differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction involves teaching in a way that meets the different needs and interests of students using varied course content, activities, and assessments.

Teaching differently to different students

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is fundamentally the attempt to teach differently to different students, rather than maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction. Other frameworks, such as Universal Design for Learning , enjoin instructors to give students broad choice and agency to meet their diverse needs and interests. DI distinctively emphasizes instructional methods to promote learning for students entering a course with different readiness for, interest in, and ways of engaging with course learning based on their prior learning experiences ( Dosch and Zidon 2014). 

Successful implementation of DI requires ongoing training, assessment, and monitoring (van Geel et al. 2019) and has been shown to be effective in meeting students’ different needs, readiness levels, and interests (Turner et al. 2017). Below, you can find six categories of DI instructional practices that span course design and live teaching.

While some of the strategies are best used together, not all of them are meant to be used at once, as the flexibility inherent to these approaches means that some of them are diverging when used in combination (e.g., constructing homogenous student groups necessitates giving different types of activities and assessments; constructing heterogeneous student groups may pair well with peer tutoring) (Pozas et al. 2020). The learning environment the instructor creates with students has also been shown to be an important part of successful DI implementation (Shareefa et al. 2019). 

Differentiated Assessment

Differentiated assessment is an aspect of Differentiated Instruction that focuses on tailoring the ways in which students can demonstrate their progress to their varied strengths and ways of learning. Instead of testing recall of low-level information, instructors should focus on the use of knowledge and complex reasoning. Differentiation should inform not only the design of instructors’ assessments, but also how they interpret the results and use them to inform their DI practices. 

More Team Project Ideas

Steps to consider

There are generally considered to be six categories of useful differentiated instruction and assessment practices (Pozas & Schneider 2019):

• Making assignments that have tasks and materials that are qualitatively and/or quantitatively varied (according to “challenge level, complexity, outcome, process, product, and/or resources”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) It’s helpful to assess student readiness and interest by collecting data at the beginning of the course, as well as to conduct periodic check-ins throughout the course (Moallemi 2023 & Pham 2011)
• Making student working groups that are intentionally chosen (that are either homogeneous or heterogeneous based on “performance, readiness, interests, etc.”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) Examples of how to make different student groups provided by Stanford CTL  (Google Doc)
• Making tutoring systems within the working group where students teach each other (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) For examples of how to support peer instruction, and the benefits of doing so, see for example Tullis & Goldstone 2020 and Peer Instruction for Active Learning (LSA Technology Services, University of Michigan)
• Making non-verbal learning aids that are staggered to provide support to students in helping them get to the next step in the learning process (only the minimal amount of information that is needed to help them get there is provided, and this step is repeated each time it’s needed) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) Non-verbal cue cards support students’ self-regulation, as they can monitor and control their progress as they work (Pozas & Schneider 2019)
• Making instructional practices that ensure all students meet at least the minimum standards and that more advanced students meet higher standards , which involves monitoring students’ learning process carefully (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible; IP Module 5: Giving Inclusive Assessments) This type of approach to student assessment can be related to specifications grading, where students determine the grade they want and complete the modules that correspond to that grade, offering additional motivation to and reduced stress for students and additional flexibility and time-saving practices to instructors (Hall 2018)
• Making options that support student autonomy in being responsible for their learning process and choosing material to work on (e.g., students can choose tasks, project-based learning, portfolios, and/or station work, etc.) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) This option, as well as the others, fits within a general Universal Design Learning framework , which is designed to improve learning for everyone using scientific insights about human learning

Hall, M (2018). “ What is Specifications Grading and Why Should You Consider Using It? ” The Innovator Instructor blog, John Hopkins University Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation.

Moallemi, R. (2023). “ The Relationship between Differentiated Instruction and Learner Levels of Engagement at University .” Journal of Research in Integrated Teaching and Learning (ahead of print).

Pham, H. (2011). “ Differentiated Instruction and the Need to Integrate Teaching and Practice .” Journal of College Teaching and Learning , 9(1), 13-20.

Pozas, M. & Schneider, C. (2019). " Shedding light into the convoluted terrain of differentiated instruction (DI): Proposal of a taxonomy of differentiated instruction in the heterogeneous classroom ." Open Education Studies , 1, 73–90.

Pozas, M., Letzel, V. and Schneider, C. (2020). " Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity ." Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 20: 217-230.

Shareefa, M. et al. (2019). “ Differentiated Instruction: Definition and Challenging Factors Perceived by Teachers .” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Special Education (ICSE 2019). 

Tullis, J.G. & Goldstone, R.L. (2020). “ Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? ”, Cognitive Research 5 .

Turner, W.D., Solis, O.J., and Kincade, D.H. (2017). “ Differentiating Instruction for Large Classes in Higher Education ”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 29(3), 490-500.

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher A.J. (2019). “Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 30:1, 51-67, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

Advertisement

Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: pedagogical, quality and equity issues

• Published: 21 January 2014
• Volume 67 , pages 761–782, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• Felix Maringe 1 &
• Nevensha Sing 2  

5885 Accesses

69 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Marketisation, increased student mobility, the massification of Higher Education (HE) and stagnating staff numbers in universities have combined to cause a ripple effect of change both in the demography and size of university classes across the world. This has implications for the quality and equity of learning and the need to examine and to transform pedagogical practices. Despite the growing attention of literature on teaching large classes, there is a scarcity of research addressing the twin issues of large classes in an increasingly internationalised context. This paper seeks to contribute towards filling this gap. The paper provides a theoretical exploration of the causes of such classes in HE, reviews the empirical evidence against large class teaching and examines the difficulties associated with teaching demographically diverse classes in HE. The paper identifies eight pedagogical strategies to address the issues of class size and diversity, which relate to increasing student participation and engagement; increasing curricula access and the language of instruction; increasing staff intercultural understanding; increasing opportunities for deep learning for all; on-going monitoring of student satisfaction; increasing opportunities to achieve; diversification of assessment; and the merit of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). It calls for new research on global learning cultures; reviews of global assessment and promising pedagogical practices and processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning environments’ influence on students’ learning experience in an Australian Faculty of Business and Economics

Lisiane Closs, Marian Mahat & Wesley Imms

Language and communication in international students’ adaptation: a bibliometric and content analysis review

Michał Wilczewski & Ilan Alon

Institution level awarding gap metrics for identifying educational inequity: useful tools or reductive distractions?

Katharine Elizabeth Hubbard

Altbach, P. G. (2009). Peripheries and centers: Research universities in developing countries. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10 (1), 15–27.

Article   Google Scholar  

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Bainbridge, W., & Lasley, T. (2002). Poverty not race, holds back urban students. School information - public school reports - school ratings - school rankings - national , 28 .

Bambas, A., Casas, J. A., Drayton, H. A., & Valdez, A. (2000). Health and human development in the new global economy . Washington, DC: World Health Organization.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19 , 3–49.

Batista, J. P. (2012). General agreement on trade in services. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Wiley - Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization , 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bean, J. C. (2001). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (1), 57–75.

Bligh, J. (2002). The first year of doctoring: Still a survival exercise. Medical Education, 36 , 2–3.

Brown, G. (2001). Assessment: A guide for lecturers . New York: Generic Centre: Learning and Teaching Support Network.

Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale? The marketisation of UK higher education . Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

Brown, S., Race, P., & Smith, B. (1996). 500 tips on assessment . Milton Park: Routledge Falmer.

Calderon, A., & Mathies, C. (2013). Institutional research in the future: Challenges within higher education and the need for excellence in professional practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2013 (157), 77–90.

Carbone, E. (1999). Students behaving badly in large classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 77 , 35–43.

Carbone, E., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Teaching large classes: Unpacking the problem and responding creatively. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To improve the Academy (Vol. 17). Stillwater: New Forums Press and the Professional and Developmental Network in Higher Education.

CHE. (2010a). Access and throughput in South African Higher Education: Three case studies . In (Vol. 9.). Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. http://www.che.ac.za .

CHE. (2010b). Teaching and learning beyond formal access. Assessment through the looking glass. Reading below the surface (Vol. 10). Pretoria: Council on Higher Education. http://www.che.ac.za .

Christopher, D. A. (2011). Interactive large classes: The dynamics of teacher/student interaction. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 1 (8), 82–98.

Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 81 , 5–16.

Cuseo, J. (2004). The empirical case against large class size: adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21 (1), 5–21.

Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of memorising and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 65–84.

Dallat, J. (2009). Learning and Teaching. Online staff resource document. Department of Learning and Teaching: Dundalk Institute of Technology.

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3 , 1–28. http://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/Making-Sense-of-MOOCs.pdf .

Daniel, J., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2013). Daffodil University. Paper presented at the international conference on tertiary education: Realities and challenges.

DHET. (2012). The department of higher education and training. Call for comments on the green paper for post-school education and training. 34935(3), 98. [Online] http://www.info.gov.za/view/DynamicAction?pageid=623&myID=324216 . Accessed 24 October 2013.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24 (3), 331–350.

Douglas, J. A. (2004). The dynamics of massification and differentiation: A comparative look at higher education systems in the United Kingdom and California. Higher Education Management & Policy, 16 (3), 9–33.

Dridi, M. (2013). Achieving education for all goals: Does corruption matter? In Munich personal RePEc archive (MPRA paper no. 47659).

Dunkin, M., & Barnes, J. (1985). Handbook of research on teaching . New York: Macmillan.

Dzvimbo, P. (2003). The International migration of skilled human capital from developing countries. Paper presented at the report to regional training conference on improving tertiary education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Things That Work.

Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2 (1), 1–30.

Entwistle, N. (1998). Understanding academic performance at university: A research retrospective . London: Whurr Publishers.

Entwistle, N. (2001). Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education. Kybernetes, 30 (5/6), 593–603.

Fischer, C. G., & Grant, G. E. (1983). Intellectual levels in college classrooms . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Gibbs, P. (2011). Adopting consumer time and the marketing of higher education. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion & E. Nixon (Eds.), The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer , (pp. 52–63). UK: Routledge.

Gibson, R. (1976). Humour: A neglected area of educational studies? Education for Teaching, 101 , 4–15.

Gravett, S., & Geyser, H. C. (2004). Teaching and learning in higher education . Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46 (4), 643–679. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01355.x .

Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’ context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare, 40 (1), 7–23.

Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). ‘The best education in the world’: Reality, repetition or cliché? International students’ reasons for choosing an English university. Studies in Higher Education, 37 (8), 1005–1022.

Hofstede, G. (1999). The universal and the specific in 21st-century global management. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 28 (1), 34–43.

Holden, R., & Griggs, V. (2011). Supporting and teaching reflective learning in HR/HRD: making a difference? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the UFRD Conference, Cheltenham.

Hornsby, D. J., Osman, R., & De Matos-Ala, J. (Eds.). (2013). Large class pedagogy: Interdisciplinary perspectives for quality tertiary education . South Africa: SUN Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43 (02), 154–167.

Hoyt, D., & Perera, S. (2000). Validity of the IDEA student ratings of instruction system: An update. IDEA research report, 2 .

Hwami, M. (2011). Understanding the crisis in higher education in Zimbabwe. In Critical perspectives on neoliberal globalization, development and education in Africa and Asia (pp. 103–119). Zimbabwe: Sense Publishers.

Jenkins, A. (2002). Comment on “class size.” Posted on: Listserv for the Professional & Organizational Development Network: Higher Education, June 27.

Jenkins, A. (2004). A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relations . New York: Higher Education Academy.

Jennings, M. M. (2012). In defense of the sage on the stage: Escaping from the “sorcery” of learning styles and helping students learn how to learn. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 29 (2), 191–237.

Julia, M., & Veni, B. (2012). An analysis of the factors affecting students’ adjustment at a university in Zimbabwe. International Education Studies, 5 (6), 244.

Knight, J. (2004). Crossborder education in a trade environment: Complexities and policy implications. The implications of WTO/GATS for higher education in Africa , 59.

Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 207–227): Springer.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lederman, D. (2012). Higher ed shrinks. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/10/enrollments-fall-first-time .

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Little, B., & Locke, W. (2011). Questioning excellence in higher education. In R. Michele & V. Massimiliano (Eds.), Conceptions of excellence in teaching and learning and implications for future policy and practice (pp. 119–137). Zimbabwe: SensePublishers.

MacGregor, J., Cooper, J. L., Smith, K. A., & Robinson, P. (Eds.) (2000). Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maringe, F. (2010). Leading learning: Enhancing the learning experience of university students through anxiety auditing. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 4 (1), 15–31.

Maringe, F., & Jennings, J. (2013). Stigma, tensions, and apprehension: The academic writing experience of international students. Journal of Humanities and Social ScienceI, ORS Journals .

Maringe, F., Foskett, N., & Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43 (1), 9–36.

Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence - based perspective (pp. 319–383). Netherlands: Springer.

McCroskey, J. C., & Vetta, R. D. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27 , 99–111.

McKeachie, W. (1980). Class size, large classes, and multiple sections. Academe, 66 , 24–27.

McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Teaching and learning in the college classroom. A review of the Research Literature (1986) and November 1987 Supplement.

Nieto, C., & Booth, M. Z. (2010). Cultural competence its influence on the teaching and learning of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14 (4), 406–425.

Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross - cultural perspective . New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21 (8), 5–14.

Okebukola, P. (2013). Open education and the march to 2020: Can Nigeria make it? Second Convocation Lecture, National Open University of Nigeria, January, 18 .

Oliver, R. (2008). Engaging first year students using a Web-supported inquiry-based learning setting. Higher Education, 55 (3), 285–301.

Park, J. S. Y., & Wee, L. (2013). Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language policy in a globalizing world . London: Taylor & Francis.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Penner, J. G. (1984). Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid communication breakdown in the classroom . Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Pierrakakis, K. (2009). The sustainable growth paradigm: implications for technology and policy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ramsden, P. (1999). The 1999 CEQ interim report.

Ratcliff, J. (1992). What they took and what they learned: Learning from assessment and transcript analysis. In Proceedings from the Asheville Institute on General Education , pp. 64–69.

Riggirozzi, P., Tussie, D., Quiliconi, C., & Tuozzo, F. (2011). Regional integration in developing countries: A comparative matrix of trade, health and education and lessons for Africa. (UNDP Human Development Report). . (in press). New York: United Nations Development Programme.

