooms, honors classes, and language
resource rooms, it is evident that the range of student experience,
competence, and motivation makes these settings far less homoge­
neous than their labels imply (Gamoran & Weinstein, 1995).
It is a reasonable hypothesis that a current interest in what is
called "differentiated instruction" is due to a degree of academic
diversity that teachers simply can no longer ignore. If, indeed, it is
the goal of the teacher to ensure that every student learns effec­
tively and with a sense of satisfaction, this mosaic of students pre­
sents teachers with complex and difficult pedagogical dilemmas
(Lou et al., 1996). Nonetheless, it would seem inevitable that
today's schools reflect the reality that society is transforming itself;
to respond appropriately, classrooms must be places where rigorous
intellectual requirements characterize the curriculum, each stu­
dent is known well and taught with appropriate means, each stu­
dent learns well, and fidelity to individuals and community is a
hallmark (Mehlinger, 1995). It may be that educators no longer
have a legitimate choice about whether to respond to the academi­
cally diverse populations in most classrooms; rather, they can only
decide how to respond (Sizer, 1985; Stradling & Saunders, 1993).
As a transformation in society and schools evolves, effective
teachers in contemporary classrooms will have to learn to develop
classroom routines that attend to, rather than ignore, learner vari­
ance in readiness, interest, and learning profile. Such routines may
be referred to as "differentiating" curriculum and instruction.
Differentiation is a pedagogical, rather than an organizational,
approach (Stradling &. Saunders, 1993). One way of conceiving dif­
ferentiation is modification of teaching and learning routines to
address a broad range of learners' readiness levels, interests, and
modes of learning (Tomlinson, 1999, 2001). Differentiation can be
defined as an approach to teaching in which teachers proactively
modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities,
and student products to address the diverse needs of individual stu­
dents and small groups of students to maximize the learning oppor­
tunity for each student in a classroom (Bearne, 1996; Tomlinson,
1999).

Current State of the Art With Learner Variance

Both the relative newness of the critical mass of diverse learners in

regular classrooms and the complexity of a teacher's role in

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

122 Journal foi the Education of the Gifted

addressing their needs are underscored by research suggesting that

most teachers still do little to adjust their instruction in ways that
effectively reach out to academically diverse populations. Studies
vary in reports of the importance that teachers place on attending
to academic diversity in classrooms.
A survey of high school teachers (Hootstein, 1998) found 90%
responding that addressing academic differences is important or
very important. By contrast, 50% of respondents to a nationwide
survey of middle school teachers said they did not differentiate
instruction based on readiness, interest, or learning profile because
they saw no need to do so (Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 1995).
General education teachers may also reject adapting instruction for
individual learner needs because they feel doing so calls attention
to student differences (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995); they feel it is not
their job to do so (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995); they are unaware of
learner needs (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992, 1995); they believe special
treatment is poor preparation for a tough world that does not pro­
vide special treatment (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995); or, in the case of
advanced learners, because teachers do not feel students need adap­
tations (Tomlinson, 1995) because teachers do not know how to
modify the curriculum for students whose proficiencies extend
beyond those prescribed by grade-level curricula, standards docu­
ments, or both (Callahan, Tomlinson, Moon, Brighton, & Hertberg,
2003; Hertberg, 2003). It appears that teachers are more likely to
find adaptations for learner variance to be more desirable than fea­
sible (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991). Even when teachers express sup­
port for inclusive classrooms, they are likely to plan for whole-class
instruction (Morocco, Riley, Gordon, & Howard, 1996).
When teachers have attempted differentiation, it has often been
used in ways that are limited and ineffective (Schumm et al., 1995;
Stradling & Saunders, 1993). Modifications are likely to be impro-
visational or reactive, rather than preplanned or proactive
(Hootstein, 1998; Mclntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee,
1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1992, 1995; Tomlinson, 1995). Teachers
seem particularly resistant to adapting or modifying materials,
planning lessons for individuals, and changing evaluation proce­
dures (Johnsen, Haensly, Ryser, & Ford, 2002; Schumm & Vaughn,
1995; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). Appropriate response to learner
variance is also impeded by instruction in which understanding is
sacrificed to coverage and where teachers have not identified key
concepts, ideas, and skills that would serve as a solid framework for
modifications (Schumm &. Vaughn, 1995; Tomlinson, Callahan,
Tomchin, et al., 1997; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). High-stakes test-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 123

