Introduction

Accessibility for all students is an ongoing discussion in elementary classrooms as teachers attempt to meet the diverse needs of each of their students. In Ontario, teachers are guided by the Ministry of Education’s (2010) Growing Success and Learning for All documents, which encourage using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI). These instructional design strategies recognize that equal treatment is not the way to achieve equity and that student readiness, preferences, and interests should be factored into an individualized approach (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). UDL and DI overlap in their approach to varying the way students are engaged in learning through materials and the environment, as well as how they represent their learning and express themselves (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). DI takes individualization further by seeking ways to tailor instruction to each student’s needs to target their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is based on research by Lev Vygotsky, who identified a key space for learning beyond what a student already knows that they can reach with assistance to learn something new (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). This requires knowledge of each student as an individual learner with specific details about their intersectionality, as categories do not account for how their specific abilities, disabilities, oppression, etc., overlap.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (n.d. b) identified a lack of individualization as one of the main barriers to accessibility for students with disabilities. This barrier exists because policy and funding approaches rely on rigid standards or categorization to provide accommodations (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d.). There are a number of reasons why categories are being used and why individualization is not being implemented effectively in classrooms. Issues include a lack of time, funding, resources, training, and ableist mindsets, which don’t see the value of accessibility for all (Bondie et al., 2019). DI is widely taught in teacher training as a form of individualization and is supported by Ontario curriculum materials; however, the reality of its application is challenging for teachers and, therefore, cannot be assumed to be universally applied. Technology has been identified as a potential tool for addressing the individualization barrier, and many applications have been developed for elementary classrooms. Specifically, one-to-one technology use in the classroom has increased differentiation for students (Harper & Milman, 2016). This critical analysis will review how a lack of individualization creates a barrier for students with disabilities and issues that arise when attempting differentiated instruction to meet individual needs. It will also look at the potential use of technology to provide improved differentiated instruction in elementary classrooms.

Barriers

Lack of Individualization

The Western education system is based on the idea that students must meet defined curriculum standards to pass school. These curriculum expectations are the same for all students regardless of their interests, strengths, or growth areas. Due to the standardized nature of the curriculum, teaching the curriculum can sometimes be implemented as a blanket approach with the idea that what works for one will work for most others (Latz et al., 2008). In addition to the standard curriculum, there is also the issue of standard timelines as schools follow a rigid school year structure within which curriculum must be accomplished. Students with disabilities or learning differences face challenges in being successful under standardized conditions (Baron et al., 2019).

In some cases, students with identified disabilities are given modified expectations or timelines to accommodate their needs (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). These types of intervention pose a potential threat to inclusion in that by modifying or reducing expectations, a deficit mindset may be created, which minimizes the view of what these students are capable of (Östlund & Hanreddy, 2020). Östlund & Hanreddy (2020) further highlight that removal from regular classroom settings can lead to lost learning opportunities and a shift to life skills rather than achieving the curriculum through other means. A lack of options for individualization in the classroom means that students with accessibility needs are being disadvantaged and not given the same learning opportunities as others (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. b).

To avoid creating stigma and lowering expectations for students with disabilities, there has been an increased push for inclusive classrooms, which include students of various learning differences and abilities (Östlund & Hanreddy, 2020). The complex needs of these classroom populations necessitate differentiation so that students receive the instructional support they require to succeed (Baron et al., 2019). Without differentiation, this inclusion policy might turn into a policy of discrimination. In Ontario, educators must accommodate students with exceptionalities, and the process outlined in the Education Act includes the creation of an Individual Education Plan (IEP) (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. a). Although designed to ensure students are receiving the resources they require, the reality of updating and completing these each year holds students with learning exceptionalities back each year (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. a). In response to the 2001 Safe Schools Act, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (n.d. a) highlighted that students with disabilities can present as disobedient or disruptive when their learning needs are not being met. They noted that the Act does not account for their right to accommodations based on a disability as part of mitigating factors contributing to an act for which they might be suspended (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. a). A student ending up suspended or expelled because of a lack of individualization is a major potential barrier for students with disabilities.

