Implementation of a Differentiated Instruction Initiative: Perspectives of Leaders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differentiated Instruction (DI) is a framework that supports planning for diversity within K-12 classrooms. Research has grown steadily over the past 15 years that explores DI implementation, as well as beliefs and practices. Literature to date has focused heavily on the experiences of educators, with limited attention given to the role of leadership in implementing DI in schools. The current study explores the perspectives of 19 school and board-level administrators regarding the ways in which a differentiated instruction framework was implemented within their school board as well as facilitators and barriers to the implementation and uptake of the framework. Interviews revealed five themes: a) DI continuum, b) differentiated professional learning supports, c) making space for shared professional learning, d) align/integrate/embed, and e) multi-level leadership. Our findings reflect a strong belief system of most of the participants with respect to the foundations of DI as well as an understanding of effective approaches to professional learning and school change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it