ing likely exacerbates this problem (Callahan et al., 2003; Vaughn

& Schumm, 1994).
These sorts of shortfalls are evident whether students' differ­
ences result from learning problems, advanced learning, second lan­
guage, or cultural variance. For example, while teachers appear
willing to accept learners with mild disabilities into their class­
rooms, treating them fairly and impartially (Mclntosh et al., 1994;
Schumm &. Vaughn, 1995), adjustments teachers make for these
students amount to little more than providing reinforcement and
establishing rapport with the students (Schumm & Vaughn,
1991)—or reducing expectations (Deno, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs,
1998). Teachers are unlikely to accept strategies that require them
to modify materials, change instructional practices, make long-
range plans, or adapt scoring and grading criteria (Mclntosh et al.).
The students are included in whole-class activities, but participate
only to a very limited degree. The students do not receive what
could be called meaningfully differentiated instruction (Mclntosh
et al).
Similarly, both survey (Archambault et al., 1993) and observa­
tional (Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993) studies of
students identified as gifted suggest that teachers made only minor
modifications in their curriculum or instruction to address the
advanced learning needs of these learners in the regular classroom.
In fact, gifted students received no differentiation in 84% of the
learning activities in which they engaged (Reis et al., 1993).
In one study, a third of struggling learners in Scottish classrooms
that were purportedly responding to student variance spent about a
third of their time working on tasks that were too difficult and with
insufficient practice time for them to become comfortable with
prescribed skills (Simpson & Ure, 1994). Two additional studies of
classrooms in the United Kingdom where teachers were reported to
be better than average with differentiation consistently found
advanced learners occupied with practice of skills in which they
were already competent and struggling learners working on tasks
beyond their grasp (Bennett, Desforges, Cockburn, &. Wilkinson,
1984; Simpson, 1997).
Continuing the pattern, many teachers are unaware of or inatten­
tive to ways in which culture (Delpit, 1995; Lasley & Matczynski,
1997) and race (Perry, Steele, & Hilliard et al., 2003) can impact atti­
tudes about school and learning-profile preferences—a reality that
often leads to both the academic and socioemotional detriment of
these learners. Further, teachers often conclude that students who
do not develop early proficiency with reading and computation are

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

124 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

deficient in ability (Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997) and gener­

ally do not help students from nondominant cultures build the skills
necessary for success in or out of school (Burstein & Cabello, 1989;
Delpit, 1995; Lasley & Matczynski, 1997).
Not surprisingly, studies find that students who have both iden­
tified learning disabilities and English as a second language are in a
double bind. Even in special bilingual classes, where one might
assume sensitivity to student learning needs, differentiation for
students with learning disabilities was not evident. These students
were taught using whole-group instruction, the same classroom
activities as all other students, and with the same materials and
assignments. They also interacted less in class, asked for help more
frequently, and exhibited more frustration and confusion than
other students. While teachers were aware that the work was diffi­
cult for students with both language and learning needs, they did
not differentiate instruction except to take into account the quality
or amount of student work (Fletcher, Bos, & Johnson, 1999;
Minner, 1990; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997).
Similarly, students dually identified as both gifted and having
some sort of disability find school environments poorly equipped to
meet their dual learning needs. Indications are that these students
are less likely to be perceived as highly able than nonhandicapped
peers of similar ability (Minner, 1990) or to be negatively perceived
by their teachers (Reis et al., 1997). When learning is modified in
response to these double-labeled learners, teacher emphasis is far
more likely to be placed on student deficits than strengths
(Whitmore & Maker, 1985).
In general, it appears that both preservice teachers (Paine, 1990;
Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomehin et al., 1997) and in-service teachers
(Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997) view differences as problem­
atic, rather than as an inevitable phenomenon that offers positive
possibilities for teachers and students alike. Further, when teachers
see differences as deficits in students, rather than as classroom char­
acteristics, this may lead teachers to relinquish responsibility for the
academic success of each learner (Paine, 1990).
In cases where teachers use instructional approaches designed to
tap student interest, it appears that student interests may take a
backseat to what interests the teacher (Moon et al., 1995). In such
instances, opportunity to use interest-linked motivation is likely
sacrificed.
While many teachers acknowledge academic diversity in their
classrooms and often affirm the need to address student variance,
their practice tends to be misaligned with those beliefs:

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 125

Most teachers teach every child the same material in the same
way, and measure each child's performance by the same stan­
dards. This approach seems fair somehow: no child is given
special treatment or unfair advantage. Thus, teachers embrace
the value of treating each child as a unique individual while
instructing children as if they were virtually identical.
[However,] many teachers would eagerly embrace a vision that
would permit them to merge their practice with their values.
(Mehlinger, 1995, p. 4)
What is "broken" in classrooms for academically diverse student
populations is likely systemic. Patterns of inattention to student
variance are evident in literature related specifically to numerous
learner exceptionalities, such as giftedness, special education, sec­
ond language acquisition, multicultural learners, and students from
low economic backgrounds. Patterns in these various literatures
suggest the problems lie in beliefs and practices related to teaching,
learning, and the nature of young people as learners—in other
words, beliefs and practices related to "how we do school." Unless
we understand and address the systemic issues, it appears unlikely
that any students with learning needs shaped by readiness, interest,
or learning profile will be well served on a consistent basis in
today's schools. If contemporary classrooms are to serve contempo­
rary student populations effectively, there is a need for investigat­
ing and addressing pervasive teacher beliefs, as those beliefs impact
teacher awareness of student variance and the curriculum and
instruction teachers plan and deliver to diverse learners. Such a
"big picture" approach may well be a precursor to addressing effec­
tively the particular learning needs of specific learners and popula­
tions of learners.
To facilitate both research and staff development on effective
teaching of academically diverse student populations, it is impor­
tant to search current educational literature for insights that begin
to address two key questions. First, what reasons do we have to
assume that instruction responsive to student readiness, interest,
or learning profile could result in more appropriate learning experi­
ences and outcomes for academically diverse populations? Second,
what would be the hallmarks of appropriately differentiated
instruction? This review draws on the literature of theory and
research to provide some answers to each of the questions—with
the goal of clarifying directions necessary to change the current
inability of many classrooms to attend to the learning needs of
many students who invest time there daily. The section that fol­
lows examines theory and research that provide a basis for differ-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

126 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

entiating curriculum and instruction in response to student readi­

ness, interest, and learning profile.