Rubalcava, M. (1991). Locating transformative teaching in multicultural education. Unpublished manuscript. University of California - Berkeley, Department of Anthropology, Special Project .

Sallis, E. (1996). Total quality management in education . London: Routledge.

Sayed, Y., Soudien, C., & Carrim, N. (2003). Discourses of exclusion and inclusion in the south: Limits and possibilities. Journal of Educational Change, 4 , 231–248.

Secada, W. G. (1989). Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest, and equity in mathematics education. Peabody Journal of Education, 66 (2), 22–56. doi: 10.1080/01619568909538637 .

Simpson, O. (2005). E - learning and the future of distance education in the markets of the 21st century. Paper presented at the proceedings of EDEN 2005 annual conference.

Simpson, O. (2013). Supporting students in online, open & distance learning . London: Routledge.

Simpson, O., Bramble, W., & Panda, S. (2008). Cost benefits of student retention policies and practices. Economics of distance and online learning , 162–178.

Smith, V. (1992). The purposes of general education and implications for pedagogy . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Spear, K. I. (1984). Editor’s notes. Rejuvenating introductory courses . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, C. A., & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton: Anker Publishing.

Stones, E. (1970). Students’ attitudes toward the size of teaching groups. Educational Review, 21 (2), 98–108.

Taylor, M. J., & Hegarty, S. (1985). The best of both worlds? A review of research into the education of pupils of South Asian origin . Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 23 (4), 395–411.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition . Chicago: The University of Chicago.

UKCISA. (2011). United Kingdom Council for International Student Affairs: Sources of funding for international students 2011–12. UK: British Council, UKCISA: the UK Council for International Student Affairs, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2004). The unbearable vagueness of critical thinking in the context of the Anglo-Saxonisation of education. International Education Journal, 5 (3), 417–422.

Walqui, A. (2012). Instruction for diverse groups of English language learners. In Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the common core state standards and next generation science standards, 94 , 94.

Weimer, M. (1993). Improving your classroom teaching . Beverly Hills: SAGE.

Wulff, D. H., Nyquist, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1987). Students’ perceptions of large classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1987 (32), 17–30.

Yuan, L., Powell, S. (2013). A white paper: MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education . http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667 : Retrieved March, 21, 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Education Leadership and Policy Studies, School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Room Number: B163, Private Bag 3, Johannesburg, 2050, South Africa

Felix Maringe

Division of Education Leadership and Policy Studies, School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O. Box 17795, Norkem Park, Johannesburg, 1631, South Africa

Nevensha Sing

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Maringe .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Maringe, F., Sing, N. Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: pedagogical, quality and equity issues. High Educ 67 , 761–782 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9710-0

Download citation

Published : 21 January 2014

Issue Date : June 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9710-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Internationalisation
• Pedagogical practices
• Large classes
• Diverse classroom environments
• International students MOOCS
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Using differentiated teaching to address academic diversity in higher education

Empirical evidence from two cases.

• Get Citation Alerts
• Get Permissions
• Download PDF

University educators increasingly face groups or classes of students with diverse academic levels, challenging a ‘one size fits all’ approach to teaching. In this article, we examine whether and how differentiated teaching, especially the concept of student readiness, can be applied to assess and respond to academic diversity, exemplified by two different cases; a methods lecture series and a peer-evaluation seminar. Each case presents specific tools, activities and techniques inspired by differentiated teaching that may be replicated or used for inspiration in similar contexts. The results include better fulfilment of intended learning outcomes, teaching that is perceived to be meaningful by students and educators, and a more inclusive learning environment. The two cases demonstrate the utility of differentiated teaching in higher education, challenging the prevalent assumption that differentiated teaching does not apply well to a university setting.

Higher education institutions increasingly face diverse student populations with learners from different backgrounds and with varying educational experience ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Fry et al. 2008 ; Ramburuth and McCormick 2001 ; Tomlinson and Imbeau 2013 ). In turn, university teachers supervise and instruct students within the same project or course with potentially very different prerequisites for achieving the same learning goals ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ). Ideally, the teacher is able to bring these different competencies into play in a way that adds value to the course or project and helps the students achieve the relevant learning outcomes. However, the reality is that in many cases the teacher faces an academically diverse group of students where the gap is too wide. They essentially do not speak the same academic language and have very different prerequisites for understanding and using theory and methods within the given subject. On top of this, the teacher is not necessarily trained to deal with this challenge and has no or limited knowledge of the students’ abilities.

The aim of this article is to examine in theory and practice how the pedagogy of differentiated teaching can equip university teachers with the necessary tools and theory to handle academic diversity in groups of students in project supervision or classroom teaching. Differentiated teaching is a pedagogical approach, where teachers provide different avenues for the students to learn the content of the given course, thereby adapting to meet different student needs ( Tomlinson 2017 ). However, the use of differentiated teaching has so far primarily been examined in elementary and secondary education (de Graaf et al. 2019; Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). There is thus limited documentation of application in higher education ( Boelens et al. 2018 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ; Turner et al. 2017 ). A reason for this might be that it is more challenging to apply differentiated teaching principles in higher education because of large class sizes and time constraints, among other factors ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ).

We argue that studies testing the principles of differentiated learning in higher education are necessary, first, exactly because the university classroom differs significantly from primary and secondary schools in terms of academic diversity, physical layout, number of students, teaching style and pedagogy. Second, because the few studies that do exist on differentiated learning in higher education show that it leads to improved learning experiences and outcomes for students ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ). We thus set out to address the following research question: How can differentiated teaching be used to identify and address academic diversity among university students?

In order to address this research question, we present the results of a differentiated teaching intervention in two cases at Roskilde University in Denmark. Like in other parts of the world, academic diversity has increased in Denmark; the higher education sector has expanded to include more students in general and more students with non-graduate parents in particular. At Roskilde University, this diversity is further pronounced due to an educational structure that builds on the fundamental principles of interdisciplinary degrees and problem-oriented project work ( Andersen and Heilesen 2015 ). In practice, this means that the academic staff often teach and supervise groups of students from a variety of subject combinations, such as geography and history, or communications and business studies. Thus, the students do not come only from different (academic) backgrounds. They also acquire different experiences, methods and theoretical knowledge from their various disciplines and departments at the university.

The two cases presented in this article exemplify the challenges that can occur when university teachers either supervise or instruct students at varying academic levels. The first case is a methods course for students, who take up course work in social sciences, either as a part of an interdisciplinary degree or to qualify for a master's programme. The other case is a supervision project module, where students writing projects together are clustered into a larger group with other project teams. In both cases, the authors have experienced challenges that we deem are related to academic diversity. Based on a review of literature on differentiated teaching, we identify relevant pedagogical approaches and tools that we tested in an intervention in both cases to create a better match between student level(s) and the content and process of our teaching and supervision.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. The next section elaborates on the concept and practice of differentiated teaching. In the third section, we present the two cases, as well as problem identification and design of our differentiated teaching intervention. The fourth section presents our results, where we evaluate the intervention and whether our differentiated teaching approach has helped address the identified problems in our cases. Finally, we discuss the potential and challenges of using differentiated teaching at university level.

