Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday – Friday
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Technical Support: firstname.lastname@example.org
Welcome to Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, an interactive computer-based instruction course, designed to give you an understanding of the framework of and need for creating supportive learning environments for diverse learning populations. In this course you will learn what is meant by Differentiated Instruction (DI) and the common myths associated with creating the differentiated classroom. We will discuss the legal, theoretical, and pedagogical foundations in the field of education that support the utilization of differentiated instructional practices and principles. We will reflect on best practices and national trends in the design of the educational setting to meet the needs of a diverse learning population. Participants will learn how a differentiated approach invites educators to consider any approach that supports student access to the general education curriculum and success in learning.
Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction will also provide connections to a variety of concepts, variables, and resources that will assist practitioners in aligning their own professional practices with those found in the differentiated classroom.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
Title: Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Facilitator Name: Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2011, Revised 2015, Revised 2018
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed for anyone working with a diverse learning population across the K-12 spectrum. While the information presented may have relevance to any student-centered educational setting, it will have the most relevance for K-8 mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning Outcomes
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
14. Analyze ways in which a differentiated approach addresses the role of ESSA in shaping professional practice and understanding of quality teaching.
15. Understand the systemic pressures placed upon teachers and ways in which differentiation helps re-focus attention on the needs of students.
16. Outline a framework for motivating all students in a way that is respectful, student-centered, and reflective of a differentiated approach.
17. Relate to differentiated instruction’s concept of reciprocity of accountability for success of both teachers and students.
18. Articulate how the current emphasis on teacher beliefs about learning and dispositions toward students are embraced within a differentiated approach.
19. Articulate barriers that exist for those who are genuinely interested in implementing a differentiated approach.
20. Articulate the role of the teacher, student, and parents in a differentiated classroom.
21. Articulate the ways in which administrators can support teachers who are implementing a differentiated classroom.
22. Discuss an expanded concept of diversity and learner variance to which teachers must respond.
23. Identify characteristics of and initial strategies for creating a culturally responsive approach to student diversity.
24. Assess current understanding of and willingness to implement a classroom aligned with differentiated instructional approach.
25. Understand how a differentiated approach welcomes other approaches as broad as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) or as specific as Explicit Instruction.
This course, Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction, has been divided into four chapters. The organization of the course covers the What, Why, and Who of a classroom that reflects a Differentiated Instruction approach.
Chapter 1: The What of Differentiated Instruction
Chapter 2: The Why of Differentiated Instruction (Part 1)
Chapter 3: The Why of Differentiated Instruction (Part 2)
Chapter 4: The Who of Differentiated Instruction
In Chapter 1, we outline what a differentiated instructional approach entails. A framework for those elements that are typically differentiated in a differentiated classroom is provided. Characteristics and principles that best describe the DI approach across the K-12 spectrum are outlined. General considerations of what DI is not, or common misconceptions associated with the DI approach, are also considered. Attention is given to ways in which the differentiated approach aligns with current expectations of professionals and anticipated needs for classrooms in the future.
In Chapter 2, we explore why the differentiated approach is receiving so much attention. The historical, theoretical, systems-level, legal, and pedagogical factors that provide a supporting framework for implementing a differentiated instructional approach are defined. The role that instruction and assessment play in a differentiated classroom are discussed within a context of what are currently believed to be optimal learning conditions for students. A synthesis of ways in which differentiated instruction and “Understanding by Design” (UBD) mutually reinforce each other is provided.
In Chapter 3, we explore a range of variables in support of the alignment of the differentiated approach with the needs of professionals, the needs associated with educational reform in general, and ultimately the needs of individual students. Particular attention is given to the role of teacher beliefs and dispositions toward students within a differentiated model. A metaphor for differentiated instruction is explored which reinforces a reciprocal responsibility for both teachers and students for creating the conditions for mutual success. The orientation of teachers to student failure within a differentiated approach is discussed. Barriers that exist for teachers desiring to implement a differentiated approach are explored.
In Chapter 4, we explore who is involved in a differentiated classroom and how this approach differs from many traditional classrooms. Clarification of the roles of the teacher, students, and administrators in a differentiated instruction classroom are provided. The skills, interests, dispositions, and goals of course participants are explored within the framework of a differentiated approach. Barriers to the implementation of a differentiated approach are explored, allowing for discussion of your particular role or context in education, the kind of school system you function in, and the degree to which you would identify yourself as a teacher who differentiates.
Each chapter contains additional handouts that cover specific topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to read, ponder, and apply to the setting in which you work. Some of the handouts are directly related to the concepts and content of the specific chapter, but also included are handouts indirectly related to provide extended learning connections.