Support for Differentiation in Theory and Research

Beyond experiential evidence that pervasive uniformity in teaching

fails many learners, there is reason in both theory and research to
support movement toward classrooms attentive to student variance
that is manifest in at least three areas: student readiness, interest,
and learning profile (Tomlinson, 2001). It is useful to establish both
definitions and grounding in the literature of education for these
three elements.

Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction

as a Response to Student Readiness
In regard to readiness for a given task, Vygotsky (1978, 1986) pro­
posed that an individual learns in his or her "zone of proximal devel­
opment" (ZPD). This term refers to a point of required mastery
where a child cannot successfully function alone, but can succeed
with scaffolding or support. In that range, new learning will take
place. The teacher's job is to push the child into his or her zone of
proximal development, coach for success with a task slightly more
complex than the child can manage alone, and, thus, push forward
the area of independence. It is through repetition of such cycles that
learners grasp new ideas, master new skills, and become increas­
ingly independent thinkers and problem solvers. Current brain
research (Howard, 1994; Jensen, 1998; Sousa, 2001; Wolfe, 2001)
seems to reach a similar conclusion—that students should work at
a level of "moderate challenge" for learning to occur. Further, when
students encounter tasks at moderate levels of difficulty, they are
also more likely to sustain efforts to learn, even in the face of diffi­
culty, than when tasks are too difficult or underchallenging
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde,
&. Whalen, 1993; Rohrkemper, 1990). Thus, theory related to learner
readiness suggests that
Instruction should always "be in advance" of a child's current
level of mastery. That is, teachers should teach within a child's
zone of proximal development. If material is presented at or
below the mastery level, there will be no growth. If presented
well above the zone, children will be confused and frustrated.
(Byrnes, 1996, p. 33)

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 127

The approach of using single tasks for all learners of varying

readiness levels with only occasional modifications probably falls
short for many students because the task itself is outside their
zones of proximal development, and minor modifications in the
task do not correct the mismatch between task and learner.
Research related to readiness gives substance to that conclusion.
In a review of research on multiage classes (differentiated by
intent and necessity), Miller (1990) found achievement test results
favoring multiage classrooms versus single-grade classrooms on
75% of the measures used, despite the fact that increased achieve­
ment test results are not generally the primary goal of multiage
classes. Similarly, in an examination of research on nongraded
classes, Gayfer (1991) looked at standardized test results available
in 57 of 64 studies. In 58% of instances, students in nongraded set­
ting scored higher achievement gains than students in graded set­
tings. The two groups scored comparable achievement gains in
33% of instances, and achievement gains favored students in
graded settings in 9% of cases. Further, studies indicate that stu­
dents in these differentiated classrooms achieve better outcomes
than students in classrooms with a more single-size approach to
instruction in study habits, social interaction, cooperation, attitude
toward school, and general mental health (Gayfer, 1991). It also
appears that benefits to students in multiage or nongraded settings
increase the longer students remain in those settings (Anderson &.
Pavan, 1993).
A complex and multifaceted qualitative study of adolescents and
schooling suggested that, when academic tasks were poorly matched
to students' readiness levels, impacts were negative. When students
were asked to do tasks for which they did not have requisite skills,
both their achievement and feelings of self-worth decreased. When
students were asked to do tasks that were too simple for their skills
level, they disengaged with the tasks (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993).
Two recent dissertation studies (Brimijoin, 2001; Tieso, 2002)
reported achievement gains for students in effectively differenti­
ated classrooms. In these instances, achievement gains were
demonstrated across economic lines through pretest-posttest
results (Tieso) and on a state standards test (Brimijoin).
"Challenges . . . must be at the proper level of difficulty in order
to be and remain motivating: tasks that are too easy become boring;
tasks that are too difficult cause frustration" (National Research
Council, 1999, p. 49). This seems to be the essence of readiness dif­
ferentiation for all learners—and a central challenge for teachers in
contemporary schools.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

128 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Differentiation of Curriculum, and Instruction

as a Response to Student Interest
Just as students vary in readiness to learn given content at a given
time, they vary in interests, as well. As is the case with readiness,
it appeared that addressing learner interest can be important to a
student's academic development.
Interest-based study is linked to motivation and appears to pro­
mote positive impacts on learning in both the short and long term
(Herbert, 1993; Renninger, 1990, 1998; Tobias, 1994). Modifying
instruction to draw on student interest is also supported by theory
and research as a means of enhancing motivation, productivity,
and achievement (Amabile, 1996; Torrance, 1995). Questions and
tasks that are interesting to students are more likely to lead to
enhanced student engagement with the task, the student's sense
that the work involved is rewarding, greater evidence of student
creativity, increased student productivity, a higher degree of stu­
dent autonomy, and a higher level of intrinsic motivation
(Amabile, 1983; Brunner, 1961; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Sharan
& Sharan, 1992).
In general, it appears that interest contributes to a sense of com­
petence and self-determination in learners and to positive learning
behaviors, such as willingness to accept challenge and persist in it
(Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Fulk & Montgomery-Grymes, 1994;
Vallerand, Gagné, Senecal, & Pelletier, 1994; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1990). Allowing students to do something they love
is likely to help them develop both a positive attitude about learn­
ing and their creative potential (Amabile, 1996; Runco & Chand,
1995; Torrance, 1995).
When highly able students enjoy cognitive tasks at an early age,
they tend to continue seeking cognitive stimulation (Gottfried &
Gottfried, 1996). Among this same group of learners, interest
proves to be a catalyst for sustaining academic focus during adoles­
cence (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993).
The concept of flow (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993) acknowl­
edges the importance of interest in motivation. The term relates to
a psychological state of complete involvement in an activity to the
degree that time and fatigue disappear. Flow stems from interest, is
highly satisfying, and may serve as a catalyst for developing new
levels of skill in the interest area, particularly when the task at
hand is just a bit in advance of the student's current skills level
(suggesting a need to balance readiness and interest in school tasks).
Studies have indicated that teachers are most effective in helping
students find flow when they communicate high expectations with