• Differentiated teaching in higher education

Differentiated teaching is defined in somewhat different ways in the scholarly literature, but the fundamental pedagogy comprises a constructive response to what learners already know ( Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). Differentiated teaching has been divided into two approaches: divergent , where goals and teaching methods are highly specified to meet the needs of individuals or homogenous groups, and convergent , where all students work on common tasks to achieve common goals ( Corno 2008 ; de Graaf et al. 2019; Deunk et al. 2015 ).

Carol Tomlinson and her co-authors have been engaged in academic discussion of differentiation since they introduced the concept in the late 1990s (e.g., Tomlinson et al. 2003 ; Tomlinson and Imbeau 2013 ; Tomlinson and Moon 2013 ; Tomlinson 1999 , 2014 , 2017 ). Tomlinson promotes a convergent approach to differentiated teaching as she argues that common goals are a requirement for differentiated learning to happen. She further argues that differentiated learning builds on the interrelationship between three curricular elements. First, content is the input students learn, or in other words what they are taught, and how students access the material. Second, process is how the students learn. Third, the product concerns the output showing what the students have learned. Tomlinson argues that differentiated teaching is effective facilitation because it takes differences between students into account in all three of these curricular elements ( Tomlinson 2017 ).

In line with this understanding, Michelle Chamberlin and Robert Powers (2010) have outlined seven core principles that guide differentiated teaching, which we aimed to follow as we carried out our interventions: (1) Clearly communicated link between curriculum, instruction and (ongoing) assessment that informs about student understanding of material, personal interests and learning profiles. (2) Teachers respond to student differences. (3) Students are challenged at a level that is attainable, through lessons that emphasise critical thinking intended to promote individual growth, while expected to participate in respectful work. (4) Teachers and students collaborate in the learning process. (5) Group work is intermixed with whole class discussions and activities. Student groupings are based on readiness, interests, or learning profiles. (6) The approach to differentiated teaching is proactive rather than reactive. (7) Space, time, and materials are utilised to suit the needs of the various learners ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ).

Another key aspect of differentiated teaching that we applied was the use of both conceptual and practical pedagogical tools. Conceptual tools are overarching principles or guidelines that inform application of practical tools ( Grossman, Smagorinsky et al. 2000 ; Grossman, Valencia et al. 1999 ). Hilary Dack (2019) highlighted Shelley Sherman's (2009) argument that educators oftentimes forget to introduce the conceptual underpinnings behind the implementation of a practical tool. To avoid this, our introduction of practical tools to further differentiated learning will be accompanied by explanations of why these tools are implemented and the goals that we hope to achieve in doing so.

In order to differentiate, teachers must know the students’ levels of readiness in terms of prior knowledge, interests, and learning profiles ( Pashler et al. 2009 ; Tomlinson et al. 2003 ). Based on this, student readiness emerges as a key concept in differentiated teaching and in our intervention ( Pham 2011 ). However, differentiated teaching does not mean the learning goals should vary for each student depending on their readiness level. Rather, the teacher should acquire information about the students’ prior competencies/knowledge and, based on this information, provide the students with different avenues for achieving the learning goals ( Pham 2011 ).

Research design and methods

Our study consists of two cases of diverse student groups in undergraduate courses for which the authors of this article are responsible. These cases were chosen (1) because they each represent a primary form of student teacher interaction in higher education, and (2) because we have experienced challenges associated with academic diversity in both cases.

The selected cases are both within social sciences and offered to undergraduate students in the same department, but they vary in regard to class size and format, as summarised in Table 1 . This variation allows us to explore the potential and challenges of selected differentiated teaching approaches in different contexts. We elaborate on the respective challenges associated with the diverse student groups in the subsequent sections.

Description of the two cases

• Description of and problem identification in Case 1: Methods course

The first case is a methods course offered every fall semester. This course is compulsory for students from humanities and natural science who take up course work at the Department of Social Sciences and Business as part of a dual degree, but it can also be an elective course for social science students of, for example, public administration or business studies. The first group often includes students from university colleges or, in a few cases, students who have been in the labour market for some time before continuing their higher education. The composition changes somewhat from year to year. The purpose of the methods course is for the students to learn the most fundamental qualitative and quantitative methods and research designs in social sciences, and to equip the students with practical methodological skills. The course consists of nine lessons that vary from two to four hours.

The learning activities were traditionally a mix of lectures and hands-on exercises. The exercises were sometimes in groups, sometimes individual, where students were instructed to, for instance, formulate questions for a hypothetical survey or identify different types of variables. The examination consisted of a written, home-based exam a few weeks after the last lecture to be completed within forty-eight hours. The content of the course, the readings and the exercises were altered for the intervention, as we describe later on.

Because the students in this course come from other departments or from outside the university, they may have very different levels of experience with and knowledge of methodology. For instance, the humanities students mostly have experience with qualitative methods, while natural science students have more experience with quantitative methods. Moreover, some attend the course solely to fulfil a prerequisite, while others are highly motivated and eager to learn. During previous semesters, we observed and experienced how these differences manifested in several challenges that we assess originate from academic diversity.

Selective and low attendance

While all or most of the students showed up to the first lesson, only about half attended the subsequent lessons, and the number fluctuated depending on the theme of the lesson. Based on informal talks with students and an oral evaluation midway through the course, the students seemed to use the teaching plan as a menu to choose from, indicating that many of the students did not find the course relevant as a whole.

A lack of engagement and activity during lessons

It proved difficult to engage and activate the students that were present during lectures and exercises. Some expressed that they found the readings and exercises too difficult, others that they found them too easy. Consequently, only a few students participated actively in lectures and group exercises (e.g., by posing questions, displaying enthusiasm and interest, presenting results from group discussions, etc.).

Only a subgroup achieved the learning outcomes

The student evaluation toward the end of the course showed that those students with a medium level knowledge seemed to learn and benefit from the course, while students at the ends of the spectrum did not.

• Description of and problem identification in Case 2: Cluster supervision

The second case is so-called cluster supervision. Each semester students at Roskilde University earn half of their credits by working on and delivering a group project (normally two to five students in a group). Each project group is assigned a supervisor, who they normally meet with three to four times during the semester to discuss their project and receive feedback. This supervision is supplemented with cluster supervision two times during the semester. In these sessions, three or four project groups are randomly clustered together (normally fifteen to twenty students) and meet in sessions that are moderated and structured by a faculty member.

Prior to the intervention, the learning activities within the cluster sessions consisted of a short presentation by the faculty member on a generic topic of relevance to the project report, such as what should be included in the methods section of the report. The presentation was followed by the students giving each other feedback. All groups submitted their preliminary work on the reports before the cluster session. Additionally, they were expected to prepare thorough feedback for one or two of the other randomly assigned groups. No template for feedback was given to or used by the students.

Due to the way groups are formed and the random combination of groups in the cluster supervision session, the group cluster may be highly diverse in terms of academic level and experience of working together. The students form the project groups on their own with guidance from faculty. In practice, this means that they are formed based on a mix of interest in specific topics, academic ambition, social aspects including friendships, work styles, schedules and necessity, since every student has to be assigned to a group. This means that the basis for groups differ; some groups may have been shaped based on academic ambition, while others may have been shaped simply because no other options were available. In addition, some groups may consist of students who have worked together on previous projects, while others may be working together for the first time. The students and the faculty member have no prior knowledge about the other groups, except for a brief project presentation that each group is requested to circulate to the other groups before the session. Based on informal discussions with students and our own observations, we found a number of problems that all relate to academic diversity.

