Critical Review-Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards-Is Detente Possible

Wissam Malaeb
EDCO 601: Differentiating Instruction for All Learners
Fall 2013-9th December 2013
Critique 3
______________________________________________________________________________
McTighe, J., & Brown, L. J. (2005). Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards:
Is Detente Possible? Theory into Practice , 234-244.
Differentiated instruction is a responsive method of teaching. According to Tomlinson, content, process and product should be modified to cater for all students based on their readiness, interests and learning profiles. A flexible curriculum and a flexible pace of teaching are essential conditions for successful differentiation.
Educational standards are based on standardized assessments. Although these assessments should not directly influence the way that teachers teach, yet the teachers’ performance is usually related to how well their students perform in these assessments. This causes stress for teachers to well prepare their students to pass these tests; hence they tend to teach to the test ignoring the different needs in their classrooms.
Through three main questions, this article discusses (1) how teachers can differentiate their instruction and at the same time fulfill the required educational standards, (2) the coexistence of differentiated instruction and standards and (3) how teachers can maintain standards without standardization. The article took the form of a qualitative analysis which refers to previous studies and researches to support the authors’ main argument which is: differentiated instruction and educational standards are both necessary and can work together through backward-design of curriculum and instruction to meet the different needs of all learners.
The abstract is not very well aligned with the content. It does not mention or refer to the backward-design tool that is explained in details and took most of the discussion of this article.
The introduction presented ineffective practices of teachers; the authors referred to several previous researches to prove that teachers are “teaching to the test” rather than focusing on effective learning. They tend to overload their students with the heavy curriculum and teach everything for everyone without focusing on the core which is the essential knowledge for all learners. The authors then presented a three-stage backward design approach to help teachers find the balance between educational standards and individualized teaching approach.
Backward-Design framework (planning with both content and learners in mind)
The article shows a one page design template that summarizes this framework. It consists of three main stages. In the first stage, “desired results”, teachers should identify the main goals, big ideas and the essential questions that every student should know and which should align with educational standards. Teachers should plan their lesson based on these big ideas and essential questions taking into consideration the different types of learners in their classrooms. I think that the authors missed an important factor which is the teachers’ experience. I believe that stage one can be done easier if teachers have enough knowledge of the educational standard and enough experience that allows them to identify what is important and what is less important. However, this might be difficult for totally new teachers with no previous experience. Hence, continuous guidance and training are necessary. In the second stage, “assessment evidence”, teachers should plan multiple forms of assessment as evidence of students’ mastery of the skills and knowledge stated in the stage one. Teachers should offer students different forms of assessment that relate to the real world and are meaningful for students. These assessments should be
1

Wissam Malaeb
EDCO 601: Differentiating Instruction for All Learners
Fall 2013-9th December 2013
Critique 3
______________________________________________________________________________
tailored to accommodate the different types of learners. Yet, common criteria in judging different responses should be followed to guarantee understanding of the big ideas. Hence, these criteria should be based on the main goal not on the response mode. The third stage, “the learning plan”, is the where differentiated process is the suggested approach since it addresses the unique needs of different learners. The authors suggest the use of seven principles embedded in the acronym “W.H.E.R.E.T.O” to help teachers remember these principles. Most of these principles are self explanatory and listed as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

W: Where are we going? Why are we going there? Learners should understand the main objectives of the lesson.
H: Hook and engage the learners. Help them connect the content to their experiences.
E: Encourage learners to be active in the learning process.
R: Motivate learners to revisit, reflect, revise and refine their thinking and learning process.
E: Promote self evaluation and reflection. The authors suggested a set of questions (page 241) that teachers can use to help students self assess themselves. Although these questions are beneficial for such a purpose, yet I don’t think that they can be used with younger students in primary levels or lower. They might be fine for intermediate or secondary students
T: Tailor learning activities and teaching to address different readiness levels, learning profiles and interests of students.
O: Organize the learning experience to move from initial required knowledge and skills towards higher level of understanding and independent activities. Find the sequence that work best for different students.

I find this article in general interesting as it reduces the gap between differentiation and standardization. Moreover, the backward-design framework is explained in details and is very useful for teachers to plan their differentiated lessons that meet the educational standards. There are two arguments, however, that I think should have been discussed.
•

•

First, differentiation requires a flexible curriculum and pace. In other words, to apply effective differentiation requires longer time than the expectations of educational standards. All students should be ready to take the standardized tests by the end of the year.
Second, Teachers are usually resistant to change. They might not be willing to change their own lesson plans and use the backward-design plan. Such resistance sometimes stands in the way of differentiation. Hence, training and continuous guidance is required.

Educational standards are important to guide instruction. Yet, these standards do not mean “onesize-fits-all” teaching practice. What may work for one student might not work for another.
Therefore, differentiated instruction is necessary. This article shows that teachers can apply differentiation and meet the educational standards through the backward-design framework.

2