Differentiation Adapter

Adapt a classroom task for specific learner needs while preserving the core learning objective intact. Use when differentiating for SEND, EAL, gifted, ADHD, dyslexia, or anxiety.

What it does

Adapts a task for a specific learner profile — extension, support, EAL, ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety, visual impairment, autism, gifted and talented — while explicitly maintaining the same learning objective. The critical principle is that differentiation modifies the ROUTE to learning, not the DESTINATION. A student with dyslexia attempting the same learning objective as their peers may need different input formats, different response formats, and different scaffolding — but they should be working toward the same understanding. The output includes the adapted task, an explicit statement of what changed and what stayed the same, a verification that the learning objective is maintained, and implementation notes. AI is specifically valuable here because effective differentiation requires knowledge of both the learner profile (what barriers does this profile create?) and the task (which elements of this task create those barriers?) — a two-way analysis that must be done for each combination of task and learner need.

The evidence behind it

Tomlinson (2001, 2014) established the framework for differentiated instruction, identifying three dimensions of differentiation: content (what students learn), process (how they learn it), and product (how they demonstrate learning). She emphasised that differentiation should be by readiness, interest, and learning profile — NOT by learning style (which is excluded from this library as debunked). Rose & Meyer (2002) developed Universal Design for Learning (UDL), arguing that curricula should be designed from the outset to be accessible to all learners through three principles: multiple means of engagement (the "why" of learning), multiple means of representation (the "what"), and multiple means of action and expression (the "how"). Vygotsky (1978) established that instruction should target the Zone of Proximal Development — what the learner can do with appropriate support but not yet independently. Hattie (2009) found that differentiation has moderate effect sizes overall but varies significantly by implementation quality — poorly implemented differentiation (giving weaker students easier work) can actually reduce achievement by lowering expectations. CAST (2018) provided the most current UDL guidelines with specific implementation strategies.

Sources

• Tomlinson (2001, 2014) — How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms
• Rose & Meyer (2002) — Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning
• Vygotsky (1978) — Mind in Society: the zone of proximal development
• Hattie (2009) — Visible Learning: differentiation and responsive teaching
• CAST (2018) — Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• original_task — The task as designed for the class
• learner_profile — The specific learner need — e.g. extension, support, EAL, ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety, gifted
• learning_objective — The learning objective — must remain the same across all differentiated versions
• student_level (optional) — Age/year group
• subject_area (optional) — The curriculum subject
• student_profiles (optional) — From context engine: specific diagnoses, support plans, prior attainment
• available_support (optional) — TA availability, technology, specialist resources

Known limitations

1. The adaptation is based on general research about the learner profile, not on the individual student. Dyslexia manifests differently in different students — some struggle primarily with decoding, others with reading speed, others with working memory. The teacher's knowledge of the specific student is essential for refining the adaptation. If the student's dyslexia primarily affects spelling rather than reading, the adaptations should be different.

1. Differentiation by learning style is explicitly excluded. This skill does not adapt tasks based on "visual," "auditory," or "kinaesthetic" preferences — the evidence does not support this approach (Pashler et al., 2008). Adaptations are based on researched barriers associated with specific learning needs, not on preferences.

1. Adapted tasks can inadvertently signal low expectations. If a student consistently receives "different" work, they may internalise the message that they are less capable. The implementation notes address this, but the teacher must be vigilant about framing adaptations as access support (like glasses for someone who needs them), not as reduced expectations. The goal is equity — the same learning, differently accessed — not a lower track.

Pairs well with