Teaching in the Middle: Differentiated Instruction: Setting the Pedagogy Straight

The most common sentiment among readers of books on differentiated instruction (DI) is that DI is just good teaching. It’s whatever conscientious teachers do to increase students’ learning over that which otherwise could be achieved by a one-size-fits-all approach. Simultaneously, DI builds learner dexterity and self-advocacy so students can handle anything that is not differentiated for them. If it’s so constructive, why would anyone declare differentiated instruction a corruption of curriculum and instruction, as education author and consultant Mike Schmoker did in his September 29, 2010 Education Week article, “When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities”? Schmoker’s declaration, combined with University of Virginia professor Daniel Willingham’s denouncements of learning styles as unsubstantiated by research and hurtful to students’ learning leaves educators in flux: Do we differentiate instruction, assessment, and curriculum, or not? Although questioning conventional techniques is a hallmark of professional practice and necessary for school vitality, this round of questioning created misinterpretations and misguided responses. More than a year later, confusion lingers, and some teachers have used the suspicions raised by these authors to justify unresponsive teaching practices and to declare students’ classroom failures as the fallout from diluted curriculum and over-hyped fads.