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 129

clear standards, support student efforts, are passionate about their

disciplines, and spend considerable time planning for student chal­
lenges that take advantage of students' interests and talents
(Whalen, 1998).
Learners differ in general motivation to learning and response to
specific learning tasks. Experts suggest, therefore, that students be
encouraged to select their own topics for projects and to engage in
discussions with parents and teachers about learning that brings
them joy (Collins & Amabile, 1999; Wolfe, 2001). For instance,
when students are encouraged to select reading material of interest
to them, they are more likely to demonstrate substantive engage­
ment and, thus, experience improved reading performance
(Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002). It may be particularly important to
motivation and learning to promote situational or contextual inter­
est (e.g., student choice, novelty, linkage with prior knowledge, cer­
tain text characteristics) when students do not have strong
individual or personal interests (Hidi, 1990; Hidi &. Anderson, 1992;
Hidi &. Berndorff, 1998; Wade & Adams, 1990).
The appropriate question in today's diverse classrooms is no
longer "How can I motivate students?" Rather, it is "What moti­
vates this particular student and how do I design work that is
responsive to these motivations?" (Schlechty, 1997). Determining
and designing tasks that tap the motivation of particular students
is at the heart of interest-based differentiation.

Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction

as a Response to Student Learning Profile
As it is beneficial to student learning for teachers to respond to
their readiness levels and interests, it also appears beneficial to
address student variance in learning profile. Learning profile
attends to efficiency of learning (Tomlinson, 2003). The term learn-
ing profile refers to a student's preferred mode of learning that can
be affected by a number of factors, including learning style, intelli­
gence preference, gender, and culture.
Learning styles theory points to individual preferences related to
categories, such as environment, emotions, interactions, and phys­
ical needs, suggesting that such factors as light, temperature, seat­
ing arrangements, demand for concentration, degree of learner
mobility, time of day, and perceptual mode impact learning (e.g.,
Dunn, 1996). A meta-analysis of research on learning styles
(Sullivan, 1993) reported that addressing a student's learning style
through flexible teaching or counseling results in improved

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

130 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

achievement and attitude gains in students from a wide range of

cultural groups.
Related to intelligence preference—or thinking styles—
Sternberg (e.g., 1985, 1996) proposed that individuals have pro­
clivities for one of three modes of thinking: analytical, practical,
or creative. Research indicates that learners at primary, middle,
and high school levels achieve better when instruction matches
their preference (Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko,
1998). This body of research suggests that there are achievement
benefits to addressing intelligence or thinking preference during
the learning process, even if a final assessment is not in a learner's
preferred mode (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997; Saxe, 1990;
Sternberg et al., 1998).
Culture likely shapes both learning style and intelligence or
thinking preferences (Anderson, 1988; Delpit, 1995; Heath, 1983;
Lasley &. Matczynski, 1997) in such areas as need for doing versus
talking, how status is conferred and accepted, need for affiliation
versus achievement, need for emotional closeness in learning envi­
ronments, communication style, perceptions about time, task ori­
entation, and so on. It is valuable for educators to realize that
learning differences are influenced by the settings in which learn­
ers find themselves (contextual differences), as well as because of
individual differences and differences stemming from a category or
categories to which a person may belong. Understanding contextual
impacts on learning gives educators an impetus to adjust the con­
text appropriately, whereas individual and categorical differences
may seem more immutable to teachers (Paine, 1990).
Studies of the impact of matching students' learning style and
intelligence preference have found positive effects for many groups,
including Native American, Hispanic, African American, Asian
American, and Caucasian students (Dunn & Griggs, 1995; Garcia,
1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997).
Likewise, research suggests that gender shapes learning preferences
(Baker Miller, 1986; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, &Tarule, 1986;
Gilligan, 1982; Lasley & Matczynski, 1997; Tannen, 1990), affect­
ing preference for feeling versus thinking modes of learning, desire
for collaboration versus competition, field dependence versus field
independence, and so on. Despite numerous studies suggesting gen­
der impacts on learning, there is not a substantial body of research
examining achievement or attitude gains based on adjustment of
learning conditions based on gender.
Experts in the field of learning-profile variance caution that no
particular approach to learning is superior to another and that there

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 131

is great variance in learning preferences among every cultural and

gender group (Delpit, 1995; Lasley & Matczynski, 1997). Further,
any individual will represent several categories of gender, culture,
intelligence preference, and learning style. In addition, some writers
caution that the impact of race on learning for African American
learners may be more potent than culture-shaped learning prefer­
ences (Hilliard, 2003).
The goal of effective instruction seems to be adequate flexibility
in a teacher's mode of presentation and in a student's options for
learning and expressing learning so that an individual can generally
find a match for his or her learning-profile preferences. In addition,
it appears important to learners, including those with learning prob­
lems, that they be taught strategies that help them become self-
aware regarding their learning and that they take responsibility for
and succeed in their own learning (King-Sears, 1998). In that way, a
greater number of learners should be able to capitalize on their
strengths and compensate for their weaknesses (Sternberg, 1985).