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all four information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall score of 70% or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete a review of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
· Retake any examination, after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete all course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
· Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
At the end of each course section, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
All assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your original course link. You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article Summations
You are required to write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the “Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Why DI?: An Introduction to Differentiated Instruction has been developed with the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles of a differentiated approach can be applied to grades K–12. The primary goal of the course is to provide both an accurate overview of the approach and an opportunity for reflection to professionals who are interested in assessing how their current practice does, or doesn’t, align with a differentiated one. Steve Dahl has served as a district-level and regional-level administrator overseeing a variety of federal programs, such as Special Education and Title 1. He has a master’s degree in Special Education and has completed post-master’s coursework to obtain a Washington State Administrator Credential, which certifies him to oversee programs ranging from preschool settings through 12th grade (as well as post-secondary vocational programs for 18–21-year-old students). He has 19 years of combined experience in resource-room special education classrooms, inclusion support in a comprehensive high school, and provision of support to adults with disabilities in accessing a wide range of community settings. He currently serves as a special programs administrator, overseeing multiple programs ranging from institutional education settings (juvenile detention) and K–12 social emotional programs designed to support students whose disability interferes with their academic learning. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Pamela Bernards has 30 years of combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as a teacher and an administrator. In addition to these responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K-8 after-school care program and founder of a pre-school program for infants to 4-year-olds. As a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which she served as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently serves as a principal in a PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include curriculum, research-based teaching practices, staff development, assessment, data-driven instruction, and instructional intervention (remediation and gifted/talented). She received a doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca Nazarene University. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at email@example.com or calling him at 509-891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages will be answered within 24 hours. Phone conferences will be limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that involve the operation of the course.
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you need personal assistance, then email firstname.lastname@example.org or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography (Suggested Readings)
Abbott, J., & MacTaggart, H. (2010). Overschooled but undereducated: Society’s failure to understand adolescence. London, UK: Continuum.
Access Center. (2000). Universal design to support access to the general education curriculum. Retrieved from
Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power standards: Identifying the standards that matter the most. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Bayse, D., & Grant, P. (2014). Personalized learning: A guide for engaging students with technology. Eugene, OR: ISTE. E-book downloaded from
Bayse, D. (2018). Personalized vs. differentiated vs. individualized learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from
Bluestein, J. (2008). The win-win classroom: A fresh and positive look at classroom management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bourbour, C. B. (2005, February). Pupil personnel management: A problem-solving model for special education’s ‘storms.’ The School Administrator, 62(2). Retrieved from
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr., & Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives on high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Brooks, M., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18–24. Retrieved from
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L., et al (2009). Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school students: The mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 797–817. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.009
CAST. (2008). Guidelines for Universal Design for Learning 1.0. Retrieved from
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from
Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2005). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: The fieldbook for making connections, teaching, and the human brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). Progress monitoring briefs. Retrieved from
Centers for Disease Control. (2018). School connectedness resources. Retrieved from
Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
City, E.., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2009). Implementing the framework for teaching in enhancing professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2009). Talk about teaching: Leading professional conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2013). Framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, M., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., LePage, P., & Hammerness, K. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.
DeLeeuw, H., & Monpas-Huber, J. (2009, Winter). Using data to uncover the strengths of English Language Learners. Leadership Information. School Information and Research Service (SIRS), 8(1).
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.
Diamond, A. (2009). All or none hypothesis: A global-default mode that characterizes the brain and mind. Developmental Psychology, 45, 130–138.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/305/learning-in-a-plc-student-by-student-target-by-target
DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2016, July 8). Student grouping in a PLC [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/blog/view/32/Student+Grouping+in+a+PLC
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Elmore, R. (2002, January). Building capacity to enhance learning: A conversation. Principal Leadership, 2(5).
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (n.d.). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved from
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in the schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and research (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gartin, B., Murdick, N., Perner, D., & Imbeau, M. (2016). Differentiating instruction in the inclusive classroom: strategies for success. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities.
Gay, G. (2000). Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. Retrieved from
Ginsberg, M., & Wlodkowski, R. (2000). Creating highly motivating classrooms for all students: A schoolwide approach to powerful teaching with diverse learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size does not fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guskey, T. (2007). Using assessments to improve teaching and learning. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 15–29). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from
Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2004). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html
Hall, T., & Vue, G. (2004). Explicit Instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2002/ncac-explicit-instruction.html
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heacox, D. (2009). Making differentiation a habit: How to ensure success in academically diverse classrooms. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Herbold, J. (2012). Curriculum mapping and research-based practice: Helping students find the path to full potential. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 40–43. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976481
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International Educational Research, 11(1), 47–50. Retrieved from http://www.alearningboxblog.com/uploads/5/8/0/2/58020745/fixed_and_growth_mindset_in_education_and_how_grit_helps_in_the_face_of_adversity.pdf
Honawar, V. (2008, March). Teacher education community is striving to interpret candidate “dispositions.” Education Week, 27(28), 1, 13. Retrieved from
Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2005, March). Differentiating curriculum and instruction for English-language learners with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 231–235.
Howell, K., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Thompson.