Lack of broad student involvement

The ‘group to group’ feedback structure means that each group only receives in depth feedback from one other group. If this feedback is subpar, the takeaway from the session is limited. It is often only the one or two academically strongest or most talkative students from each group who provide feedback. Essentially, the ‘group to group’ feedback therefore often becomes one-to-one feedback between the strongest and/or most dominant group members.

Lack of purpose and fear of embarrassment

Challenges emerge when the gap between academically advanced and less academically advanced groups become too wide. Less advanced groups may feel that they have nothing to contribute, may provide feedback that is of little use to the stronger group, or may not be able to absorb the feedback they receive. This may create a lack of purpose for the stronger groups and instances of awkwardness or humiliation for the weaker groups.

Lack of feedback competency

When feedback is not absorbed by the receiving group, it may also be because students are not pedagogically trained or experienced, or necessarily competent in terms of the difference between ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feedback.

Lack of teacher proactiveness

Teachers have little or no prior knowledge about the students, therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, to be proactive in terms of mitigating the challenges mentioned above.

Lack of knowledge/recognition of intended learning outcomes (ILOs)

The students see the only outcome of the sessions as the feedback they receive on their own project. They are rarely aware that a key exercise and take-away comes from giving feedback.

• The intervention

The research design entails an intervention of selected differentiated teaching approaches in both cases to compare their usefulness in addressing similar problems associated with diverse student groups in different contexts. The selection of techniques is based on our problem identification and the literature review, choosing those techniques we believe match or best address the challenges we face. The result is a threefold approach, as illustrated in Figure 1 , which takes its point of departure in assessing the students’ readiness level. We describe the process and results of the actual intervention in more detail in the results section but provide a brief overview of the selected methods below and in Table 2 .

Teaching activities for the intervention

Design of the intervention

Citation: Learning and Teaching 14, 2; 10.3167/latiss.2021.140206

• Download Figure

The baseline for the intervention in both cases is comprised of the challenges identified in the previous sections, which stem from our own experiences and observations from previous semesters along with student evaluations. This design does not provide means for causal inference. Without an experimental design, which has not been feasible in our cases, we cannot determine whether the changes we observe are, in fact, due to our intervention, which is an issue we discuss toward the end of this article.

In Case 1, we distributed a survey to the students prior to the intervention to assess their readiness level. We asked them to rate their level of experience with and to what degree they felt equipped to use ten different qualitative and quantitative methods for collecting and analysing data (e.g., interviews, surveys, descriptive statistics), as well as five different research designs. Based on their answers, we applied differentiated teaching in two of Tomlinson's curricular elements: the content of the course (input) and the learning paths (process) we provided the students. We did this by differentiating the in-class exercises, readings and focus of the lectures – we elaborate how in the results section. The differentiation was fully implemented in six out of nine lessons; a colleague that was not involved in the intervention conducted the last three lessons. Hence, the intervention, empirical examples and the results of the intervention refer to the overall planning of the course and the first six out of nine lessons.

In Case 2, we used the online tool Peergrade, an online platform to facilitate peer feedback sessions with students, 1 to achieve the same purpose of assessing student readiness and progress in order to differentiate input and process. Peergrade was used to administer submission of content and feedback among students and makes it possible to create rubrics that convey the learning goals and expectations toward feedback in a more concrete way to the students. The students submit their project reports in Peergrade and are asked to provide feedback via the system. The feedback given is based on predesigned rubrics reflecting the intended learning outcomes. Students provide feedback individually, which allowed us to see the students’ level of competency and their ability to provide feedback in order to prepare the cluster supervision (see online supplementary material for survey questions and rubrics) – we further elaborate this in the results section.

• Data collection for evaluating the intervention

To assess the results of the intervention, we use three different types of data that can help us shed light on possible changes in the challenges described earlier.

First, we rely on the students’ perception of their own learning outcomes. In Case 1, we repeated the readiness survey after the intervention. Thereby, we can detect any changes in how the students score their degree of experience with the different methods and level of competence before and after the intervention. For Case 2, we reflected with the students in the final cluster session about what they had learned.

Secondly, we rely on our own observations to triangulate the self-evaluations from the students. In both cases, we continuously took observational notes immediately after lectures and cluster sessions. We registered our observations of the students’ activity, engagement and participation during the lessons – did they pose and answer questions during whole class sessions or were they predominately silent? Did they give thorough feedback to peers? Furthermore, in Case 1, we registered how many students were present each time.

Finally, the students’ output is used to assess their learning progress based on the feedback they gave their peers in Peergrade in Case 2 and the formal student evaluation of the course conducted by the study board in Case 1.

We do not believe that the students’ final grades constitute a reliable way of evaluating the results of the intervention. The main reason is that attendance in the cluster supervision and methods classes is not compulsory, which means that students can take the exam without participating in the intervention.

Results of the intervention

In this section, we report how the implementation of the intervention proceeded, and how the described diversity challenges have changed (or not) for Case 1 and Case 2 respectively.

Implementation of the intervention

The implementation of the intervention in the first case can be categorised into three approaches related to input and process: ‘course content based on readiness-assessment’, ‘differentiation in readings’ and ‘differentiation in student exercises’.

First, the readiness survey was helpful in planning the course content. The survey identified where the students had varying levels of experience with a method, that is, clear examples of diversity, but also where a majority of the students had similar degrees or lack of experience with a method, which is equally important for course planning. To illustrate, we present a few survey results. For instance, Figure 2 shows that approximately 48 per cent of students agreed that they were already well equipped to conduct surveys prior to the course, whereas the other half disagreed or reported a neutral stance. We saw a similar distribution in responses with respect to document analysis, where half of the students had experience with document studies and the other half did not. Meanwhile, the survey showed that around 90 per cent of the students had none or very little experience with quantitative analyses, such as descriptive statistics (see Figure 3 ). In contrast, almost 93 per cent of the sixty-seven students that responded had experience with conducting qualitative interviews. 2

Based on this information, we decided to focus the lectures on those methods where most students had either the least experience or where the students represented the most mixed levels of experience, that is, equipping the students with fundamental skills, especially in surveys, quantitative analysis and document studies. 3 The information from the survey also implied that previously fixed elements of the course, such as interviews and observational studies, were more or less entirely removed from the lectures (although not from the readings, see below), as most of the students reported feeling well equipped to work with these methods.

Second, we differentiated readings, providing both advanced and less advanced texts on each method along with texts in Danish for those who found the English textbook difficult. The purpose was to provide the students with different avenues for learning the material and going beyond the material in case the students found the mandatory readings insufficient. We also provided suggestions for supplemental readings for those students who wished to engage with the course topics at a more advanced level or learn more about methods we did not prioritise in the lessons, for example, interviews and observational studies.

