Differentiated Instruction (DI) has become popularized not just in Singapore schools but across other Asian countries such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia. How can countries adopting educational ideas from abroad make it “work” for them? In this issue, we learn about uniquely Singaporean ways in which DI is (re)interpreted and implemented.

Associate Professor Heng Tang Tang, Policy, Curriculum and Leadership (PCL) Department, National Institute of Education

Tomlinson’s (2014) scholarship on Differentiated Instruction (DI) in the United States has been touted as the “leading model” (Griful-Freixenet et al. 2020, p. 2) given its popularity, history and framing. Tomlinson’s (2014) DI is premised on three pillars: philosophy, principles and practices. Yet, DI, when adopted by educational institutions and systems worldwide, is often interpreted as mere instructional practices and strategies, divorced from its attendant philosophy and principles. Further complicating the adoption are barriers arising from differences between the borrowee and borrower countries. In my previous research, I found that teachers in Singapore encountered technological (structural), cultural and political barriers (Heng, 2023), prompting me to reconsider how we approach DI. Given that pedagogy is deeply intertwined with a country’s culture and history, I was concerned about the values and beliefs we may be trading off and how our society changes, if we uncritically borrow educational approaches from abroad. Thus, rather than seeking to understand the fidelity with which we implement DI, I reframed my thinking, asking instead if DI has been localized, and if a unique East-meets-West version has been created in Singapore. These questions are driven by the belief that as a nation, we should have the confidence to customize educational approaches for our own needs. To this end, I researched how 11 primary school teachers in Singapore (re)interpreted and made DI work for them. This article shares some preliminary findings from my research and compares it with the insights of contributors to this SingTeach issue, which I hope will catalyze curricular and pedagogical conversations in Singapore and beyond.

Uniquely Singaporean Insights from Preliminary Research Findings 

Teachers’ interpretations and implementations of DI practices appear to reflect philosophy premised upon pragmatism, balance, collectiveness and fairness, showing some departure from the philosophy defined by Tomlinson (2014). Teachers are pragmatic in choosing principles and practices that work for both themselves and their students as they juggle various academic and non-academic outcomes of education. Teachers often choose practices or teaching strategies that are multi-functional. For instance, they are highly intentional in how they seat or group students, considering factors such as student readiness, temperament, gender and ethnicity concurrently so that they can achieve both academic (e.g., uplifting weaker and stronger students’ learning, circumventing large class size via peer teaching) and non-academic (e.g., gender and ethnic mixing to foster inclusion) goals.

Balance is another recurring concept that teachers allude to. They shared about having to balance learning goals with students’ needs – which differ according to readiness, interests or preferences – as best as they can, without losing sight of curriculum outcomes. They also balance whole-class with small-group instruction while attempting individual remediation. Further, they balance traditional with modern teaching methods: to illustrate, worksheets are provided physically and online, to balance between ease of physical referral and online access.

Teachers are cognizant of how education socializes students to the collective. They emphasize non-academic outcomes – such as turn-taking, respect for others, peer support – educating students about inclusivity and awareness of the larger community. Finally, their instructional decisions and actions reflect a belief of fairness through uplifting weaker students without capping stronger ones. To ensure that all students can meet MOE stipulated learning goals, teachers use scaffolding and multiple learning modalities to uplift less-ready students while offering extensions to more-ready ones who are often also held responsible for peer teaching, exhibiting, once again, the philosophy of collective responsibility.

Teachers here do still mirror some of Tomlinson’s (2017) principles as they subscribe to offering a quality curriculum, using assessment to inform instruction and creating a conducive classroom environment. Teachers follow the prescribed MOE syllabus closely: they use the syllabus outcomes to inform lesson pitching and appreciate the clarity in expected outcomes. For less ready students, they create scaffolding (e.g., more teacher or peer support, fill-in-the-blank questions); for more ready students, they offer less support or more complex tasks. While prevailing sentiments cluster around the belief that a centralized curriculum is a barrier to DI, my research found that teachers leverage the centralized curriculum by using it as a “starting point” and capitalizing on the provided resources.

Teachers also make consistent attempts at using formal and informal assessment data to inform instruction. They frequently used MOE’s proprietary learning management system, Student Learning Space (SLS), to collect assessment information and feedback. At the same time, they set aside time for one-on-one conversations with students to better understand them. To create a conducive classroom environment, teachers focus on emotional safety and motivational support. They avoid highlighting differing task difficulty and often change group compositions to downplay students’ readiness disparity and thus protect students’ esteem by reducing unhealthy comparison. Additionally, teachers design learning opportunities to increase students’ motivation. They regularly increase scaffold or re-set learning goals that are achievable so that weaker students can experience success. Conversations also allude more to students’ progress rather than learning gaps.

