The movement toward inclusion has impacted classrooms by requiring teachers to respond to a broader range of academic needs. How can we possibly reach all the students in our classrooms when they are academically diverse, have special needs, are ESL learners, or have some combination of any or all of these factors? An answer to this question lies in differentiating instruction. Working in the Burris Laboratory School, an inclusion school using a resource consultation model to serve the needs of all its students, we have found that using tiered lessons is a viable method for differentiating instruction.
What is Differentiation?
Although differentiated instruction is not a new idea, the differentiation movement has recently taken center stage as a means of meeting the needs of all students in the classroom. It is an organized, yet flexible way of proactively adjusting teaching and learning to meet students where they are and help all students achieve maximum growth as learners (Tomlinson, 1999). Instruction may be differentiated in content/input, process/sense-making, or product/output according to the students’ readiness, interest, or learning style. By content, we mean the material that is being presented. Process activities help students practice or make sense out of the content, while product refers to the outcome of the lesson or unit, such as a test, project, or paper. Readiness refers to prior knowledge and a student’s current skill and proficiency with the material presented in the lesson. A student’s interest may be assessed with an interest inventory for the particular topic being studied or by an individual conversation with the student. Many teachers use the theory of multiple intelligences to characterize learning styles (Armstrong, 1994; Gardner, 1993; Martin, 1996).
Essential elements for successful differentiation include specific classroom management techniques addressing the special needs of a differentiated classroom, planned use of anchoring activities, and flexible use of time, space, and student groups. In a differentiated classroom, the management plan must include rules for working in a variety of configurations. You can only work with one group or individual at a time. Therefore, we have developed two critical rules that thwart chaos and preserve sanity. The first is “Use six-inch voices,” meaning that students should modulate their speaking level so that their voices can only be heard six inches away. The second rule is “Ask three before me.” If students need assistance completing a task or come to a stumbling block in a lesson and you are not available, they should find three other students to ask before they may interrupt you. If their three peers cannot answer the question, the student has permission to interrupt you. Adding the caveat that the student should also bring along the three students who were asked will nearly eliminate the chance that you will be interrupted except in extreme cases. Anchoring or “sponge” activities are provided for students to use when they are waiting for you to assist them before they can go any further or at the beginning of the class period to get them ready to work. A wide variety of materials and resources can serve as anchoring activities (see our website for a listing of books that have great activities for anchoring). Flexible grouping arrangements such as pairs, triads, or quads, as well as whole-group and small-group instruction, create opportunities to meet individual needs. A flexible use of time allows lessons to proceed to their natural conclusion, rather than being carried out in set blocks of time. The desks or tables should be arranged in such a way as to facilitate group work, as well as wholeclass groupings that encourage sharing of ideas.
A variety of instructional strategies, including compacting, learning contracts, cubing, and tiered lessons, can be used to differentiate instruction (for a discussion of these and other strategies, see Gregory & Chapman, 2002; Heacox, 2002; Smutney, Walker, & Meckstroth, 1997; Tomlinson, 1999; Winebrenner, 1992). It makes sense to alert your administration and the parents that you will be trying some new strategies in the classroom in case there are questions.
The tenets of differentiated instruction support both the Equity Principle and the Teaching Principle of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). These principles direct us to select and adapt content and curricula to meet the interests, abilities, and learning styles of our students; to recognize our students’ diversity; and to encourage them to reach their full potential in mathematics.
What is a Tiered Lesson?
Tomlinson (1999) described tiered lessons as “the meat and potatoes of differentiated instruction.” A tiered lesson is a differentiation strategy that addresses a particular standard, key concept, and generalization, but allows several pathways for students to arrive at an understanding of these components based on their interests, readiness, or learning profiles. A lesson tiered by readiness level implies that the teacher has a good understanding of the students’ ability levels with respect to the lesson and has designed the tiers to meet those needs. Think of a wedding cake with tiers of varying sizes. Many examples of lessons tiered in readiness have three tiers: below grade level, at grade level, and above grade level. There is no rule that states there may only be three tiers, however. The number of tiers we use will depend on the range of ability levels in your own classroom since you are forming tiers based on your assessment of your students’ abilities to handle the material particular to this lesson. Students are regrouped the next time you use tiering as a strategy. Hence, the idea of flexible, rather than static, groups is essential.