Finally, we differentiated the exercises we gave the students during class by posing mandatory as well as so-called bonus questions. As an example, we asked the students to go through three or four fundamental questions on descriptive statistics, which resembled what they would have to demonstrate for the exam, while a so-called bonus question was more advanced. The purpose was to challenge those students who reported already having experience with a given method in the readiness survey.

We did not base the planning of the course entirely on the readiness survey. First, because students’ own perception of their competencies may be an insufficient indicator. Second, because we wanted to ensure a coherent course, which required that a lesson on, for instance, social science research designs was included.

• Changes to diversity challenges

We observed that the first challenge, attendance, improved markedly during the intervention. Almost all the students registered for the course participated in the first lesson and this number remained steady throughout the intervention, as opposed to earlier semesters. Comments in the midway evaluation and final evaluation of the course suggests that the students found the course topics relevant, indicating the usefulness in planning course content informed by the readiness survey.

Student self-evaluation of statistical competencies prior to the intervention

Student self-evaluation of survey competencies prior to the intervention

Secondly, lack of engagement improved as well, compared to previous semesters. From our own observations, the students were much more active and committed during lessons. We noted an increase in the number of relevant questions to the teacher during plenary sessions, lively student discussions during group exercises, and their presentations of group discussions and exercises demonstrated that they were taking the task seriously. The presentations also revealed that some groups had time to complete the bonus questions, whereas other groups had only or barely finished the mandatory questions, demonstrating the usefulness in providing different levels of exercises. During the midway evaluation, students expressed that the group exercises in general were very beneficial, as it helped them internalise the curriculum. Furthermore, they remarked that the supplemental readings were helpful, especially for those who considered the textbook too difficult.

The change in attendance and engagement also suggests that they felt challenged enough by the curriculum and exercises to stay engaged, giving them an incentive to show up for class and participate actively, but not so challenged that they became detached. This observation is substantiated by the midway evaluation, which shows that the six lessons included in the intervention were perceived as academically challenging, but that it was possible to keep up based on readings, lessons and exercises. However, both in the midway and final evaluations, some students noted that the course was very (and perhaps too) compact, as the course covered a lot of material within a limited number of lessons.

Finally, the third challenge, that only a subgroup of students achieve the learning outcomes, seemed to change for the better. After the intervention, the study board's evaluation of the course showed increased satisfaction with the academic level and curriculum. The readiness survey, which we repeated after completing the intervention, also showed that there was progress in the students’ self-evaluation of competencies. For instance, Figure 4 illustrates that approximately 55 per cent of students reported feeling well equipped to conduct descriptive statistics after completing the course, compared to approximately 10 per cent prior to the course ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 5 shows that after the intervention the percentage of students that feel well equipped to conduct surveys increased to almost 82 per cent, compared to the very mixed levels of self-reported survey competencies prior to the intervention, see Figure 3 .

However, the post-intervention survey responses come with great uncertainty and should be interpreted with caution. Only twenty-two completed the survey after the intervention, making the post-intervention survey responses much less representative and potentially biased. The drop in response rate could be due to general course fatigue, that they were engaged in exams at this point and survey overload, as the students also had to fill out an evaluation of the course from the study board.

Student self-evaluation of statistical competencies after the intervention

The implementations made as part of the intervention can be categorised into three aspects: ‘explication of learning outcomes’, ‘session restructuring based on ILOs and student feedback’ and ‘differentiation based on readiness assessment’.

First, we explicated the learning outcomes by providing the students with a written introduction to the cluster session. This contained access to the Peergrade system and instructions that each group should submit a brief introduction to their project, while each individual student should provide feedback to one randomly assigned group based on a rubric. It also contained detailed information about the ILOs for the session. It was articulated that the purpose of the session is threefold: ‘(1) A chance to learn by giving other students feedback (it is empirically proven that students learn more from giving feedback than from receiving it); (2) A place to get inspiration for your own project; and (3) A place to get feedback on your project’. Finally, the students were instructed to consider how they provide feedback and given information about what can be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feedback.

Student self-evaluation of survey competencies after the intervention

Second, we restructured the session, based on the ILOs and the student feedback collected through Peergrade. As mentioned, the cluster sessions had previously been based on oral group-to-group feedback, which in practice meant that each group often only received in-depth feedback from one other group. With the intervention, students were required to provide individual feedback, rather than group feedback, which meant that each group received in-depth written feedback from an average of three different, randomly selected, individuals. The starting point for the session in the intervention is the written feedback as well as the explicit change in focus from what can be gained by receiving feedback to also include what can be gained from giving it.

During the intervention, the session progressed as follows: The students were given a brief introductory ‘lecture’. The student groups each gave a brief (three to five minute) presentation of their project idea. The student groups were asked to read the written feedback they had received, discuss and evaluate it, and answer the following questions:

• 1. What are three aspects of the feedback that were useful to you (why?)
• 2. What were feedback elements that were less useful (why)?
• 3. How will you change your project after this discussion?

This was followed with a discussion in plenum. Instead of using this time to present direct oral feedback to the other groups, the groups were asked to present and reflect on their answers to the questions above, while the other groups were asked to reflect and comment on these answers.

Third, our access to the students’ project introductions and individual feedback prior to the session allowed us to assess general, group and individual level of competency and ability to provide feedback. We used this information to inform the contents of the initial ‘lecture’ and to design talking points for each group. We designed the talking points by reading and comparing the submitted project introductions and the written feedback from other students. Talking points could, for example, ask students to reflect on their chosen methods, theoretical choices, and more. In cases where we found a good alignment between the level/quality of the content compared to the feedback given, no or few talking points were provided. In cases where the feedback was not adequate or indicated a gap in academic level between the content and feedback, we added more talking points. Each student group was provided with a customised handout containing the feedback they had received from other students and the talking points we had prepared. They were then asked to discuss and evaluate the feedback and to reflect on what relevant changes they should make to their project based on the feedback and the talking points. Because each student group received a customised handout and only saw their own talking points, they were not aware of which and how many talking points other groups had received. This meant that in instances of marked academic diversity – where the gap between content and feedback quality was too wide – the talking points could fill the gap, without the students’ awareness. In doing so, the student groups were each addressed at their level, while avoiding an obvious division into ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ students.

We addressed the lack of knowledge/recognition of ILOs by being more explicit about the benefits and learning outcomes of giving feedback and by restructuring the sessions to also focus on evaluation of the feedback given. We observed that this changed the students’ focus from exclusively how to improve their own project to also include the act of giving feedback. While this focus, in and of itself, did not vastly improve the students lack of feedback competency, the awareness of the importance of giving ‘good’ feedback, combined with improved knowledge of what constitutes ‘good’ feedback meant that students were more careful and constructive in their feedback delivery. This resulted not only in better feedback but also in an improved atmosphere among the students. Specifically, the improved atmosphere meant that there were no awkward or uncomfortable situations provoked by differences in academic level, when compared to similar sessions in previous years.

We addressed the lack of teacher proactiveness, through use of Peergrade to collect project presentations and feedback on these from students before the session. This allowed us to assess student readiness and act proactively to prevent potential diversity challenges. A key tool in doing so were the talking points, which were added to the feedback each group received. When evaluating the session, students specifically highlighted these as very useful, and we observed that the talking points silently limited the gap between students, as they all had points to discuss and were challenged at their own academic level. This, combined with the improved atmosphere mentioned above, contributed significantly to address the lack of purpose and fear of embarrassment that some students had felt. Finally, individual rather than group-based feedback addressed the lack of broad student involvement. The most talkative students would still dominate discussions at the sessions, but since all discussion was based on the written individual feedback, it was impossible not to involve perspectives from all students to some extent.