Learner-centredness – a cornerstone of DI – however, appears to be recontextualized. Preliminary findings reveal teacher-directed learner-centredness. Teachers make curricular and instructional decisions that foreground achievement of prescribed “learning” objectives and less on the “learner”. Learner variance and needs are considered when it can be instrumental in achieving the learning goal. During lesson planning, teachers begin with the learning goals in mind and consider learners’ needs as a means to the learning goal through enhancing, for example, student engagement via interest or student agency via choice. As a result, curricular choices tend to be teacher directed where attempts to support learner-centredness and self-directedness have to be structured within curricular constraints. To demonstrate, during a Science lesson on life cycle of animals, rather than giving free choice, students can only choose to study about animals within a mandated list stipulated by the syllabus.

Uniquely Singaporean Insights from This Issue’s Articles

Coincidentally, some of the abovementioned patterns overlap with perspectives of contributors to this SingTeach issue. I was pleasantly surprised to observe these overlaps with my preliminary research findings even as data collection was still underway.

In terms of the philosophical take on DI, the themes of valuing community and balance recur across the articles. In the “In Their Own Words” article, Wong referenced “communitarian values” of the Singapore society, where success is not merely defined by individual achievement but by uplifting the “common good.” Likewise, in the “Research in Action” article, both Chew and Wang talked about a culture of “collaborative learning” amongst students and teachers, while Hairunisa, from the “In Their Own Words” article, reminds us that even though students are individuals, they fit together to make a larger whole. Their references to collaboration, the larger community, and collective responsibility reflect values that we hold dear to our hearts and which drive how we approach teaching and learning. In alluding to balance, be it via weighing “individual preferences with collective responsibility” (Wong), balancing structure with flexibility (Hairunisa), or whole class with smaller group instruction (Kan, from the “People” article), we are reminded that harmony and balance permeate our values.

Interpretations and applications of DI principles – support for formative assessment, clear learning objectives, and safe classroom environments – mirror my preliminary research findings. Contributors emphasized the importance of formative assessment, be it via self-assessment or peer feedback (Hanif, from the “In Their Own Words” article), pre-assessment (Wang; Kan), accessible feedback (Devi, from the “People” article) or using technology for formative assessment and feedback delivery (Unity Secondary, from the “Classroom Perspectives” article) – all a stark reminder of how vital assessment is in DI. Relatedly, clear learning goals are essential as Devi, Wong and Unity Secondary teachers assert that learning objectives drive lessons and unit planning. Fostering a learning environment that is safe and open, not only for students but teachers, is also a valued principle.

Interestingly, technology is seen as a unique tool or strategy for implementing DI principles and practices. SLS has been quoted as a “unique feature of DI” (Chew) in Singapore as it offers not just assessment capabilities and opportunities to create instructional options, but multimodal ways of reaching learners (Chew, Hairunisa, Unity Secondary, Wong).

Importantly, DI goes beyond being mere instructional strategies. Instead, contributors (re)interpret the philosophies and implement the principles with sensitivity to the Singapore context. Wang, for instance, cautions us against equating DI to tiered worksheets and reminds us of the need to change our perception of low progress learners. Unity Secondary’s instructional model reflects an organic synthesis of various educational ideas of which DI is one of several adopted in any unit of instruction. The instructional model also reminds us of the importance of unit – not just isolated lesson – planning, educators are engaged in curriculum design when they adopt DI.

Just as DI is premised on the assumption that one size does not fit all, the articles in this issue remind us that there is no one “right” way to adopt DI. As you savour these articles, I encourage you to contemplate other creative ways to “charting (y)our own path(s)” to make DI work for you and your students in your contexts, be it Singapore or elsewhere. 

References
Griful-Freixenet, J., K. Struyven, W. Vantieghem, and E. Gheyssens. 2020. “Exploring the Interrelationship Between Universal Design for Learning (Udl) and Differentiated Instruction (DI): A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 29: 100306. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306.

Heng, T. T. (2023): Lessons on educational borrowing and change: teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction in Singapore. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2023.2166094
Tomlinson, C. A. 2014. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Virginia: ASCD.