How does differentiation support equity without labeling students or lowering expectations?

Planning a lesson means anticipating a wide range of learners. Teachers consider how students will access new ideas, where they may need support, and how to keep the work intellectually meaningful for everyone. These decisions shape whether instruction opens doors for students or unintentionally narrows them.

Differentiation, then, is not a question of whether teachers care about equity. It is a question of design. How is the work structured so that all students can engage in meaningful scientific sensemaking without being labeled, tracked, or given a reduced version of the task?

KnowAtom lessons are intentionally designed to address this challenge by embedding differentiation into the task itself. All students work toward the same scientific purpose while taking different paths as they make sense of phenomena.

Differentiation for equity starts with shared intellectual goals

Equitable differentiation begins when all students are oriented toward the same scientific purpose, grounded in a shared phenomenon and question. Rather than differentiating what students are learning, teachers differentiate how students engage in making sense of that learning.

In KnowAtom lessons, this looks like:

• A whole class examining the same phenomenon
• Collective agreement on the question or problem being investigated
• A shared expectation that every student will contribute ideas, evidence, and reasoning

Because the intellectual goal is common, differentiation does not fracture rigor. Students are not separated by perceived ability, and no one is assigned a simplified version of the work. Instead, all students are positioned as capable of contributing to a shared explanation or solution.

This approach reflects research on teaching for understanding, which shows that equity is sustained when students pursue shared goals through varied approaches, not when goals themselves are tiered (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011).

How differentiation emerges naturally in investigations

Once students begin planning and carrying out investigations, differentiation emerges through the decisions students make as thinkers and problem-solvers.

Different hypotheses, designs, and data paths

Students propose different explanations or solutions based on what they notice and question. Some teams test one variable, others test another, even though they are responding to the same driving question.

Teachers support this by:

• Pressing students to clarify their reasoning
• Asking why a particular design makes sense
• Helping teams connect results back to the shared scientific goal

Varied representations and explanations

Students represent their thinking in ways that reflect their strengths and developmental needs. Some rely on diagrams or physical models, others on tables, oral explanation, or written claims.

This is especially supportive for English learners, who can participate fully in sensemaking while continuing to develop academic language in context.

Choice within constraints, not different assignments

Teachers define the purpose, materials, and constraints of the investigation. Students decide how to use those resources to test their ideas.

Because the constraints are shared, the work remains coherent. Because the choices are authentic, differentiation grows naturally from the investigation rather than being imposed by the teacher.

Planning for differentiation without predetermining ability

Differentiation that sustains equity is planned around variability in thinking, not predictions about student ability.

Anticipating multiple solution paths

Teachers plan lessons by asking, “How might students approach this problem differently?” rather than “Who will need an easier task?”

This shift keeps expectations high while preparing teachers to respond productively to a range of ideas as they emerge.

Designing tasks with multiple entry points

Phenomena-based tasks allow students to enter through observation, pattern noticing, questioning, or modeling. Students are not required to access the task through a single linguistic or procedural doorway.

Preparing questions instead of leveled tasks

Teachers prepare questions that advance thinking regardless of where students begin.

Research on responsive teaching shows that this kind of preparation supports deeper learning and greater equity than static differentiation structures (National Research Council, 2012).

The SEL impact of non-labeling differentiation

How differentiation is structured sends powerful messages about who belongs as a thinker.

When tasks are designed to anticipate variability rather than sort students by perceived need:

• Students are more willing to share tentative ideas
• They are more likely to revise thinking publicly
• They develop confidence that struggle is a feature of learning, not a personal deficit

In these classrooms, challenge is understood as part of the work itself. Uncertainty and revision are normalized as expected parts of sensemaking rather than signals of failure. Teachers reinforce this by pressing students to explain why an idea or design makes sense and by publicly valuing revisions that result from new evidence.

This matters for all students, but especially for English learners and students who have experienced academic marginalization. Classroom cultures that treat ideas as improvable rather than fixed support both engagement and identity development (Ritchhart, 2015).

What equitable differentiation looks like across grade bands

The same design principles appear across grade levels, expressed in developmentally appropriate ways.

Kindergarten

In Making Things Move, all students test how pushes and pulls affect motion. Some focus on direction, others on distance or speed, but everyone gathers evidence and explains what happened.

Grades 3–5

In Sound Waves, teams choose which variable to test and how to record results. Students use drawings, measurements, and discussion to explain patterns related to pitch and volume.

Grades 6–8

In From Molecules to Organisms, students design different experiments to investigate cellular processes. They compare findings and revise explanations together, contributing to a shared explanatory model.

Across grade bands, differentiation supports equity because all students are engaged in sensemaking, not separated by task level.

Research foundations for non-labeling differentiation

The instructional patterns described in this article are grounded in a well-established body of learning science research that emphasizes shared intellectual goals, sensemaking, and responsiveness to student thinking as central to equitable instruction.

Research on teaching for understanding shows that equity is strengthened when all students work toward common explanatory goals, even as they take different paths toward understanding. When goals are tiered or simplified, expectations fracture; when goals are shared, variation becomes productive rather than limiting (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011).

Studies of ambitious science instruction and the Next Generation Science Standards emphasize that meaningful learning occurs through sensemaking. Students learn by developing, testing, and revising ideas based on evidence, not by following prescribed procedures. Instruction that anticipates multiple solution paths and values revision supports both conceptual understanding and equity (National Research Council, 2012).

Research on productive struggle further shows that learning deepens when students are expected to make decisions, wrestle with uncertainty, and revise their thinking. These conditions are most effective when tasks are designed to allow choice and variability within shared constraints, rather than assigning different levels of work based on perceived readiness (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007).

Work on responsive teaching and formative assessment highlights the importance of planning for variability in student thinking rather than predicting student ability. Teachers who prepare questions and instructional moves in advance are better positioned to respond equitably to emerging ideas without resorting to tracking or labeling (Heritage, 2010).

Finally, research on classroom culture and identity demonstrates that students are more willing to take intellectual risks when ideas are treated as improvable and revision is publicly valued. Such environments support students’ sense of belonging and agency, particularly for English learners and students who have experienced academic marginalization (Ritchhart, 2015; Gibbons, 2015).

Together, this research base reinforces a central claim of the article: differentiation that sustains equity is not achieved by sorting students, but by designing tasks that expect variability and position all learners as capable sensemakers.

Sustaining equity through task design, not student sorting

Equitable differentiation is not a series of moment-to-moment decisions about individual students. It is the result of designing tasks that expect variability, preserve shared purpose, and position all students as capable of meaningful scientific thinking.

When differentiation is embedded in task design, teachers do not have to choose between access and rigor. Students experience themselves as contributors to collective understanding, and equity is sustained through daily instructional practice rather than individual accommodation.

References

• Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

• Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Corwin.

• Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Information Age.

• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

• Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking. Jossey-Bass.

• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. ASCD.