• Discussion and conclusion: Potentials and challenges in using differentiated teaching in higher education

This article has demonstrated how differentiated teaching, especially pertaining to student readiness assessment and response, can be applied to address academic diversity in a higher education context. The results of such implementation include better fulfilment of intended learning outcomes, teaching that is perceived to be meaningful by students at varying academic levels, and a more inclusive learning environment. While the two cases represent typical student-teacher interactions in higher education, the difference in context and approach of the two cases begs the question of what more general lessons we can draw about the use of differentiated teaching.

Across our two cases, the variety of differentiated teaching approaches tested to address academic diversity in the two cases have proven useful. Specifically, the two cases demonstrate that assessing the students’ readiness level is a strong tool in a university setting. It provides the teacher with important knowledge about the experience and competencies of a group of students that makes it possible to proactively improve the process of teaching and supervising.

Moreover, each of our two cases have resulted in concrete and tested tools for assessing readiness in higher education that other university teachers can use and adjust to match their own classes and supervision: a survey questionnaire and rubrics. 4 The two cases can also be seen as a catalogue of ideas for how to differentiate the teaching, for example, providing customised talking points for feedback, varying the levels of student exercises and readings and planning lecture themes to match student experience.

There are two obvious counterarguments against using differentiated teaching in a university setting that need to be discussed in light of our findings. The first counterargument is that practicing differentiated teaching requires close interaction with and getting to know the students. For this reason, differentiated teaching has primarily been applied successfully in elementary and secondary education ( de Graaf et al. 2018 ; Ismajli and Imami-Morina 2018 ). This is not possible for university teachers with large student populations and few contact hours ( Ernst and Ernst 2005 ). However, the techniques we have applied in our two case studies for assessing student readiness – a short electronic survey for large groups of students and student feedback in Peergrade for smaller groups of students – do not require close and continued interaction. The two tools make it possible to gain the necessary readiness information from the students in a more anonymous and aggregated way that allows for planning variation in learning paths.

Second, we acknowledge that differentiated teaching requires an extra effort, which can pose a challenge to university teachers, where teaching is only one among several other tasks. Our two cases show how to make it manageable. Inspired by Chamberlin and Powers (2010) , we have started out small, focusing on a few relevant approaches rather than a revolutionary approach. It takes a relatively short time to prepare, collect and process the readiness information that the students provide electronically ahead of class. In many instances, the rubrics used in Peergrade and the questions developed for the survey can be re-used each semester for the same course or type of supervision. With regard to differentiating the teaching process, we have done this as a part of the normal task of preparing for class and supervision. However, the information from the readiness assessment might call for some changes from semester to semester. For instance, in the methods course, the readiness information from next semesters’ student group might require smaller changes in the level of student exercises as the composition of students change. In the cluster supervision case, it will be necessary to read not only the students’ submitted materials but also their feedback to each other to prepare differentiated talking points.

Our results should be used and interpreted with caution. We did not apply an experimental design and have no control group to compare with. In other words, although we believe that the changes we observed are a result of the differentiated teaching techniques, we cannot prove with complete certainty that this is the case. Moreover, although we strived to triangulate our results with different types of data, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions based on survey data, student evaluations and the authors’ own observations. We thus encourage more scholars to test our techniques and other differentiated teaching approaches to further our knowledge on the validity and applicability of this pedagogy in a university setting. The goal of this study was to test how similar base principles of differentiated teaching can be successful in addressing diversity challenges in vastly different contexts. Future studies may also test various differentiation approaches, principles and tools in additional similar contexts to determine specific utility in specific situations.

Despite these limitations, we found that we as teachers and the students benefitted from the introduction of differentiated learning principles in many ways. For instance, the students were generally much more engaged compared to previous semesters. This benefits both teachers and students, resulting in more students achieving the learning outcomes and smoother sessions characterised by motivated students and a positive atmosphere. When faced with academically diverse groups of students, differentiated teaching has the potential to produce positive results that outweigh the added costs ( Chamberlin and Powers 2010 ; Ernst and Ernst 2005 ; Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009 ; Turner et al. 2017 ). Thus, our findings demonstrate the utility of differentiated teaching in higher education, challenging the prevailing assumption that differentiated teaching does not apply well to a university setting.

• Acknowledgments

We would like to highlight that the two authors contributed equally to the study and the article. Sincere thanks to Professor Eva Bendix Petersen whose expert knowledge was essential to the study.

See Peergrade, https://www.peergrade.io/ (accessed 28 May 2021).

Figures and data for this statement and other responses on particular methods can be retrieved by contacting the authors. They have been excluded here to avoid an overload of figures.

Document studies constituted the last three out of the nine lectures, which were not a part of the intervention, as explained in the methods section. The readiness survey was used to decide on including that particular method in the course as part of the overall planning, but we do not evaluate on the results of these lessons.

Available from authors.

Andersen , A. S. and S. B. Heilesen ( 2015 ), The Roskilde Model: Problem-Oriented Learning and Project Work ( Cham : Springer International Publishing ).

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Boelens , R. , M. Voet and B. D. Wever ( 2018 ), ‘ The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning ’, Computers & Education 120 : 197 – 212 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009 .

Chamberlin , M. and R. Powers ( 2010 ), ‘ The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students ’, Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications 29 , no. 3 : 113 – 139 . https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006 .

Corno , L. ( 2008 ), ‘ On teaching adaptively ’, Educational Psychologist 43 , no. 3 : 161 – 173 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466 .

Dack , H. ( 2019 ), ‘ The role of teacher preparation program coherence in supporting candidate appropriation of the pedagogical tools of differentiated instruction ’, Teaching and Teacher Education 78 : 125 – 140 . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2018.11.011 .

de Graaf , A. , H. Westbroek and F. Janssen ( 2018 ), ‘ A practical approach to differentiated instruction: How biology teachers redesigned their genetics and ecology lessons ’, Journal of Science Teacher Education 30 , no. 1 : 6 – 23 . 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1523646.

Deunk , M. , S. Doolaard , A. Smale-Jacobse and R. Bosker . ( 2015 ), Differentiation within and across Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Studies into the Cognitive Effects of Differentiation Practices ( Groningen : GION, University of Groningen ).

Ernst , H. R. and T. L. Ernst ( 2005 ), ‘ The promise and pitfalls of differentiated instruction for undergraduate political science courses: Student and instructor impressions of an unconventional teaching strategy ’, Journal of Political Science Education 1 , no. 1 : 39 – 59 . https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160590907513 .

Fry , H. , S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall ( 2008 ), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice , 3rd ed. ( New York : Routledge ).

Grossman , P. L. , P. Smagorinsky and S. Valencia ( 1999 ), ‘ Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach ’, American Journal of Education 108 : 1 – 29 . https://doi.org/10.2307/1085633 .

