Using Technology-Enhanced Differentiated Instruction to Support Learning in Higher Education

• In Event: The Journal of Global Higher Education: Insight from the First Issue of an Independent, Open-Access, and Community-run Scholarly Journal

Proposal

This paper showcases how technology-enhanced differentiated instruction can be used to foster more inclusive learning environments and experiences for diverse learners, and draws upon qualitative data to unveil learners’ experiences of the practices. The global expansion of higher education, as with greater circulation of students worldwide, has resulted in greater diversity on campus spelling the need to move beyond a one-size-fits-all teaching approach. Yet, higher education teaching practices have been slow in keeping up with supporting more diverse populations (Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021; Turner et al., 2017). This paper explores the affordances of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction as a potential higher education teaching practice. It uses Tomlinson’s (2014) differentiated instruction (DI) to frame both the pedagogical practices as well as the research approach.

DI is a systematic and intentional way of planning the curriculum to maximise students’ learning. It draws on philosophical underpinnings such as appreciation for student diversity, growth mindset (Dweck, 2007), and educators’ responsibilities for removing barriers to students’ learning (Tomlinson, 2018). Five principles—creating a safe and supportive learning environment, implementing authentic and relevant curriculum, using assessment data to inform teaching and learning, adapting instruction to students’ variances, and leading the classroom flexibly—guide educators in their adaptation of the classroom elements: learning content, process, product, and environment (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013).

Despite the benefits DI has shown in both K-12 and higher education (Chen & Chen, 2018; Dosch & Zidon, 2014), the uptake has been slow in higher education. Thus, I leveraged the affordances of technology to overcome the psychological, time, and pedagogical barriers to its implementation (Melese, 2019; Turner et al., 2017). DI principles (as aforementioned) were used to guide technology to differentiate four classroom elements, content, product, process, and affect/environment . Technological platforms such as Padlet, Google Suite, and Formative.com were leveraged to collect information on students’ backgrounds and learning, enhance the learning environment, scaffold content outside the classroom, as well as diversify teaching processes and modalities, thus enhancing DI.

The context of these practices (and research) is a Masters-level module at a Singapore university, with data collected over two rounds of a 13-week module. 32 students—7 international students, 2 males, 30 females—voluntarily participated. While both qualitative and quantitative data were collected via open-ended surveys, assignment reflections, and interviews, only qualitative data were drawn upon here to illustrate students’ experiences.

Students’ appreciated the closer classroom community as the Padlet and Google-Sheet helped them get to know each other, organise themselves, and engage in groupwork better. They also appreciated technology in providing more individualised formative feedback and clarified that the recording of assignment instructions offered flexibility and support at their own time. Scaffolding of unfamiliar content with the use of Padlet, likewise, supported students in pursuing independent learning.
The practice section of JGHE attempts to bridge the theory and practice divide commonly observed in higher education by creating a space to share innovative, ethical, and/or critical approaches to working practices in global higher education.

Author

• Tang T Heng, Nanyang Technological University-National Institute of Education