School Instructional Climate and Student Achievement: An Examination of Group Norms for Differentiated Instruction by Yvonne L. Goddard
Differentiated instruction has received a great deal of attention as an effective instructional approach to teach all learners. It has become so widespread as to be included in teacher evaluations, curricular materials, and as a commonly used phrase among educators. The efficacy of differentiated instruction requires examination, however, especially concerning its effects on student achievement. This blog reports on the link between teacher descriptions of differentiated instruction and student learning.
In our study reported in the American Journal of Education, my colleagues and I took up the challenge to examine the impact on student achievement of teachers’ reports that they differentiated instruction. We surveyed teachers in a representative sample of 78 public elementary schools across Michigan regarding specific teaching practices related to differentiated instruction. We also collected data about 5031 students to examine connections between teachers’ reports that they differentiated instruction and students’ performance on state-mandated reading and mathematics assessments.
Sometimes, factors other than teachers’ instructional practices may affect student performance. Therefore, we statistically controlled for ethnicity, gender, and whether students received free or reduce-price lunches (an indicator of poverty). We did the same thing at the school level, to be certain that we ruled out school-level factors that might have impacted instruction and hence, achievement, such as proportion students of color, school size, poverty level, and how well students had done on the assessments the prior year. We statistically controlled for all of these variables at the student and school levels so that we could have a more accurate estimate of the impact that teachers’ reported differentiated instruction practices had on student performance.
We found that student achievement was higher in schools where teachers reported that they were more likely to differentiate instruction than in schools where teachers were less likely to differentiate. We took a unique approach to our survey measures by asking teachers to report the extent to which teachers in their school engaged in particular activities consistent with differentiated instruction. Because the term is interpreted differently by various groups, we took care when designing our measures to use descriptions of teacher approaches that are consistent with differentiated instruction but that did not use the term “differentiated instruction.” Our measures asked survey respondents to report the extent to which teachers in their school recognized individual leaners, allowed choice among activities, and matched assignments to students’ needs and skill levels. By asking about the practices of all teachers in schools, we were able to examine the normative environment for using differentiated instruction in those schools. In other words, to what extent was the use of differentiated instruction known to be widespread in the school?
This study is important for many reasons. First, our study makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness literature on differentiated instruction, given the size of our teacher and student samples. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement across a large number of schools representing an entire state.
“We found that student achievement was higher in schools where teachers reported that they were more likely to differentiate instruction than in schools where teachers were less likely to differentiate.”
Second, our study lends support to the notion that the kinds of instruction that teachers practice matters. In fact, this study indicates that when teachers acknowledge individual progress, offer a variety of activity options that promote student choice, and consider students’ needs and skill levels when designing instruction, students are more likely to succeed academically. In other words, when teachers work hard to meet students’ needs and to consider students’ skills and interests, students are more likely to perform better academically.
Third, what teachers do matters regardless of the demographics of the students they teach. In other words, it is possible to teach all students well, regardless of students’ backgrounds or prior achievement. In our study, prior achievement predicted math and reading achievement. Even so, after controlling for that effect statistically, teachers’ reports that they differentiated instruction were related positively and significantly to students’ math and reading achievement. Further, the percentage of minority students predicted math achievement, and girls outperformed boys in reading, but after controlling for these effects, differentiated instruction remained a significant, positive predictor of math and reading achievement.
Fourth, the normative teaching environment in schools is important. The manner in which we measured differentiated instruction, asking teachers to report the extent to which differentiated instruction was used by teachers in the school, allowed us to consider the effects of differentiated instruction when used school-wide. Theories of environmental norms support that normative customs influence group members to perform in certain ways. Our study findings indicate that when the normative environment in schools supports teachers’ use of differentiated instruction, students perform better on state-mandated math and reading assessments. This has significant implications for school leaders and policy makers, who should consider ways to support teachers’ efforts to learn collaboratively and improve instruction school-wide.
Finally, this study, in conjunction with other work on differentiating instruction, should cause educators and policy makers to ponder that teaching well does not require changing curriculum and materials frequently. Importantly, differentiating lessons takes time, often years, to implement and refine. Those who have studied and implemented differentiated instruction over time are convinced that teachers who differentiate well are masters at knowing their students and content thoroughly such that adhering strictly to a particular curriculum can be detrimental, rather than helpful. Strict adherence to a particular curriculum or teaching approach is often termed “one-size-fits-all” teaching and is not supportive of differentiating instruction.
Yvonne Goddard is visiting associate professor and director of the First Education Experience Program at The Ohio State University. Her research interests include connections between teachers’ collaboration, instructional approaches, and efficacy beliefs, and effective literacy instruction for learners who struggle.
The Poverty of Our Protests by Katie Crabtree
Acknowledging Ancestry and the Roots of Reconciliation: The Story of Jacques by Valencia Clement
Being a product of a project-based education, I believe that students benefit from differentiated instructional practices. In this article there was a study conducting the benefits to differentiated instructional practices in certain areas of such as color and school size. My high school, Science Leadership Academy, the class size was standardized to about 30 students per section. The school’s mission was that inquiry is the first step to learning. As a student I had many opportunities to lead class discussion as well as set my own learning goals. Through my four years we followed five core values that we used to help us engage in our learning; inquiry, research, collaboration, presentation and reflection. By my senior year, I learned that learning is not only in the classroom, but also in life experiences. The idea of exploration was the top priority of my high school experience. That alone allowed me to have a deeper appreciation of learning rather than some of my college peers, who want just want the “A”. The notion of “one size fits all” directly contradicted my high schools’ philosophy. The idea of differentiated instructional practices should effect the abilities and interests of students rather than making learning standardized.