No matter how you choose to differentiate the lesson—readiness, interest, or learning profile—the number of groups per tier will vary, as will the number of students per tier. You are not looking to form groups of equal size. When you form groups based on the readiness needs of individual students, Tier I may have two groups of three students, Tier II five groups of four students, and Tier III may have one group of two students. When the lesson is tiered by interest or learning profile, the same guidelines apply for forming groups: Different tiers may have varying numbers of students. Even when students are already homogeneously grouped in classes by ability, there is still variance in their ability levels that must be addressed.
To take a closer look at the anatomy of a tiered lesson, we have included a mathematics lesson (see Figure 1) that was developed as part of the Javits Grant, Project GATE, a federally funded partnership between the Indianapolis Public Schools and Ball State University, both in Indiana. When developing a tiered lesson, we have found the eight steps described below useful.
When this lesson was taught, the students were engaged during the entire lesson. The lesson was introduced by reading the book Eating Fractions (McMillan, 1991). Students were placed in groups based on their level of readiness to interact with the content. Four students did not have a clear understanding of halves and fourths. These students needed a more concrete activity and were placed in Tier I. Another 12 students could recognize halves and thirds and were ready to complete the Tier II activity. They were placed in four triads. Two students had in-depth knowledge of halves and thirds and were placed in Tier III. This pair worked at a more abstract level, and the questions they were asked required them to use different critical thinking skills than the other two groups. Tier I and Tier II students were provided with activities from the book Fractions (Watt, 2001) to use as anchoring activities if they finished early or were waiting for the teacher’s assistance. The anchor for Tier III students was Apple Fractions (Pallotta, 2002), which introduced fifths through tenths.
The second sample lesson (see Figure 2) is tiered in process according to learning style. In this case, students are grouped heterogeneously based on one of two learning preferences: kinesthetic or visual. The same eight steps for tiering a lesson apply in this case. In the second lesson, notice that the activities are at relatively the same level of complexity. This would be the “layer cake” model as opposed to the “wedding cake” model used when tiering according to readiness.
Time, energy, and patience are required to learn to differentiate instruction effectively in an academically diverse classroom. In addition, you need administrative and peer support, as well as professional development over extended periods of time; therefore, don’t expect to have a differentiated classroom by Monday morning. Start small: Choose a favorite lesson in your next unit and differentiate it according to the needs of your students. Seek the expertise of specialists such as special and gifted education coordinators, media specialists, and others with whom you can collaborate to improve instruction in the academically diverse classroom.
For more information on tiering, contact the Center for Gifted Studies and Talent Development, Ball State University (BSU) https://www.bsu.edu/academics/centersandinstitutes/giftedstudies.
Research for this article was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant R206A980067) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This article, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences
in the classroom. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences:
The theory and practice. New
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2002).
Differentiated instructional strategies:
One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand
Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating
instruction in the regular classroom.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Martin, H. (1996). Multiple intelligences
in the mathematics classroom. Palatine,
McMillan, B. (1991). Eating fractions.
New York: Scholastic.
National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM). (2000).
Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Pallotta, J. (2002). Apple fractions. New
Smutney, J., Walker, S., & Meckstroth,
E. (1997). Teaching young gifted
children in the regular classroom.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated
classroom: Responding to the
needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and
Wahl, M. (1997). Math for humans.
Langley, WA: LivnLern Press.
Watt, F. ( 2001). Fractions. New York:
Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted
kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis,
MN: Free Spirit.
This article is reprinted with permission of Prufrock Press, Inc.
This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.