Hallmarks of Effective Differentiation

Based on theory and research, it appears important for teachers to

consistently, defensibly, and vigorously adjust curriculum and
instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning
profile. Differentiation must be conceived and practiced as a reflec­
tion and extension of educational best practice, not a substitute for
it. Unless the curriculum and instruction that are modified to be a
good fit for academically diverse learners are sound, student out­
comes are likely to be disappointing (Gamoran &. Weinstein, 1995;
Hootstein, 1998). Further, adaptations to curriculum and instruction
would need to be distinct enough to address a wide range of readiness
levels, interests, and learning modes. To that end, we propose that
differentiation that effectively responds to learner readiness, interest,
and learning profile should have the following characteristics.
1. Effective differentiation of curriculum and instruction is
proactive, rather than reactive.
A clear definition and model of the scope of effective differenti­
ation is needed to counteract a tendency among teachers to believe
they are addressing individual variance when they are, at best, mak­
ing minor and occasional classroom modifications (Moon et al.,
1995; Tomlinson, 1995). It seems unlikely that differentiation
defined as tinkering with one-size-fits-all instruction can be robust
enough to meet the learning needs of academically diverse popula-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

132 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

tions. In fact, an impediment to more robust and effective differen­

tiation may stem from a teacher-held perspective of differentiation
as reactive—the teacher plans one lesson for everyone and tries to
adjust on the spot when students signal the lesson isn't working for
them—rather than proactive—the teacher plans a lesson that will,
from the outset, address learner variance (Schumm &. Vaughn,
1992; Tomlinson, 1995). Effective differentiation will likely arise
from consistent, reflective, and coherent efforts to address the full
range of learner readiness, interest, and learning profile in presen­
tation of information, student practice or sense making, and stu­
dent expression of learning.
2. Effective differentiation employs flexible use of small
teaching-learning groups in the classroom.
A meta-analysis of 165 effect sizes from studies of effects of
within-class grouping on student achievement and other outcomes
(Lou et al., 1996) found that students in small within-classroom
learning groups (generally three to four in size) achieved signifi­
cantly more than students not learning in small groups. In addition,
students in grouped classes had more positive attitudes about learn­
ing and stronger self-concept measures than those in ungrouped
classes. It appears that small-group settings give teachers the flexi­
bility to address learner variance more appropriately than does sole
reliance on whole-class instruction. The meta-analysis reports that
low-ability students tended to learn better in heterogeneous groups,
medium-ability students in homogeneous groups, and high-ability
learners fared well equally in either setting. However, because of
variance in student readiness across subjects, variability in student
interest and mode of learning, and varying needs of categories of
learners within a class, it appears important to group students in a
variety of ways in the classroom.
3. Effective differentiation varies the materials used by indi-
viduals and small groups of students in the classroom.
Student gains are greatest when instructional materials are var­
ied for differing instructional groups, rather than using the same
materials for all groups (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Lou et al., 1996).
Thus, in addition to flexible grouping of students, teachers in dif­
ferentiated classrooms should match materials to the specific
instructional needs of groups. This would seem particularly impor­
tant when readiness differentiation is a focus of student groupings.
4. Effective differentiation uses variable pacing as a means of
addressing learner needs.
A number of studies have noted the ineffectiveness of class­
rooms in which teachers fail to adapt the pace of instruction in

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 133

response to learners' needs. Often the level of instruction is set to

address mid- or high-achieving students, while the pace is set for
low-achieving learners (Dahloff, 1971; Oakes, 1985), with the result
that many students of varying readiness levels are frustrated (Ben
Ari &. Shafir, 1988). Classrooms in which time is used as a flexible
resource would likely better serve the full range of learners.
5. Effective differentiation is knowledge centered.
Teachers' sound knowledge of their discipline(s) provides a
roadmap to the key concepts, organizing principles, and fundamen­
tal skills of those disciplines. In turn, teachers use materials and
activities to ensure student understanding of essential ideas and
ability to use important skills to solve meaningful problems
(National Research Council, 1999). This sort of sound knowledge
base and clarity of learning priorities is fundamental to effective
differentiation, as it is to all good teaching.
6. Effective differentiation is learner centered.
Learner-centered classrooms focus on the needs of students
within the cognitive frameworks established by teachers
(Schweinhart &. Weikart, 1988). Among the traits of learner-cen­
tered classrooms are the building on the knowledge students bring
to the task (Callison, 1998; Marlowe & Page, 1998; National
Research Council, 1999; Vygotsky, 1986); ongoing assessment of
learner understanding and skill to help the teacher teach and indi­
vidual students learn more effectively (National Research Council;
Palincsar, 1984); focusing on student sense making (Elmore,
Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996; Schoenfeld, 1991); helping students
see relevance and utility in what they are learning (Anderson,
Reder, & Simon, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Vygotsky, 1986);
student choice within teacher frameworks (Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1988); shared management of learning; (Borko, Mayfield,
Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997); and students playing an active
role in learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Queen, 1999;
Vygotsky, 1986). In learner-centered classrooms, teachers use a
wide variety of instructional strategies and approaches to scaffold­
ing learning to ensure that each student links solidly with the
important knowledge necessary to achieve understanding and
power (Borko et al., 1997; Palincsar, 1984).