Solutions

Instructional Design Solution: Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is an approach to individualizing education because it recognizes each learner as an individual with unique characteristics and strives to adapt instruction to match the learner (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013).  In her seminal writing on differentiation (2004), Carol Ann Tomlinson identified readiness, interest, and learning preferences as key factors for differentiation to be effective. Teachers can utilize these factors to implement differentiated instruction by tailoring their teaching methods, materials, and assessment techniques (Tomlinson, 2004). For example, in literacy instruction, teachers may use leveled reading groups where students engage with texts that match their reading proficiency, ensuring each child is challenged yet capable of succeeding (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). This aligns with the DI standards of working within a student’s zone of proximal development and requires the educator to know the student’s exact level. Having accurate information about each student and implementing it through DI can be challenging for teachers and requires support. Duquette (2016) highlighted the important role that education professors play in modeling DI for teacher candidates. School administration also plays a role in implementing differentiation within the classroom since it influences the attitudes and opinions of the teaching staff (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). Additionally, peer coaching can effectively support DI integration because it allows for mentorship, modeling, and constructive feedback (Latz et al., 2007). If DI can be implemented to its full potential, all students could receive individualization that meets their accessibility needs.

There are some critiques of DI that are important to consider when discussing its implementation for inclusion. Bannister (2016) warns that differentiation could create social ordering within the classroom, perpetuating deficit thinking. This is similar to Östlund and Hanreddy’s (2020) concerns that students with disabilities could be seen as less capable and, therefore, not given the tools necessary to achieve the same learning as their peers. This isolating individualization is not what is needed to address accessibility.  Bannister (2016) also makes a specific link between race and social class inequities, which are important factors to consider when planning for teaching. DI, like all instructional strategies, can fall into normalized patterns of oppression, so it is critical for educators to understand and account for it.

Digital Solution: Technology for Differentiation

Technology is being proposed for many educational uses, but one of the most beneficial uses could be differentiating instruction for students through customized learning opportunities. In the study by Johler and Krumsvik (2022), teachers reported that digital technologies significantly enhance their ability to provide differentiated instruction. Observations and interviews revealed that teachers use various adaptive software to tailor instruction to individual student needs (Johler & Krumsvik, 2022). For example, adaptive learning technologies allow teachers to customize content and provide real-time feedback, enabling students to work at their own pace and level (Johler & Krumsvik, 2022). A study by Baron et al. (2019) demonstrated that educational technology, such as Lexia Core5 Reading, can effectively differentiate instruction for various reader profiles. Key adaptive features of this software included auto-placement, instructional branching, and targeted instruction for poor decoders, poor comprehenders, mixed deficit readers, and typical readers (Baron et al., 2019). The software has automated DI strategies, such as creating reader groups by type, and provides individualized instruction. While poor decoders and comprehenders had lower accuracy in the standard instruction, they improved over the academic year due to more time spent in guided and direct instruction activities (Baron et al., 2019). Additionally, Haymon and Wilson (2020) studied a similar technology-based reading program called Achieve 3000, which aims to advance the reading achievement of middle school students. This program differentiated instruction by providing challenging texts that personally aligned with each student’s reading level (Haymon & Wilson, 2020).

In the studies above, students benefitted from the differentiated nature of the program, and they underscore the importance of leveraging educational technology, which can dynamically adapt to the strengths and challenges of each student (Baron et al., 2019). Specifically, using multimodal resources, such as digital books and interactive platforms, allows teachers to present information in diverse formats (Johler & Krumsvik, 2022). Customization is particularly effective for students with learning disabilities, as it reduces the stigma associated with pull-out support and enables continuous participation within the mainstream classroom (Johler & Krumsvik, 2022). It can also address the educational requirements of advanced learners, suggesting that technology can play a crucial role in bridging the gap in reading proficiency among high-achieving students (Haymon & Wilson, 2020). Baron et al., 2019 highlight that students with mixed learning deficits, as termed in their study, still struggled more than other groups. They suggest that tech interventions be used in addition to teacher-led interventions (Baron et al., 2019). Johler and Krumvik (2022) also warn that it should be used as part of a balanced approach, as overuse can take away from the overall education experience and learning traditional skills. Individualization based entirely on technology could lead to isolation and potentially lead to behavior outcomes similar to when individual needs are not met.

