Talk:Differentiated instruction

Misguided criticism section
It appears that the criticism section addresses criticism guided towards learning styles not differentiated instruction, or maybe I am missing something?

Untitled
I feel your anguish. This page mainly demonstrates that the label Differentiated Instruction holds no content. For the most part, the page consists of aphorisms applicable to all instruction. Despite my attempt to fix the grammar in the last section, I feel that it should be radically rewritten. To the author: remember that we are trying to explain what makes differentiated instruction distinct from other instruction, we are trying to note who cares, and we would like to understand any controversy over the matter. If DI is just a rehash of other techniques of instruction under a new label, we should indicate that there is no sign of real differentiation. On the other hand, if there are users of differentiation who have found that they are on to something, we should probably mention who they are. Dkephart (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Brain based learning - aaargh! I have to spend a lot of time debunking this sort of quasi medical explanation of learning. If learning takes place in the brain how can it be anything other than "brain based". Please remove this whole section as it is not germaine to a serious discussion about differentiation.

I agree with the comment that this section on brain-base dlearning should be removed. Regardless of opinion about its merits - brain-based learning is a learning theory (episteomology) whereas the page is about differentiation which is a theory of teaching (pedagogy). Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw7-soton (talk • contribs) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Genipet. Peer reviewers: Faith.barnhill, FawnTail, UNDRand4, Mbannon6182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Underlying Faults
This page has a lot of problems:

1) no citations whatsoever, not even textually, of the theorists who have contributed to devising this model; in this respect, the article comes pretty close to plagiarism

2) no mention of criticism of this model

3) citations on this page are inconsistent - there are many in text citations of APA style along with the usual superscript links to the references which are typical of Wikipedia pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.197.211 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but does a model really exist? The idea seems more like an assertion than a model. This page correctly mentions differences in student knowledge as a key individual difference. In fact, it is the only individual difference that we know how to respond to instructionally (i.e., with different content). For other individual differences, we really have no clearly-established (i.e., evidence based) principles that can guide us in adjusting instruction or instructional method. For example, the construct of ATI has been around a long time, but exactly how to respond pedagogically to differences in ability is far from clear. Simply saying that differentiated instruction (which used to be called individualized instruction) should or will respond to the differing needs of students is really not useful if we don't know how to do that. The situation is worse for more vague constructs, like learner control. This page should include examples of how instruction can be "differentiated" and support the actions with reference to empirical evidence. The idea that instruction should be varied because students vary is not logical or (arguably) based on empirical evidence. More justification is required. The real question that must be answered is: Does the learning of individuals vary with different instruction? Simply assuming it does because our intuition says so is insufficient.Robotczar (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorial Goals
As mentioned above, this page is seriously flawed. I personally find importance and value in differentiated instruction, and therefore I am currently attempting to rectify the egregious state of this article. Additionally, as what I would guess to be the only current major (or minor) editor of this page, I would like to set out some goals here for me to try and obtain, as this will be my first major endeavor at creating a well-developed Wikipedia article, and if someone should happen to stumble upon this discussion, I hope they will help me in trying to accomplish at least those which seem most valuable from the list below, but otherwise, they are just for me to look back on and measure my progress with:
 * Appropriate internal links
 * Articulate, coherent, and organized explanations regarding the utilization of this philosophy
 * Numerous, different, well-grounded citations/sources from experts in the field
 * Constant improvement towards this becoming a featured article
 * A proficient understanding of how to correctly write and edit Wikipedia articles
 * Develop a historical section to explore and explain the origins of differentiated instruction
 * Find and include a section identifying and explaining the most prominent criticisms of differentiated instruction
 * A better personal understanding of differentiated instruction
 * The approval of the article by any of the writers of the works cited within it as an adequate description of the philosophy
 * A satisfactory hierarchical table of contents

--JGonzo (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Teaching and Learning with the Internet
— Assignment last updated by jmenglund (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)