Aligning Academic Diversity and Classroom Practice

To "customize schooling for individual learners, rather than mass

produce students who have essentially been taught the same thing

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

134 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

in the same way in the same amount of time . . . is not a superficial

change; it is a deep cultural change" (Mehlinger, 1995, p. 154). We
can dismiss neither the need to make classrooms a good fit for the
full range of learners in them nor the immensity of the challenge in
doing so.
It is likely that teachers are uncertain about how to make sense
of the "otherness" of student experiences different from their own
(Delpit, 1995; Paine, 1990); reflect only minimal amounts on stu­
dents as individuals (Callahan et al., 2003); lack comfort in think­
ing about curricula in rich, conceptual ways (Callahan et al.;
National Research Council, 1999); implement a narrow range of
instructional approaches (Callahan et al.; Tomlinson, Callahan,
Tomehin, et al., 1997); and are unsure of how to manage classroom
routines in flexible, student-centered ways, rather than linear,
teacher-centered ones (Callahan et al. ; Tomlinson, 1995).
Proficiency in each of these areas is required for effective differen­
tiation for virtually any student or student population. Thus, edu­
cational leaders who commend to teachers more academically
responsive teaching should understand that they are not asking for
a minor modification in pedagogical practice. Such change is not
even a matter of school reform; rather, it is a task of transforming
teachers and schools (Lieberman, 1988).
It is likely necessary that educational specialists representing any
particular population of learners would need to work for such trans­
formation in general classrooms on two planes if academically
responsive or differentiated teaching is to occur in any broad and
effective way. First, it would be necessary to provide persistent sup­
port in changing the systemic factors that impede attention to
learner variance (e.g., informed reflection on students as individuals,
increasing competence in understanding the conceptual frameworks
of the disciplines, growing proficiency with a wide range of instruc­
tional approaches, effective classroom management routines). In
addition, it would be essential to share high-level knowledge about
educational approaches that are effective with the particular popu­
lation with which the educator has elected to specialize.
Leaders would need to acknowledge that teachers, like students,
are nested in a culture and a context. Leaders would have to be fully
committed to helping teachers reconstruct their sense of how stu­
dents learn, how learning varies, what students should be taught,
how they should be taught, and the role of the teacher in all of
that—in addition to gaining increasing knowledge about particular
needs of particular groups and individuals. The goal of staff devel­
opment cannot be particular behaviors or skills for teachers,· rather,

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 135

it is a rethinking practice (Richardson &. Anders, 1994). Such a

process is not simple, quick, or standardized (Stradling & Saunders,
1993). It does not lend itself well to advocacy for single populations
without regard to need for systemic changes in the classrooms that
increasingly serve academically diverse learners.
Instead, such teacher transformation calls for a common orien­
tation among teachers, administrators, parents, students, and com­
munity to develop schools that understand, respect, and respond to
individuals, eschewing a factory approach to students—and to
teachers. It requires a permanent and sustained commitment from
all stakeholders to achieving those goals. It necessitates ongoing
cycles of personal and pedagogical reflection, conversation, and
action to generate knowledge, understandings, and skills that
largely do not exist in our schools. It requires personal and profes­
sional discomfort and struggle (Evans, 1996; Reynolds, 1999). There
is no simple route to this complex destination. Leaders are ill-
advised to believe otherwise.

Issues Requiring Further Study

Based on theory and research, it is possible to make a case for

attending to the varying readiness levels, interests, and learning
profiles of academically diverse students in contemporary class­
rooms. Nonetheless, research has suggested clearly that, while such
an argument may be promising, there is considerable distance to
span before the argument translates into pervasive practice. It is the
case that, currently, few teachers make significant changes to
teaching and learning routines in response to learner variance.
Research and theory on change in schools indicates that such a
scope of change is profoundly difficult, calling for persistent, sus­
tained leadership and support for the change.
As movement in the direction of developing academically
responsive classrooms is relatively new, so is the knowledge base
that might ultimately support such classrooms. For example, we do
not know the particular range of students for whom differentiated,
heterogeneous classrooms might be effective. We do not know
which of a variety of potential models of teaching and learning
might best serve the learning needs of students who differ as learn­
ers. We do not know the relative impact of differentiating instruc­
tion based on learner readiness needs versus interests, versus
learning profiles—nor whether it is important to address all of
those elements simultaneously. Likewise, we need to investigate

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

136 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

the impact of such classroom elements as learning environment

and affect on achievement of diverse populations. Certainly we do
not fully understand teacher-development models that might
enable teachers to enter the profession with attention to student
variance and to grow systematically in responsive teaching
throughout their careers. We have not determined the most fruitful
roles for specialists in fields like gifted education, special educa­
tion, second language learning, and so on to play in staff develop­
ment. Neither do we know how to determine optimum amounts of
time for students with special learning needs to spend in more het­
erogeneous versus more homogeneous settings. For researchers
with an interest in this area of inquiry, the possibilities are virtu­
ally without limit. What we do know is that current classrooms are
more academically diverse than ever and that most of those class­
rooms are ill-equipped to deal with the range of needs.
Nearly 4 decades ago, Jerome Bruner (1963) pointed out that our
only course as educators—if we elect to honor the diversity of stu­
dents we must educate—is to develop classrooms that challenge
advanced learners without destroying the confidence and will to
learn of those who are less advanced. To do this would require
much from educators, but would recast our knowledge of teaching
and learning, contribute to the professionalization of teachers, and
make schools invitational places for all of our young citizens.

References

Allington, R. (2003). The schools we have, the schools we need.