Instructional design/SAMR model/What is the SAMR model? (2018, May). Wikiversity. Retrieved from
Jackson, R. (2009). Never work harder than your students & other principles of great teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum access for students with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of universal design for learning. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2011). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2005/ncac-curriculum-access-low-incidence-udl.html
Jacobs, H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karger, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal interpretation. Retrieved from
Klinger, J., Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., . . . Riley, D. (2005, September). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Retrieved from
Learning First Alliance. (2000). The process of professional development. Retrieved from
Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999, January). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. (2013). Learning-focused supervision: Developing professional expertise in standards-driven systems. Charlotte, VT: MiraVia.
Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from “Why?” to “How?” International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(12). Retrieved from
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 150–159. Retrieved from
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
McClean, K. (n.d.). Student progress monitoring: What this means for your child. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved from
McTighe, J., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2006). Integrating UBD and DI. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). Universally designed leadership: Applying UDL to systems and schools. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
NYU Steinhardt, School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. (2008). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction strategies. Retrieved from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/120/Culturally%20Responsive%20Differientiated%20Instruction.pdf
Pallegrino, J. (2006, November). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. A paper commissioned by the National Center on Education and the Economy for the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Retrieved from
Payne, R. (2008). Under-resourced learners: 8 strategies to boost student achievement. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process.
Platt, A., Tripp, C., Ogden, W., & Fraser, R. (2000). The skillful leader: Confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, MA: Ready About Press.
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Centers.
Reeves, D., & Wiggs, M. D. (2012). Navigating implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Englewood, CO: Leadership and Learning Center.
Reeves, D. B. (2004, November). Accountability at a crossroads: The nation needs school leaders who will make accountability decisions that are grounded in research, not popularity. Virginia Journal of Education. Retrieved from
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde, T. (2007, Jan/Feb.). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68.
Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008, May). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245–272.
Sedere, U. (2008). Delineating an educational policy framework for the developing nations in meeting the emerging global challenges by year 2050. Paper presented at the Annual J. E. Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture (Colombo, Sri Lanka, February 14, 2008). Retrieved from
Shorr, P. (2006, May). Special ed’s greatest challenge and solutions. Norwalk, CT: Professional Media Group.
Singh, D., & Stoloff, D. (2008, December). Assessment of teacher dispositions. College Student Journal, 42(4), 1169–1180.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2018). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Stanovich, P., & Stanovich, K. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. (2008, Summer). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Leadership Information. School Information and Research Service (SIRS), 7(3). Retrieved from
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Penguin.
Thornton, H. (2006, Spring). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice? Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53–68.
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction: Collaboratively planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tilly, D. (2006, Winter). Perspectives. International Dyslexia Association quarterly periodical.
Tollefson, J. M., Mellard, D. F., & McKnight, M. A. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: An SLD determination resource [Brochure]. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Differentiated instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6–11. Retrieved from
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001, February). Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting high-quality classrooms. NASSP Bulletin, 85(622), 38–47. Retrieved from
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6–11. Retrieved from
Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Sousa, D. (2018). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull H. R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Lawrence, KS: Pearson.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College- and career-ready standards and assessments. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/college-career.pdf
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(13), 20–32. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001003
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to changing our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Whitecotton, C. (2009, March/April). Collaboration and inclusive learning. Leadership Magazine, 38(4). Retrieved from Association of California State Administrators website:
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). (Educational Leadership, 65(8), 36–41. Retrieved from
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Schooling by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Wormeli, R. (2001). Meet me in the middle: Becoming an accomplished middle-level teacher. Herndon, VA: Stenhouse.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Yamaguchi, R., & Hall, A. (2017). A compendium of education technology research funded by NCER and NCSER: 2002-2014 (NCER 2017-0001) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://ies.ed.gov/
Zawislan, D. G. (2008, October 15). Connected learning: Theory in action. Paper presented at the MWERA Annual Meeting, Westin Great Southern Hotel, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
Ohio State University: University Center for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from: https://ucat.osu.edu/professional-development/teaching-portfolio/philosophy/guidance/
University of Minnesota: Center for Innovation in Education.
Differentiation Resources by Selected State:
Kentucky Department of Education
Elementary Differentiation Resource
Secondary Differentiation Resource
Universal Design for Learning
UDL Crosswalk with Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FfT)
US Department of Education Resources
Parent Center Hub (Resources for Parents of students with disabilities)
National Ed Tech Plan (ETP)
IES What Works Clearinghouse Resources (Find What Works)
Other Helpful Websites
Every Student Succeeds Act: https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
NAEP website: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
College and Career Readiness Standards, Reading:
College and Career Readiness Standards, Writing:
College and Career Readiness Standards, Speaking and Listening:
College and Career Readiness Standards, Language:
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2007). A 7-step process for creating standards-based IEPs. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/SevenStepProcesstoCreatingStandards-basedIEPs.pdf
National Center for Accessing the General Education Curriculum (NCAC).
National Center for Accessible Educational Material (AEM).
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt). (2009).
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding organization's web home page.