Imagine asking a group of students to run a race — but everyone must wear the same pair of shoes.
Not shoes that fit them personally.
Just the average size of the group.
Some students will cope.
A few may even win.
But many will struggle.
The shoes might be too tight, too loose, too heavy.
They might finish the race — but they won’t run well.
And they certainly won’t love running.
That’s what whole-class “average” teaching can feel like for many students.
They survive.
But they don’t thrive.
Let’s be honest for a moment.
Most teachers know that their students arrive in their classroom with different levels of skill, understanding, interest, readiness and engagement. In fact, in my 30+ years of doing this I have not met a teacher who thinks that all children are the same or ready for the same learning. So, we know that adjusting curriculum or differentiation is important… But…
Most educators would say differentiation is essential to allow students to grow and thrive as individuals.
And yet in many classrooms, it still isn’t happening consistently.
Not because teachers don’t care. Not because teachers think all students are the same.
But because differentiation is challenging to design, hard to implement and even more difficult to sustain.
There are almost no other fields in which individuals are required to engage with 30 individuals simultaneously, ensure that each of these individuals’ needs are met at the same time and then be judged on the outcomes for each individual based on standardised public achievement benchmarks.
Education has changed significantly over the past 30 years. We have an increasingly inclusive education system – a must for our society – a growing awareness of diversity, achievement and higher expectations from stakeholders.
Whilst, AI will make differentiation significantly easier to create – the implementation piece is where teachers balk. To implement well teachers, need to know their students as learners for learning goals and learning experiences. They need to be able to adjust for student development, interpret data and be willing to support and stretch students simultaneously. Teachers, rightly, worry about the social and emotional implications of students engaging in learning at different levels, they worry about coverage of the mandated curriculum and they worry about leaving children behind. These concerns are fair and show the compassion of our teaching force.
So, what do we do? And how do we do it well?
Why differentiation matters
Differentiated instruction responds to differences in student readiness, interests and learning profile through adjustments to content, process, product (Tomlinson, 2014) and learning environment (Maker).
In other words, differentiation is both proactive and responsive teaching.
But implementing that idea across a whole school system is not straightforward.
Research shows that teachers often recognise the importance of differentiation but struggle with the design and complexity of doing it well (Manivanana and Nor, 2020).
A large body of research has identified several consistent barriers:
• lack of pedagogical knowledge about differentiation
• limited planning time
• large class sizes – no matter what Hattie says.
• curriculum pacing pressures
• and perhaps most importantly, teacher self-efficacy.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to a teacher’s belief in their capacity to successfully implement particular teaching strategies.
And it turns out this belief matters enormously.
The self-efficacy challenge
Several large studies have found that teachers with stronger self-efficacy are significantly more likely to implement differentiated instruction effectively.
• teacher efficacy strongly predicts teachers’ willingness to differentiate instruction (Dixen et.al. 2014).
• teacher self-efficacy as a key variable explaining why some teachers implement differentiation more consistently than others (Suprayogi et.al, 2017).
• more recent research involving nearly 500 teachers found that self-efficacy and teacher enthusiasm are strongly associated with the use of differentiated practices in classrooms (Kalinowski et.al., 2024)
In short:
Teachers are far more likely to differentiate when they believe they can design and manage differentiated learning successfully.
And that belief is built through experience, modelling and professional learning.
Differentiation is not just a strategy
One reason differentiation can be difficult to implement is that it isn’t, nor should there be, a single teaching strategy.
It is really a design philosophy for learning.
Joyce VanTassel-Baska’s work on curriculum development emphasises that effective differentiation often involves adjusting:
• the complexity of learning
• the pace of learning
• the level of abstraction students engage with.
Karen B. Rogers’ (2007) synthesis of gifted education research similarly found that increasing pace and complexity produces some of the largest academic gains for advanced learners.
But these adjustments benefit far more than just high-ability students.
They allow more students to work within the “zone of proximal development” , the optimal challenge zone. When students work at the appropriate level of challenge, they have greater success, develop stronger self-efficacy in learning and are more likely to be motivated to learn.
Some argue that we should just stream students and be done with it. But this challenge even occurs in this situation. Differentiation of the curriculum is still a must between and even within these groups and teachers are reluctant to differentiate the learning or the assessment “in case” the gap gets too big.
The Misunderstandings:
There are many misunderstandings about differentiation. Here are just a few…
- It means an individual program for every student.
- It takes too much time
- It lowers standards
- It is only for students with additional learning needs
- Students miss out on foundational learning when differentiation is done
- It can only be done in ability groups
- It segregates children
- It is best through student choice
- Differentiation is about addressing different learning styles
The leadership question
This is where the conversation becomes important for school leaders.
Differentiation cannot be left as an individual teacher expectation.
It must become a school design question.
Schools that succeed in differentiation tend to focus on developing and implementing:
• concept drive curriculum design – allowing students to stretch whilst all learning through the same concept.
• flexible grouping structures – allowing targeted and explicit teaching at point of need for students with different levels of skill.
• strong formative assessment – to understand student growth and the next steps for learning.
• collaborative planning time – to create learning which is appropriate for the context and develop collective efficacy.
• sustained professional learning – to support teacher capacity and ensure that practices are maintained.
When differentiation is embedded in part of what teachers do when engaging in curriculum design, it becomes far more manageable.
When it is framed as either a daily improvisation task or extra work on top of…, it quickly becomes overwhelming.
A fair go for all
In Australia we have a strong belief about giving everyone a fair go, it is part of our national identity.
But fairness in education does not mean treating every learner exactly the same.
It means ensuring every learner has a genuine opportunity to succeed. In the current educational zeitgeist where explicit teaching is being championed – for good reason – the importance of differentiation within this framework can be easily lost.
Just as runners need shoes that fit, learners need learning experiences that fit.
When that happens, something powerful changes.
Students run harder.
They persist longer.
They begin to believe they belong in the race.
And that is when learning starts to thrive.
#FairGoForAll
Key References
Dixon, F., Yssel, N., McConnell, J., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
Kalinowski, E., Westphal, A., Jurczok, A., & Vock, M. (2024). The role of teacher self-efficacy and enthusiasm in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Scarparolo, G. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for differentiated instruction: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Suprayogi, M., et al. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom. ASCD.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners.Your Attractive Heading