Retrieved September 11, 2003, from http://cela.albany.edu/schools/
rtinvite.html
Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Anderson, J. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations.
Journal of Teacher Education, 39,1-9.
Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and
education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
Anderson, R., &. Pavan, B. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to
happen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Archambault, F., Westberg, K., Brown, S., Hallmark, B., Emmons,
C , & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted
students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 137

(Research monograph 93102). Storrs: University of Connecticut,

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Baker Miller, J. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd
ed.). Boston: Beacon.
Bearne, E. (Ed.). (1996). Differentiation and diversity in the primary
school. London: Routledge.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986).
Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and
mind. New York: BasicBooks.
Ben Ari, R. , & Shafir, D. (1988). Social integration in elementary
school. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University, Institute for the
Advancement of Social Integration in the Schools.
Bennett, N., Desforges, C , Cockburn, A., & Wilkinson, B.
(1984). The quality of pupils' learning experiences. London:
Erlbaum.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997).
Teachers' developing ideas and practices about mathematics per­
formance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implica­
tions for professional development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13, 259-278.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people
learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school (Exp. ed.) Washing­
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Brimijoin, K. (2001). Expertise in differentiation: A preservice and
an inservice teacher make their way. Unpublished doctoral dis­
sertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational
Review, 31, 21-32.
Buner, J. (1963). The process of education. New York: Vintage.
Burstein, N., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparing teachers to work with
culturally diverse students: A teacher education model. Journal
of Teacher Education, 40(5), 9-16.
Byrnes, J. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instruc-
tional contexts. Boston: Allyn &. Bacon.
Callahan, C , Tomlinson, C , Moon, T., Brighton, C , & Hertberg,
H. (2003). Feasibility of high end learning in the middle grades.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia, National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Callison, D. (1998). Situated learning. School Library Media
Activities Monthly, 15[2), 38-40, 50.
Carbonaro, W., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achieve­
ment inequality in high school English. American Educational
Research Journal, 39, 801-807.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

138 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Collins, M., &. Amabile, T. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R.

J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297-312). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Dahloff, M. (1971). Ability grouping, content validity, and curricu-
lum process analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Klein, S. (1999). A license to
teach: Raising standards for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: The New Press.
Deno, S. (1994, February). Effects of support conditions on teachers'
instructional adaptation and student learning. Paper presented
at the second annual Pacific Coast Research Conference, Lajolla,
CA.
Ducette, J., Sewell, T., & Shapiro, J. (1996). Diversity in education:
Problems and possibilities. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher
educator's handbook (pp. 323-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learning styles
program. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Dunn., R., &Griggs, S. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning style:
Teaching and counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Elmore, R., Peterson, P., & McCarthey, S. (1996). Restructuring in
the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resis-
tance, and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Fletcher, T., Bos, C , & Johnson, L. (1999). Accommodating English
language learners with language and learning disabilities in bilin­
gual education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research e)
Practice, 14, 80-91.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators' instructional
adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 21, 23^33.
Fulk, B., & Montgomery-Grymes, D. (1994). Strategies to improve
student motivation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30,
28-33.
Gamoran, A., & Weinstein, M. (1995). Differentiation and opportu-
nity in restructured schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organiza-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 139

tion and Restructuring of Schools. (ERIC Document No. ED 386

828)
Garcia, G. (1995). Equity challenges in authentically assessing stu­
dents from diverse backgrounds. Educational Forum, 59(1),
64-73.
Gayfer, M. (1991). The multi-grade classroom: Myth and reality. A
Canadian study. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Education
Association.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grigorenko, E., & Sternberg, R. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities,
and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63, 295^312.
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of
academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children:
Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly,
40, 179-183.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in
communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hebert, T. (1993). Reflections at graduations: The long-term impact
of elementary school experiences in creative productivity.
Roeper Review, 16, 22-28.
Hertberg, H. (2003). The influence of training on middle school
teachers' writing instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Hidi. S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a neutral resource for
learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571
Hidi, S., & Anderson, J. (1992). Situational interest and its impact
on reading and expository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, &
A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development
(pp. 215-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational interest and learning. In
L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.),
Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on
interest and gender (pp. 74-90). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Hilliard, A. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap
between Africans and excellence. In T. Perry, C. Steele, & A.
Hilliard (Eds.), Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting achievement
among African-American students (pp. 131-165). Boston: Beacon.
Hootstein, E. (1998). Differentiation of instructional methodologies
in subject-based curricula at the secondary level. Richmond, VA:
Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. (ERIC Doc­
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 427 130)

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

140 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Howard, P. (1994). An owner's manual for the brain. Austin, TX:

Leornian Press.
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating
adolescents in the 21st century. A report of the Carnegie Corpor-
ation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnsen, S., Haensly, P., Ryser, G., & Ford, R. (2002). Changing gen­
eral education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 45-63.
King-Sears, M. (1998). Best academic practices for inclusive class­
rooms. In E. Meyen, G. Vergason, & R. Whelan (Eds.), Educating
students with mild disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.;
pp. 305-338). Denver: Love.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1991). Research on ability grouping: Historical
and contemporary perspectives. Storrs: University of Connec­
ticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 777)
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers
of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lasley, T., & Matczynski, T. (1997). Strategies for teaching in a
diverse society: Instructional models. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lieberman, A. (1988). Expanding the leadership team. Educational
Leadership, 56(1), 51-54.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C , Chambers, B., &.
d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.
Marlowe, B., & Page, M. (1998). Creating and sustaining the con-
structivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mclntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1994).
Observations of students with learning disabilities in general
education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249-261.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for
teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the
nation's educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on
the Context of Secondary School Teaching. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 357 023)
Mehlinger, H. (1995). School reform in the information age. Bloom-
ington: Indiana University, Center for Excellence in Education.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America
from a small school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon.
Miller, B. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multi-
grade instruction. Research in Rural Education, 7, 3-12.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 141

