As an anecdote to the one-size-fits-all curriculum, differentiation presents a pedagogical opportunity to accommodate learner variance. Differentiated instruction typically aims to address variance in at least one of the following areas: 1) student readiness; 2) student learning profiles; and 3) student interests. While each aim is fundamentally important to effectively differentiating instruction, the purpose of this descriptive best practice paper was to present a simple approach for addressing variance in individual student interest in a university setting. Participants in this teaching activity included 175 students enrolled in one of two undergraduate-level courses in the Department of Public Health at a large private university in the United States. Each participant was asked to select a book related to his or her chosen career path and that aligned with a topic covered in the course. Students selected the book of their choice and submitted the title to the principle investigator who reviewed each selection. Students were given approximately six weeks to read their selected books and write a brief book report. Participants completed a brief online survey assessing the value of this teaching approach. Descriptive analyses indicate this teaching activity was widely considered to be meaningful and beneficial, supporting the inclusion of differentiated instructional approaches at the university level.
References
[1]
Tomlinson, C. (2005) Grading and Differentiation: Paradox or Good Practice? Theory into Practice, 44, 262-269. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_11
[2]
Hall, T., Strangman, N. and Meyer, A. (2002) Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation. http://www.cast.org/udlcourse/DifferInstruct.doc
[3]
Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., Reynolds, T., et al. (2003) Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of the Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119-145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203
[4]
Mulroy, H. and Eddinger, K. (2003) Differentiation and Literacy. The Institute on Inclusive Education, Rochester.
[5]
Chamberlin, M. and Powers, R. (2010) The Promise of Differentiated Instruction for Enhancing the Mathematical Understandings of College Students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29, 113-139.
https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006
[6]
Ernst, H.R. and Ernst, T.L. (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, 39-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160590907513
[7]
Santangelo, T. and Tomlinson, C. (2009) The Application of Differentiated Instruction in Postsecondary Environments: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 307-323.
[8]
Tomlinson, C. (2001) How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. 2nd Edition, Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria.
[9]
Bergin, D. (1999) Influences on Classroom Interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_2
[10]
Gorham, J. and Millette, D. (1997) A Comparative Analysis of Teacher and Student Perceptions of Sources of Motivation and Demotivation in College Classes. Communication Education, 46, 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529709379099
[11]
Frymier, A. and Shulman, G. (1995) “What’s in It for Me?”: Increasing Content Relevance to Enhance Students’ Motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509378996
[12]
Waldeck, J. (2007) Answering the Question: Student Perceptions of Personalized Education and the Construct’s Relationship to Learning Outcomes. Communication Education, 56, 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701400090