Although technology has the potential to address some barriers, it comes with several challenges of its own. Despite the rapid increase in the number of devices and funding available for technology post-pandemic, it cannot be assumed that every student has equal and sufficient access to technology for these purposes (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. a). As Harper and Milman (2016) discussed, differentiation is increased through one-to-one technology implemented with effective planning, which might not be the case. To receive their own devices, students may need a diagnosis recognized by the school board first, limiting or delaying their potential access to devices (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d. a).

Beyond having access to technology, there are limitations to implementation that arise from inconsistent training and application. For each new technology tool, teachers require training and guidelines for implementation (Harper & Milman, 2016). Harper and Milman (2016) found that when teachers were resistant to integrating technology, it was often because they required significant learning and were not provided professional development. The next barrier could be the effective and consistent technology implementation, even if adequate training is provided. The success of technology-based programs like Achieve 3000 and Lexia Core5 heavily relies on them being used as directed and over a long period, so students become familiar with them and see progress (Baron et al., 2019; Harper & Milman, 2016). This level of consistency is not always possible in schools, especially when it is being used as a supplement to other instruction, and it may be left aside when time is limited (Baron et al., 2019). Despite these challenges, integrating digital tools appears to facilitate more collaborative and communicative learning environments, ultimately supporting the diverse needs of elementary students (Johler & Krumsvik, 2022). It is worth exploring these options as we attempt to meet accessibility needs by increasing individualization.

Conclusion

A lack of individualization continues to be a main barrier to education for Ontario elementary schools, and addressing this barrier will require a multifaceted and radical approach to inclusion. In the meantime, programs in the featured studies, such as Lexia Core5 and Achieve 3000, have shown significant potential for addressing these barriers by providing adaptive learning experiences specific to individual student profiles (Baron et al., 2019; Harper & Milman, 2016). These technologies enable real-time content customization, foster student engagement, and facilitate continuous assessment. Despite its advantages, the implementation of educational technology is not without challenges. Issues such as the digital divide, inconsistent access to devices, and inadequate teacher professional development can hinder the effectiveness of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction for individualization.

Additionally, the reliance on technology must be balanced with traditional teaching methods to ensure a full educational experience. Effective technology integration requires comprehensive planning, sustained implementation, and ongoing support for educators. By implementing these strategies, elementary schools can create more inclusive and effective learning environments that cater to the diverse needs of all students, thereby enhancing overall outcomes for students.

References

Bannister, N. A. (2016). Breaking the spell of differentiated instruction through equity pedagogy and teacher community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9766-0

Baron, L. S., Hogan, T. P., Schechter, R. L., Hook, P. E., & Brooke, E. C. (2019). Can educational technology effectively differentiate instruction for reader profiles? Reading & Writing, 32(9), 2327–2352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09949-4

Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “One-Size-Fits-All” to differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336-362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130

Duquette, C. (2016). A study of inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12132

Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-One Technology in K–12 Classrooms: A Review of the Literature From 2004 Through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education., 48(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564

Haymon, C., & Wilson, A. (2020). Differentiated reading instruction with technology for advanced middle school students’ reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2020.10.1.05

Hertberg-Davis , H. L. & Brighton , C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principal’s influence on middle school teachers’ responses to differentiation. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 90–102.

Johler, M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2022). Increasing inclusion through differentiated instruction in a technology-rich primary school classroom in Norway. Education 3 (13)1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2143721

Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2008). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper review, 31(1), 27-39.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d. a). Elementary and secondary education. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/opportunity-succeed-achieving-barrier-free-education-students-disabilities/elementary-and-secondary-education

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d. b). Main barriers to education for students with disabilities (fact sheet). https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/main-barriers-education-students-disabilities-fact-sheet

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario schools. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Learning for all: A guide to effective assessment and instruction for all students. https://files.ontario.ca/edu-learning-for-all-2013-en-2022-01-28.pdf

Östlund, D., & Hanreddy, A. (2020). Alternate curricula as a barrier to inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 12(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2020358217

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Research evidence for differentiation. School Administrator, 61(7), 30.