Minner, S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of case descriptions of LD

gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 37-39.
Moon, T., Tomlinson, C , &. Callahan, C. (1995). Academic diver-
sity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle
school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph
95124). Charlottesville: National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Virginia.
Morocco, C , Riley, M., Gordon, S., & Howard, C. (1996). The elu­
sive individual in teachers' planning. In G. Brannigan (Ed.), The
enlightened educator (pp. 154-176). New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Paine, L. (1990). Orientation towards diversity: What do prospec-
tive teachers bring} (Research/Technical Report 143). Washing­
ton, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Palincsar, A. (1984, April). Working in the zone of proximal devel-
opment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Perry, T., Steele, C , & Hilliard, A. (2003). Young, gifted, and Black:
Promoting high achievement among African American stu-
dents. Boston: Beacon.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and application. Columbus, OH: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Queen, J. (1999). Curriculum practice in the elementary and mid-
dle school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reis, S., Neu, T., & McGuire, J. (1997). Case studies of high-ability
students with learning disabilities who have achieved.
Exceptional Children, 63, 463-479.
Reis, S., Westberg, K., Kulkiowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T.,
Plucker, J., Purcell, J., Rogers, J., & Smist, J. (1993). Why not let
high ability students start school in January: The curriculum
compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Renninger, K. (1990). Children's play interests, representations, and
activity. In R. Fivush & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remem-
bering in young children (Emory Cognition Series, Vol. 3, pp.
127-165). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Renninger, K. (1998). The roles of individual interest(s) and gender
in learning. An overview of research on preschool and elemen-

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

142 Journal for the Education of the Gifted

tary school-aged children/students. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K.

Renninger, &. J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning:
Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on interest and gender (pp.
165-175). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Reynolds. T. (1999). Transforming teacher practice. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Richardson, V., & Anders, P. (1994). A theory of change. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development
process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 199-216). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rohrkemper, M. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: A Vygotskian view. In D. Schunk & B.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143-167). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Runco, M., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity.
Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243-267.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2000/2001). Schools fit for all. Educational
Leadership, 58(4), 34^39.
Saxe, G. (1990). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in
mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for
educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schoenfeld, A. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal
attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathe­
matics. In J. F. Foss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal
reasoning and education (pp. 311-343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges
of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher,
28[7), 4-14.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for main-
streamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives.
Remedial and Special Education, 12[A), 18-27.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed spe­
cial education students: Perceptions of general classroom teach­
ers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-98.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the
stage set? Learning Disabilities Research &) Practice, 10,
169-179.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L.,
& Saumeil, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What
can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional
Children, 61, 335^52.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 143

Schweinhart L., & Weikart, D. (1988). Education for young children

living in poverty: Child-initiated learning or teacher-directed
instruction? Elementary School Journal, 89, 212-225.
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning
through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Simpson, M. (1997). Developing differentiation practices: Meeting
the needs of teachers and pupils. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1),
85-104.
Simpson, M., & Ure, J. (1994). Studies of differentiation practices in
primary and secondary schools (Interchange Report #30).
Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 196)
Sizer, T. (1985). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the
American high school. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelli-
gence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and cre-
ative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Plume.
Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational
Leadership, 55[7), 20-24.
Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in
style? American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.
Sternberg, R., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. (1998). Teaching triarchi-
cally improves student achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 374-384.
Stradling, B., & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice:
Responding to the needs of all pupils. Educational Research, 35,
127-137.
Sullivan, M. (1993). A meta-analysis of experimental research stud-
ies based on the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and its
relationship to academic achievement and performance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University,
Jamaica, NY.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in
conversation. New York: Ballentine.
Tieso, C. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on
intermediate students' math achievement. (Research Mon­
ograph 02154). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 37-54.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

144 Journal foi the Education of the Gifted

Tomlinson, C. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle

school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to
the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-
ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated
classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C , Callahan, C , Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., &
Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of communities of
learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary class­
rooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282.
Tomlinson, C , Callahan, C , & Lelli, K. (1997). Challenging expec­
tations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young
children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 5-17.
Torrance, E. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned, rejected,
ridiculed, ignored. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 313^322.
Vallerand, R., Gagné, F., Senecal, G., &. Pelletier, L. (1994). A compar­
ison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence
of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1994). Middle school teachers' planning
for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 15, 151-162.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans. &
Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wade, S., & Adams, B. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on
recall of biographical text. JRB: A fournal of Literacy, 22,
331-^53.
Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S., & Salvin, T. (1993). An
observational study of instructional and curricular practices
used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms
(Research Monograph 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut,
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Whalen, S. (1998). Flow and engagement of talent: Implications for
secondary schooling. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 22-37.
Whitmore, J., &. Maker, C. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in dis-
abled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Differentiation: A Literature Review 145

Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into class-

room practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences
in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to
self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 51-59.

Acknowledgement

Preparation of this article was supported by a grant under the Javits

Act Program, Grant No. R206R50001 as administered by the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education. Grantees under such projects are encouraged to express
freely their professional judgment. This article, therefore, does not
necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S.
Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on June 21, 2016

 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.