The Equalizer

Excerpt from:
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (pgs 45-51)

Just as it would function in a stereo component, the differentiated instruction “equalizer” helps to visually represent the ways a teacher might need to equalize the opportunity for each learner to encounter an appropriate level of challenge while learning about the same concept and essential understandings. As shown above, the equalizer identifies a variety of instructional elements that can be modified to challenge students at different levels of readiness. The equalizer can be used as a visual tool for understanding the concept of differentiation and for learning how to create a differentiated activity.

The equalizers are drawn to look like the sliding buttons you often see on audio components, such as the volume controls on audio mixers and receivers. Each of the nine elements on the equalizer's continuum increases in intensity as it moves from left to right. Generally, learners who are struggling or at a lower level of readiness in a particular area of study will be appropriately challenged with the buttons placed more toward the left end of the continuum. Learners who are advanced or at a higher level of readiness will generally be better challenged with the buttons more toward the right.

The instructional elements represented in the equalizer are based on several continuums as described here:

Information, ideas and concepts are foundational when basic, straightforward, or close to the already known. They are transformational if they cause students to stretch, bend, or modify the idea beyond the way it was presented in class or in the textbook.

Representations of ideas and concepts are concrete if they are tangible, can be physically manipulated, or deal with specific events. They are abstract if they focus more on meanings, implications, or principles.

Resources and problems are simple if they deal with one or few events or meanings, perhaps in a 'big picture' way. They are complex if they deal with multiple events or meanings, perhaps in a more detailed way.

Directions and solutions have fewer facets if they require one (or few) steps, actions, or applications. They have more facets when they require a greater number of steps, actions, or applications.

Applications and insights may require smaller leaps of transfer by asking students to apply ideas in settings relatively like those they have already mastered, or making connections among comfortable and familiar ideas. They may require greater leaps if they call for putting ideas to work in unfamiliar settings or making connections among far-flung fields and ideas.

Solutions and approaches are more structured when students require relatively more guidance to complete them or are given fewer options. They are more open when they involve relatively greater improvisation or decision making for students to complete them.

Problems in research, in products, and so on are clearly defined when the steps and methods of solution are easily evident, all variables are relevant to the solution, and there is a "right answer." They are fuzzy when the problem itself is not clearly defined, method of solution is ambiguous, irrelevant variables are mixed with relevant ones, and there is no "right answer" or no single right answer.

Tasks are less independent when the planning, designing, and so on are largely prescribed and modeled by the teacher. They become more independent as planning, designing, monitoring, establishing criteria for success, and so on rest more on the student.

Pace of study and thought typically need to be relatively slower to enable additional practice or to allow greater depth of study, or relatively quicker to enable brisk exploration of the essentials or to eliminate practice that is unnecessarily redundant for a given learner.

Conclusion:
A differentiated approach is one that honors the complexities of instructional decision making. It reflects the notion that in order to truly avoid operating from a “one size fits all” approach, teachers will need a level of sophistication that matches the level of needs represented within the classroom.