Grossman , P. L. , S. Valencia , K. Evans , C. Thompson , S. Martin and N. Place ( 2000 ), ‘ Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond ’, Journal of Literacy Research 32 , no. 4 : 631 – 662 . https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960009548098 .

Ismajli , H. and I. Imami-Morina ( 2018 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction: Understanding and applying interactive strategies to meet the needs of all the students ’, International Journal of Instruction 11 , no. 3 : 207 – 218 . https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11315a .

Pashler , H. , M. Mcdaniel , D. Rohrer and R. Bjork ( 2009 ), ‘ Learning styles concepts and evidence ’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9 , no. 3 : 105 – 119 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x .

Pham , H. L. ( 2011 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice ’, Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC) 9 , no. 1 : 13 – 20 . https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6710 .

Ramburuth , P. and J. McCormick ( 2001 ), ‘ Learning diversity in higher education: A comparative study of Asian international and Australian students ’, Higher Education 42 no. 3 : 333 – 350 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017982716482 .

Santangelo , T. and C. A. Tomlinson ( 2009 ), ‘ The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions ’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20 , no. 3 : 307 – 324 .

Sherman , S. C. ( 2009 ), ‘ Haven't we seen this before? Sustaining a vision in teacher education for progressive teaching practice ’, Teacher Education Quarterly 36 , no. 4 : 41 – 60 . https://doi.org/10.2307/23479283 .

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 1999 ), The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 2014 ), The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners , 2nd ed. ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. ( 2017 ), How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development ).

Tomlinson , C. A. , C. Brighton , H. Hertberg , C. M. Callahan , T. R. Moon , K. Brimijoin , L. A. Conover and T. Reynolds ( 2003 ), ‘ Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature ’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27 , no. 2–3 : 119 – 145 . https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203 .

Tomlinson , C. A. and M. B. Imbeau ( 2013 ), ‘ Differentiated instruction ’, in B. J. Irby , G. Brown , R. Lara-Alecio and S. Jackson (eds), The Handbook of Educational Theories ( Charlotte, NC : Information A ), 1097 – 1117 .

Tomlinson , C. A. and T. R. Moon ( 2013 ), Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom ( Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ).

Turner , W. D. , O. J. Solis and D. H. Kincade ( 2017 ), ‘ Differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education ’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 29 , no. 3 : 490 – 500 .

Contributor Notes

Matias Thuen Jørgensen is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Denmark. Matias's research mainly focuses on the tourism phenomenon and sector. He teaches marketing management and supervises students enrolled in business programmes at both the master and bachelor level. He continuously works to develop and refine his pedagogical approach. E-mail: [email protected]

Lena Brogaard is Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Denmark. Lena's research focuses on public-private collaboration and contracting out. She teaches and supervises undergraduate and graduate students in quantitative methods, evidence and performance measurement in the public sector as well as marketisation. She is continuously working to develop her teaching strategies and pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. E-mail: [email protected]

• Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on twitter

Learning and Teaching

The international journal of higher education in the social sciences.

Article Information

Issue table of contents, section headings.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Google Scholar

• Article by Matias Thuen Jørgensen
• Article by Lena Brogaard
• Accessibility
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 Berghahn Books

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Misnomers of Differentiating Instruction in Large Classes

2017, The Journal of Effective Teaching

With increasing class sizes of diverse students, instructional options for those who teach large classes in higher education are limited. While whole-class instruction is an integral part of many classrooms and often the instructional practice of choice, this teacher-centered strategy is less effective in promoting a greater level of growth and academic success with college students. This study examined instructors’ understanding of differentiated instruction and their perceptions of the challenges to implement differentiation in large classes. Themes emerging from this study highlight the misnomers of differentiated instruction, further solidifying the need for adequate training and professional development on differentiation. Although a glimpse into the perceptions of one campus’ faculty, the results contribute to the conflicting discourse on differentiated instruction in higher education.

Related Papers

Wendy McCarty

At a time of high college student attrition rates, faculty who work in higher education settings are being challenged more than ever before with accountability for student learning. The purpose of this article is to share insights relative to a multi-year professional development initiative that provided college faculty with an opportunity to explore changes in their teaching. Over the course of three years, faculty members honed their knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to a specific instructional strategy for their own classrooms: differentiated instruction. An experiential approach to the initiative was used, and the degree to which participants committed to change their own instructional practices was evaluated. Results indicated an encouraging degree of success, especially in technology integration, providing clear objectives and feedback to students, and enhanced student engagement. “Teachers change because they see the light or they feel the heat.” (Tomlinson 1999, 1...

Stephen Joseph

Brandy Waldron

Teaching and Teacher Education

Muhamad N A N A N G Suprayogi

Review of Research in Education

Rhonda Bondie

This rigorous literature review analyzed how 28 U.S.-based research studies conducted between 2001 and 2015 have defined, described, and measured changes in teaching practices related to implementation of Differentiated Instruction (DI) in P–12 classrooms. Research questions examined frameworks that defined DI, classroom operationalization of DI, key barriers and facilitators, and how changes in teacher practices across studies did not lead to a common definition of DI. Extracted data were analyzed by study type, DI purpose, theoretical framework, research questions, methodology, analysis method, expected/reported change in teacher practice, expected/reported impact on student learning, key barriers, facilitators, contextual factors, and implications for teaching and research. Findings demonstrated how the many different frameworks used to define DI shaped a variety of changes to teacher practices and roles. The purpose of DI varied widely from a systematic response to policy to inf...

Christine Poupis Schlendorf

The major purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between training in differentiated instruction and the comfort level of teachers in helping to plan for systemic change for differentiated instruction to become a standard teaching practice. We also examine the relationship between knowledge of the various strategies of implementation of differentiated instruction and comfort level of teachers. A survey was used to collect data from 116 teachers of kindergarten through sixth grade from seven public schools on Long Island, New York.

Merwyn Baccay

Tamirat Gibon Ginja

International Education Journal

Pearl Subban

Education Journal

Michelle McCraney

RELATED PAPERS

Pediatric Research

Pieter Sauer

Inorganica Chimica Acta

Concepcion Lopez

Molecular Biology Reports

Monika Jamioł

Gestión en el Tercer Milenio

Luis Enrique De la cruz

MILCOM 2016 - 2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference

Genshe Chen

Physics Letters B

Niral Sojitra

American Journal of Environmental Protection

Mohamed Zahouily

MinHyuk Kwon

Anais do Congresso Latino-Americano de Software Livre e Tecnologias Abertas (Latinoware 2019)

Wellington Della Mura

Bruno Vanslambrouck

Journal of Neuroimaging

jeffrey gamez

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

umrav singh

Physics-Uspekhi

Yuri Galperin

BENTHOS RESEARCH

Yasuhisa Henmi

Márk Áron Éber

Grace Banda

General Hospital Psychiatry

… Extraction by Visual …

Monica Martino

THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2018

Periklis Vounotrypidis

Antroposofie Magazine nr. 13, februari 2019

Michel Gastkemper

Botanical Sciences

Silvia Holz

Dalton Transactions

Daniela Montesarchio

Acta Chirurgiae Orthopaedicae Et Traumatologiae Cechoslovaca

Alexander Grübl

Sustainability

shirley huerta

International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering

Archana Pimpalkar

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024